Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2010

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

Contents

File:Danceinalanya.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:37:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Russian dancer in Alanya


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Macroflowerpurple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macro wild flower in Gümerdiğin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I like, but petals on the bottom-left seem out of focus compared to the ones on the top right...or is that just me?? Ks0stm (TCG) 19:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition has an idea, but Ks0stm is right about focus plus there is some CA. --MattiPaavola (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image. But CA and DOF issues prevent it from becoming FP imo. --Cayambe (talk) 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matti. --Herby talk thyme 08:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Plant identification need before nomination --George Chernilevsky talk 06:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Belle of Nelson Whiskey poster.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2010 at 06:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Belle of Nelson poster for their sour mash whiskey, shows a Turkish harem of nude white women, and a black man with water pipe in foreground.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wells & Hope Co. - uploaded by Coffee - nominated by Coffee Coffee // have a cup // 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Belle of Nelson poster for their sour mash whiskey, shows a Turkish harem of nude white women, and a black man with water pipe in foreground.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Coffee // have a cup // 06:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- I'm not sure what would be the outstanding features of this picture, but it is certainly a most unusual setting for an advertisement for alcohol. MartinD (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically excellent. And for the very reason that made MartinD vote neutrally. --Cayambe (talk) 21:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cayambe and for historical value --George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High visual impact, historical value, and good quality. --99of9 (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The quality is amazing, estetically, its nice, but I just cant support the stereotype with nude women selling things and the black man working for the white. --Korall (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, but that "stereotype" makes this image even more historical, and shows something that could not possibly be sold in the US like that today. Coffee // have a cup // 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, historically significant work. Excellent quality. –blurpeace (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: good quality and historically interesting. Jonathunder (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After studying the pixels in great detail while downloading the full image, I felt like having a drink already. I smile at this nomination and can appreciate the somewhat sleazy topic. Excellent colors and detail level. --Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As a technically meritorious--and dare I say quaint?--example of nineteenth century prejudice and ignorance. It says something about a time and place that a reasonably successful product could be sold this way. Durova (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Wasserkuppe im Winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2010 at 14:48:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Wasserkuppe, with 950 meters above sea level the highest mountain in the Rhön and Hesse.
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work. I suggest changing your vote to abstain if you are not willing to support as the author. --99of9 (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jonathunder (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is good stuff and a good stitch. Great light and scenary. It seems for me that the verticals are not quite veritical. Like the antenna on the main dome seems to tilt slightly to the right, the silo tilts slightly to the left and the mast/antenna to the right of that tilt a pixel or so to the right again. Of course it may be so that these structures are not really vertical on the site. I also noticed a white pixel in the blue sky. But these are really just some pedantic observations and not something which needs to be adressed for me to support wholeheartedly. --Slaunger (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, ich kann kein Englisch. Den Pixelschaden habe ich korrigiert. Zu den senkrechten. Das Kraftwerk rechts besteht aus einem Bild. Das Silo selbst ist nach links geneigt, vergleiche mit den Antennen und dem Kamin links und rechts daneben. Die rechte Antenne am Zaun ist eine einfach Konstruktion, steht auch etwas schief. Die Kuppel selbst mit den Antennen links, sind ebenfalls ein Bild. Die Spitze der Kuppel ist etwas schief, vergleiche mit den beiden Antennen direkt links neben der Kuppel, die senkrecht sind. Alle scheinbare schiefe Strukturen sind auch in der Realität so schief. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Kein Problem. Ich verstehe. Thank you for fixing the pixel and explaining the apparently natural tilt of some of these structures. Grüße aus Dänemark. --Slaunger (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support although I do think the verticals are a little out it does not have any real effect on a well caught scene for me --Herby talk thyme 09:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colors. The radar station makes the composition really nice. --Aktron (talk) 10:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  00:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oops, almost forgot this image. Nice. Nikopol (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Bombus hypnorum male - side (aka).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 12:03:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Small, posterized, unsharp (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --George Chernilevsky talk 18:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Borderline resolution yes, but I do not see any posterization (where?). Nor do I notice sharpness problems. Actually, I think the information content per pixel is rather high. I am not redy to delist it - yet. Maybe in a year or two... --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Slaunger --Herby talk thyme 09:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per SlaungerNikopol (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Kisoroszi, zrající kukuřice.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 11:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A corn near Kisoroszi, Hungary
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aktron (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting idea, but too busy background (although natural) for my taste. Could also do with a crop at the top. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Background view is typical for corn field. Its no need to crop the foto. --Umnik (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Phew, undecided. Background is busy, but great resolution and colors. DOF could be a bit more shallow, though, and I too think it could use a subtle cropping on the upper edge just to get rid of the leaf in on the left side. Nikopol (talk) 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral...it would take a lot of argument for either support or oppose for me to decide on one or the other...this one is exceptionally hard for me to decide on per Nikopol's points. Ks0stm (TCG) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 10:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop messes a bit the composition --S23678 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO crop is too tight at the bottom and the background a little bit too obtrusive for FP; but good quality! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Thor's Hammer-Bryce Canyon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2010 at 08:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thor's Hammer, Bryce Canyon National Park, Utah, USA

*Symbol support vote.svg Support Nikopol (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We have an existing FP from Bryce Canyon with almost the exact same view: File:USA 10654 Bryce Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg. That one is good, but I think this one is better. If this gets promoted, I will nominate the "old" one for delisting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Camera EXIF?   ■ MMXX  talk  00:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Nice image, but is it possible to lower the exposure (or just the highlights) a little since the clouds are burnt? (Do you still have the raw file?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO Lucas version is better, mostly because of the lightning. kallerna 12:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with kallerna --Simonizer (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I´m afraid I also like the old FP better in terms of light and colors, although the resolution / sharpness is better on yours. Since it´s exactely the same view, I think we´ll have to choose one picture. Sorry Nikopol (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is featurable, but I prefer the already featured one, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: very nice image, but I prefer the lighting in the one already featured. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeWhile this FPC has a better quality the the current FP, colors and lightning are not. Per others. --S23678 (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Flower on the seat of Ancient Side theatre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:52:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flower on the stone seats of the Roman theatre (Side)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A beautiful picture with an interesting composition (which may be too central), but I find it too noisy/posterized for a FP. Also, the species is not documented. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matti, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose has some esthetic qualities, but per Matti. An indication of the size in the file description would also be relevant (for identification purposes). --Slaunger (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mount Kilimanjaro Dec 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 16:10:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mt Kilimanjaro, the world's tallest freestanding mountain. Most of the peak was covered with ice a few decades ago but climatic conditions have left very little ice. C/u/n Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting image. It might be better if it were not so very small given the camera used? --Herby talk thyme 16:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • There was a considerable amount of cropping, given that the image was taken from a plane window. --Muhammad (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - valuable image, thanks, but it being hazy and uncategorized with barely legal resolution and central composition doesn't make it FP-class IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Matti --Herby talk thyme 17:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO needs more contrast. kallerna 18:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Shiningboat.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 18:00:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boat in the old harbor of Alanya


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-23 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:12:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Trees inside the ruins at the Fort du Salbert


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Waiting Sunset Table Mountain Cape Town South Africa Luca Galuzzi 2004.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 06:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waiting Sunset on Table Mountain, Cape Town, South Africa.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty and well done for its time (2004), but not on par with present day technical quality and of limited value. --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. The competition for sunsets is real hard here, even though it shurely is a good, atmospheric picture. Nikopol (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It has some appeal but in the end I agree with Slaunger & Nikopol Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Herby talk thyme 16:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion the composition is great and it is technicaly good enough to be featured --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per Slaunger. Jonathunder (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a beautiful sunset, but, per Slaunger --S23678 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Leitz Prado BW 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 15:47:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great image, perfect composition, high encyclopedic value. Some parts slightly overexposed, but that's almost inevitable, I presume. Several dust spots all over the image, which preferably should be removed. -- MJJR (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Tried to remove the dust. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now -- MJJR (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support getting wow from a topic like this is really challeging. But I think you have done what can be done within reasonable limits to illustrate this dias projector. I like the illumination of the projector and the light of the carefully selected background and the composition. As mentioned there is some dirt on the table/dust spots, which should be fixable. I don't know if the small overexposed areas could have been solved using HDR? The reason for my weak support is that I don't quite see as much wow as for most other FPs. Going to the extreme with details, one could also have hidden the ugly power cable with a hole behind the projecter. On the other hand that could have given the impression of a wireless projector... --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really good illustration and certainly a Quality Image, but no WOW-factor. Admittedly that's mission impossible, but still. Kleuske (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Slaunger. I think it would have been difficult to do this much better, and I actually find this picture quite pleasing to the eye. Composition and lighting are great and the cable was also included in a harmonious way to the compositon (I think it´s good it´s depicted in the scene). Whether this image should be a FP depends to a great deal on personal opinion, as with the nominated car below (only this machine can claim more historic value). IMO it is a very good product picture and will be a great addition to any wikipedia article, creating interest in the subject. Nikopol (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, perfect composition, high encyclopedic value - as was said. And for me it is more than enough. Masur (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a technical picture, there is no need for any WOW-effect. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is FP-nomination, so there is a need for WOW-effect. kallerna 12:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, per Masur --George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do understand the opposes however I also agree with MatthiasKabel Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herby talk thyme 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically excellent (device and image). Per Herby. --Cayambe (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: apparently uncomplicated composition. For next time please note that jpg in the lower case is the preferred file extension; Image titles and file names on the English Wikipedia (commons refers to the various language Wikipedias for these guidelines). Snowmanradio (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You might have better luck on a wikipedia, if you can connect the image to an article. NativeForeigner (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: very nice, and I think it has a "quiet" wow. Jonathunder (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Petrikirche mit Stadtmauer-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 09:18:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rostock, Germany - Brick Gothic St. Petri church and medieval town wall
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bundesstefan - uploaded by Bundesstefan - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The colors and composition are good, but the crop on the lower border cut a building´s roof, it´s noisy and the resolution is rather low. I would accept it if it was some exceptional one-time event, but as this building will not be demolished, IMO we can wait for images with higher image quality, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Steilküste bei Ahrenshoop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 08:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ahrenshoop coast (Rügen Island, Germany)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nikater - uploaded by Nikater - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but the colors did not convince me to support. --Aktron (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view and fairly good composition, but not very interesting and valuable. Light is a tad too harsh for my taste and there are dust spots in the sky. --Slaunger (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. kallerna 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Vertical cliffs above willows Emigrant Wilderness.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 17:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vertical cliffs, tree-framed
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dcrjsr - uploaded by Dcrjsr - nominated by Dcrjsr Emigrant Wilderness has only a few places this dramatic, and none of them on trail. For me, the appeal is the accessible route next to the completely vertical granite, as well as the composition. Has map location. -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcrjsr (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the symmetric composition with the dark trees vertically framing the subject does not please me. Nikopol (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now replaced with a cropped version (above). In 3D the trees help emphasize the vertical granite - but I agree that they were too dark and heavy for the 2D composition. I like this version better, and appreciate the comment. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --High Contrast (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I never saw your earlier version, but regrettably I do not think the composition has enough wow. Some of it has to do with the dark framing, but that's not all. Can't really explain "what's wrong". Somehow the dramatic scene should just have had a more dramatic composition IMO, and this one has a little too much point-and-shoot character and is somewhat uninteresting. --Slaunger (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support...personally I like the framing, as it sets my focus/attention on the cliffs in the middle the same as if he cropped out the trees. Ks0stm (TCG) 20:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the cloud looks blown, and there's not enough wow for me. --99of9 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I do rather like this image. However, after looking at it quite a few times it hasn't quite worked for me. I think the subject is great but the framing which is rather dark takes over from that subject for me. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 13:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Herby --S23678 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:05june-dow7-wide.ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2010 at 21:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Radar image of tornado
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Josh Wurman, during the VORTEX2 projects - uploaded by Ks0stm - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (TCG) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Background Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just warning ahead of time this is rather slow loading. This is a Doppler on wheels image of a tornadic thunderstorm captured during the VORTEX2 project. In the velocity image on the left, Blues/green represent winds moving towards the radar, and reds/yellows indicate winds moving towards the radar. The reason that some of the darker blues contain red/yellow within them is a trait known as Aliasing, where the winds are moving faster than the radar can detect. In the reflectivity image on the right, the main body of the storm can be seen, with the appendage on the bottom of the storm being a hook echo, which is associated directly with the tornado, and the tornado circulation itself can be seen as the doughnut like shape in the later part of the animation. -- Ks0stm (TCG) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ks0stm (TCG) 21:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kleuske (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like to see a bit more info (as above) on the image-page. Kleuske (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Me too, please. Without your description on this page, I would have struggled to understand what the animation is showing. Nikopol (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I would like to know the place and the range of the radar station. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I basically changed the description to what I mentioned above, and added a mention of the location (this storm was near La Grange, Wyoming), although I do not know what location the radar was at nor its range. I can tell you, however, that it was the Center for Severe Weather Research's DOW7 radar, if that gives the ability to find the information. The tornado it captured also had IMAX footage shot from inside the tornado by the TIV 2, if that helps put a location to it (probably not, but I am involved enough with weather that it tells me which storm on which day, etc). Ks0stm (TCG) 03:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Incredible animation. Highly educational and valuable. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. Durova (talk) 01:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated

File:Dragonfly portrait 01 (MK).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"portrait" of a dragonfly
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author -- Leviathan (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I removed the dustspot (clear cache)! Thanks to Darius Bauzys for showing me the spot! --Leviathan (talk) 08:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have 37 FPs already of Odonata (the order of dragonflies and damselflies). A quality of the nominated photo compared to most others is that it shows interesting details of the head. However, among the order, I do not think that it is quite on par with File:Aeshna cyanea - head close-up (aka).jpg concerning composition, colours, light (it is a bit harsh) and detail level (albeit the existing FP actually has quite bad resolution in terms of number of pixels). Going to the more general anthropods, I think we have several examples showing heads of superior in, e.g., File:Tenodera sinensis 3 Luc Viatour.jpg and especially the outstanding File:Caliphrodae head.jpg. (The latter is a super-FP for me, so noms do not have to be on par with that one for me to pass over the bar). So, in summary, I think it is a very nice photo, close to passing for me, but not quite on par with what is seen at FP - especially concerning composition. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think its unfair to directly compare a Sympetrum head with the head of an Aeshna Cyanea. Aeshna Cyanea is about twice the size so the head area is four times bigger. It is harder to take an equally good image of a much smaller object. I think I would have prefered a less centered composition, but IMO the Aeshna cyanea portrait is cropped too tight, so I like this image better. OK, so we have 37 odonata FP:s? There are more than 5000 odonata species so I don´t think we have too many of them.--Korall (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Point taken concerning comparing the heads. I was not aware of the large difference in size, which has a big impact on the difficulty. Still I find it has a weak composition and somewhat harsh light. <rant>OK, so there are 5000 odonata species. There are 950,000 species of insects and we have <6 mio images on Commons. Are you suggesting it would be relevant to have an FP of each of them if a good photo was available? Currently, about one out of 2,300 images uploaded to Commons are featured. That is becasue the FPs should be the best of the best we have. Considering this I think 37 odonta FPs is more than enough. That does not mean there is not room for more, if they are exceptional. We have the alternative valued images program for acknowledging photos of visually distinct species and there can, in principle, be as many as 5,000 odonta VIs if the species are visually disinct. What we need is more diversity in our FP gallery, such that users coming to see our gallery are not dissapointed that what they find intersects very little with what interests and concerns the average user. Thus, our nominators should be encouraged to find new topics, and be discouraged by repeating what is already here by setting a high bar.</rant>. --Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I didnt mean we should have 5000 fps of dragonflies, I just suggested that the diversity is big enough to let some more in. I think head closeups are interesting and a little different from the rest. I nominated this file with less centered composition and not as harsh light for FP but it didnt go through. Im ready to support a head closeup because I enjoy studying the compound eyes.--Korall (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 06:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger. kallerna 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am happy with the composition and light. Impressive head to me. --99of9 (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Benz Holländer Windmühle Berg Dorf Schmollensee.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 09:29:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Usedom Island, Germany - Windmill, Benz village and a lake in the background
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 , while being a beautiful image, it has unfortunately too small (<2Mpix) resolution for FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Gewöhnlicher Löwenzahn.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Taraxacum officinale


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Balaklava sick 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2010 at 23:59:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Print shows the embarkation of sick persons at the harbor in Balaklava." tinted lithograph, digitized from the original print.  Restored.


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 23:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New York City panorama from Hoboken, NJ
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info photographed by Jnn13 - stitched by LiveChocolate - nominated by LiveChocolate -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LiveChocolate (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredibly detailed. I like to be pedantic and I have carefully scrutinized the photo for defects. The only thing I found was a very slightly non-vertical antenna on top of one building (see annotation). And then, in full resolution, the trees along the cityline to the water looks "washed out". However, this is not due to the stitching as it is also there in the original. Do not know why they look like that considering the high end equipment used for the individual photos. Outstanding(?) visibility on the day, very well stitched and good light as well. A pity that the 13.6:1 aspect ratio of the skyline is as extreme as it is, as you really need a very wide and high resolution monitor to fully appreciate it in its entirety. --Slaunger (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you! --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, thanks for putting it on commons! Nikopol (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent and detailed. No major flaws or stitching errors. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really fascinating and well done. Greets from Mecklenburg, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work. --Cayambe (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Wow, Böhringer, how did you see that one?! you are great. LiveChocolate (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF?!! I wish I could take pictures like this...wow, great detail...strongly Symbol support vote.svg Support. Ks0stm (TCG) 05:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I ♥ NY --Phyrexian (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all :) , I wish photographer of this image was also active to see this. LiveChocolate (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very nice work. Tiptoety talk 07:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great ! --Jivee Blau (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Although it's indeed an interesting panorama, everything south of the Empire State Building is either not very impressive (no high-rise buildings), or too far to be truly appreciated with the current image resolution (Financial District). --S23678 (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for stitching. It was a very, very cold, clear day! I like how you can see where the sun hits the buildings directly (on the left side) and where the buildings are in shadow (on the right). Sun is very low on the horizon in winter, setting behind and to my right. Antenna may be non-vertical because of very strong winds that day!! Jnn13 (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive panorama, I think it has the potential to become a classic. PS: I added an image note on the far right of the picture, which might go unnoticed, being so far outside the usual span... Is it a dust spot, and if so, would it be possible to fix it? Thanks in advance. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Zebres Equus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 20:16:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zebres Equus.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Entomolo - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXX  talk  20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXX  talk  20:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - an interesting setting, but unfortunately noisy. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, noisy. kallerna 11:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good shot, but really too noisy for FP. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Original uploader has uploaded a new corrected version.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Catedral de puebla.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the cathedral of Puebla.
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 Unnatural colours are against guidelines, and there is no special reason for them in this case. We are seeking material of maximal educational value. Aesthetics are important, but should not reduce the EV of the subject. --99of9 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Canada F1 Girl.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 10:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Budweiser girl, 2008 Canadian Grand Prix.


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Chateaulin 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 12:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info
  • English: Châteaulin & the Aulne river. Finistère, France.
  • Français : Châteaulin et l'Aulne, dans le Finistère (France).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A image of real Autumn calm ina lovely area of France, this capture scene well in early morning light. The image is in use on a number of language wikis.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Herby -- Herby talk thyme 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Herby talk thyme 12:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Dferg (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, boring composition. --Aqwis (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slightly tilted CCW, minor technical imperfections (CA, highlights), but definitely a very nice depiction of the atmospher of a quiet small town in France in the morning. Not a "wow" as in "stunning", rather a "hmmm, lovely"... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ooops, tilt fixed I hope. Also ca (wasn't looking for it as it was very rare with this camera). Equally the very small highlights fixed. Thanks for the comments :) --Herby talk thyme 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. As Aqwis said, the composition is quite boring and it has also problems with quality (for instance, check out the flowers in foreground). kallerna 16:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing bad, but I'm expecting more in composition and quality from a FP. --S23678 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Chateau-de-maisontiers vue aerienne-2008a.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 17:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maisontiers castle, France
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Smdl - uploaded by Smdl - nominated by Smdl -- Smdl (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smdl (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - a good aerial photo, but I don't see anything special in the composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition needs to be more refined. --S23678 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:European Otter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 01:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better then the other one! good composition and nice light... --Leviathan (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree it is much better than your first otter attempt. The light is interesting and good and so is the action with the otter eating the fish. At first I actually was in doubt if it was a wild life shot, but then I realized it is from Wisentgehege Springe. As I understand this is not a traditional zoo but somewhat a wildlife park, where the animals are in semi-real environments with quite a lot of space? One thing I noticed which I found a little unnatural was the extra little fish in front of the otter. Is that because it has been thrown in to feed it, or did it actually catch it on its own? Next, I think the fur of the otter looks very peculiar near the head and ear, especially the brighter areas. It looks almost like paint strokes. For me the texture of the fur seem like an unnatural artifact from a not so well done combined noise reduction and sharpening, but I could be wrong and as it could also be partially due to wet fur? Has any postprocessing been done? --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Slaunger, thank you for your great interest. Yes, the Wisentgehege Springe is a game reserve, where the animals are in semi-real environments with more space than in a traditional zoo. But the animals cannot go hunting in this game reserve, the rangers feed them. I saw, this European Otter got at each feeding five fishes thrown by the ranger onto the frozen see, where the European Otter is now lying. The European Otter has a very large winter coat like a too large cloak. It is hanging in folds, when he is lying on the ground. But he needs the large coat when he is going (look this image). I did not change the fur and the folds of this European Otter, this is naturally, of course.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hi Michael. Thank you for adressing my questions and clarifying some of my doubts. I'm torn on this one. Pro: Good catch of an Otter in an interesting eating situation in an environment which is not as obvious zoo-like as many other photos of animals in captivity. Good composition and light and colors. Con (and after reading a little bit about the natural behavior of European Otters, e.g., here) it seems like it only hunts at night in its natural environment, that it would eat small prey, like the small fish in the front, while in the water, (larger prey like the fish it is eating could be dragged on land). At daytime it would typically be in its den. So, the whole setup does not seem to illustrate natural behavior of this animal, but a staged behavior inherent to captivity. We have two other otter FPs (although none of the European Otter), File:Sea-otter-morro-bay 13.jpg of a sea otter is my favorite with a great composition, and it is a wild life shot. We also have the lovely File:LutraCanadensis fullres.jpg, which is a zoo-shot, but where it is not apparent from the photo that it is a zoo shot. I do not qute think the nominated image is on par with these due to the behavior aspects. --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality - badly posterized. The subject itself is very good, and the lightning is superp! kallerna 16:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and light. Calandrella (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The face is badly posterized. If you haven't done the processing, then perhaps it was your camera trying to do noise reduction + sharpening by itself. Unfortunately this wrecked the result, so if this is the case I'd look into your camera settings. --99of9 (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Flyinalanyamuseumyard.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2010 at 19:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fly in the garden of the Museum of Alanya
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clear oppose in its current state. --99of9 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unidentified and shallow DOF. I also find the actual size of the fly kind of small. --Korall (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. kallerna 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Needs to be identified to a reasonable taxonomic level - part of standard homework prior to nomination for candidates of organisms. --Slaunger (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Gastrimargus Musicus Barbed Wire.jpg, featured[edit]

The grasshopper looks quite boring while stationary, and usually only displays its colours while in flight.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 03:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yellow-winged grasshopper stuck in a barbed-wire fence.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by 99of9. I hope you will be slightly lenient on the limited DOF in this image. I think this is another case in which capturing a fleeting moment of action makes up for the technical issue. I'd been trying to capture these things in flight because that is the only time they show their yellow back wings, but had given up and was shooting landscapes when one of them was unfortunate enough to get his head stuck in a barbed-wire fence for a few seconds. I've never seen this happen to an insect, so dashed to get a few shots in before it got itself free. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - excellent composition, excellent light, excellent combination of foreground and background colors, an interesting moment and poor DOF. Everything else except the DOF are so great here so I think they overweight the compromised DOF in this case. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've looked at this a number of times now. I don't think I can put it better than Matti :) --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would normally have opposed due to focus problems, but given the given the transient and quite unusual nature of the event, and that it is a really brilliant and clean composition (comparable to one of our best athropod FPs concerning composition), I think mitigating normal rules is warranted here. --Slaunger (talk) 13:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problems with DOF ja overall sharpness. IMO the colours are bit dull. kallerna 16:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Matti - largely fine except for one issue. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Slaunger for this unique shot! --Leviathan (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Shallow DOF vs WOW. Latter one wins in this case. Nikopol (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Michelangelos David.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 08:55:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The original David of Michelangelo
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michelangelo - uploaded by David - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - central composition, low resolution. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matti, also: main subject partly overexposed and noisy in some areas (front below hair, legs). Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problems, overexposed and too tight crop at the bottom --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is too low. We absolutely need a featured picture of one of the most important masterpiece of art in the human history. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - Clock Tower from park.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 15:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sighişoara (Schäßburg, Segesvár) - Clock Tower. View from park


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:The Dark Side of Carbon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 16:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Dark Side of Carbon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The distribution of black carbon around the globe.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unusual view, rare --George Chernilevsky talk 05:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sort of impressive, I like it. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it could use a scale as to what color = more/less carbon. Is white more carbon, or purple, or something else? Ks0stm (TCG) 19:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no information from the source regarding how the colour represents the amount of carbon. I think because it is about black carbon, darker colours represent more carbon etc. Originalwana (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Without a key to the color coding the value of this otherwise fine illustration collapses IMO. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting... --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matti. FP is more than pretty pictures. It is also knowing what we see. --Slaunger (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until we know what it is. --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems like the white and purple represents black carbon[1], but a legend is necessary as mentioned above. This movie might include information, but unfortunately I cannot view it right now. G.A.S 04:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-20 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Entry from the outside to access at the antenna room S3 (Ouvrage "G"), near the ruins at the Fort du Salbert
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline. Entry from the outside to access at the antenna room S3 (Ouvrage "G"), near the ruins at the Fort du Salbert -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pity that branch is there on the bottom-right. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO nothing special. Dull colours. kallerna 18:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors are nice but there is indeed nothing special. Just a concrete walls. And of course, the name in filename is also something I don't like. --Aktron (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've looked long and hard at my analog wow-o-meter. The needle just isn't moving. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nothing special, sorry. Tiptoety talk 08:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot feel. --S23678 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Fort du Salbert-24 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 17:10:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruins at the Fort du Salbert


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Jaroměř winter 2010 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2010 at 21:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winter 2010 in central Europe
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karel (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support After several not really nice pictures this one I like and why not support FP status. --Aktron (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not outstanding enough, neither considering technical aspects, nor in terms of WOW. FP should be outstanding. Nikopol (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but I think the tree should have been placed further to the right to get a better composition. Also I am not too fond of direct sun photos as there are so many unpleasant side effects, like the "rainbow" in the lower left. Still, going up against the sun can give some interesting light as there is on this one, and I am wondering how it would have looked like if you had been in a slightly different position such that a thick branch or the trunk of the tree has obstructed the direct view of the sun disc? --Slaunger (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. kallerna 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should've gone for the rule of thirds on this one. Image looks flat. --TitanOne (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ordinary composition --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 02:35:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Alpine Everlasting (Xerochrysum subundulatum)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by 99of9 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is the first image of this Australian alpine species in our database. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Schloss Veitshöchheim, 10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 17:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The castle Veitshöchheim is a former summer residence of the Prince-bishops of Würzburg, and later the kings of Bavaria, in Veitshöchheim, Germany.
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is a nice picture with good quality, but the stairs have been a bit distorted by the stitching program, which looks real strange in 100% view. Do you think this could be fixed? Nikopol (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    Hallo, meinst du das geschwungene in der Treppe? Die Treppe ist in der Realität auch etwas geschwungen. Das liegt nicht am stitchen. Siehe dazu das verwendete Einzelbild. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You are right, it is indeed not at all produced by stitching! I am sorry, I just couldn´t imagine it´s like that in reality ;) Nikopol (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Alles klar, kein Problem. Es handelt sich um insgesamt drei Bilder, die beiden Nahtstellen sind aber weiter außen. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would have supported if the light had been better. I find the light too flat, I'm afraid. Otherwise, a very nice building and good, overall quality and value. --Slaunger (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Slaunger - colours and lightning. kallerna 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but poor lightning conditions --S23678 (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm removing this speedy. The nominator did not support, so the second support from Simonizer is independent. I will write a message at the FPCbot page. --99of9 (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Kilitbahircastlegeometry.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2010 at 19:54:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside Kilitbahir Castle, Gallipoli, Çanakkale
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ozgurmulazimoglu - uploaded by ozgurmulazimoglu - nominated by ozgurmulazimoglu -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad lighting in the center of the photograph with sudden switch from bright to barely visible, and part of the top of the rectangular thing is overexposed. Ks0stm (TCG) 23:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has some interesting minimalistic compositional qualities, without being really convincing. But as Ks0stm also mentions there are problems with the light as well. --Slaunger (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice idea and quite a good image. However the centre right hand side is really rather over exposed so all in all I'm afraid I cannot support this one. --Herby talk thyme 15:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. kallerna 11:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the composition. --S23678 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:ParmaMelor AMO TMO 2009279 lrg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 06:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two tropical cyclones
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA MODIS - uploaded by Atmoz - nominated by Juliancolton -- –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This satellite image depicts two tropical cyclones in the western Pacific Ocean, demonstrating their close proximity. It also illustrates an example of the complex process known as the Fujiwhara effect, in which two tropical systems "orbit" around each other. Not only is this file educational, but it's very high-quality near as I can tell, and is certainly visually appealing. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whoa...great image. Directly in between the centers of the two storms, in the gap between them, the clouds almost appear 3D with depth when viewed at full size... Ks0stm (TCG) 06:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very cool. Good one Julian. Tiptoety talk 08:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good nomination, nice look to two storms --George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oska (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Satellite images

File:Rainbow Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 02:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rainbow Valley


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Sunnibergbrücke Huefte.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 06:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bridge in mountains
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (TCG) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Could someone who knows German and English translate the description into English? Ks0stm (TCG) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC) ✓ Done --Cayambe (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ks0stm (TCG) 06:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This reminds me of a cross. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose After thinking about it for a while I have to say that this very good photo does not really have the compositional qualities that I would anticipate for an FP. I cannot put my finger on what it is, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uninteresting composition, no wow. kallerna 11:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is uncomfortable for the viewer producing a slightly claustrophobic feeling. The bridge support dominates the picture too much and the uptilted viewing angle makes me feel like my neck is in an uncomfortable position. Plus the suspension attachments on the far side of the bridge make for what looks like an image artefact in the straight line of the bridge. Oska (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground element spoils what would otherwise be a very good picture. --S23678 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz S203 -04.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mercedes-Benz S203 -04 (photographed during snowfall).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna kallerna 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 15:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very interesting picture to me with no wow and the focus/sharpness is rather poor --Herby talk thyme 15:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Herby, plus unbalanced composition --Pjt56 (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose easy subject, unsharp and noisy Je-str (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow Schnobby (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unlike most people here, I do not think it is completely unappealing to the eye. That said, I do not feel it is up to FP standards. Tiptoety talk 06:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How could I improve the composition? IMO the scene is attractive witch the continuing road and snowfall (and the survival of the car), but maybe you haven't ever driven a Mercedes. ;) Is the composition somehow better in our other land vehicle-FPs like these: Ford, trailer, train, Mercedes (!) or Audi? Do all car-FPs have to be panning shots? kallerna 15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition - Darius Baužys talk 06:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 15:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mostar Old Town Panorama 2007.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ramirez - uploaded by Ramirez - nominated by Ramirez -- Ramirez (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ramirez (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Danielg1987 (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mulazimoglu (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scewing (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - maybe slightly too low contrast and small resolution, but very beautiful view and nice light. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support IMO there are some flaws like the sunshades of the café to the left, but the light is beautiful. Somehow reminded me of a movie. Nikopol (talk) 11:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this HDR? --S23678 (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Definitely not. --Ramirez (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The light conditions are impressive. --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Cayambe (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Zug Langzeitbelichtung.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 13:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

bulb exposure of a train
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info bulb exposure of a moving train in Germany (exposure time: 380 seconds)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is really nice concept. I always liked such pictures, especially with Bratislava Nový Most in background... (that's just an suggestion for some other eventual FP ;-) Aktron (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite dark, but I like the composition. And we don´t seem to habe many FP like this. Nikopol (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well worked image --Herby talk thyme 15:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but I don't find the composition so exiting, that it would mitigate the problems with noise and overall quality. kallerna 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a better background composition would help. --99of9 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea is great, but not developed enough. Different perspectives and locations could improve the result by much. --S23678 (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Audi e-tron (Edit1).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2010 at 23:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Audi e-tron (Edit1)
  • He (she?) replaced the background with black. But as you mentioned the retouching should have been described, and I´m not shure whether this edit is really neccessary. It was a car show, so the guys in the background were acceptable for me (especially since they were rather dark and not covered by DOF). Nikopol (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer this cleaned version over the original --Muhammad (talk) 02:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The retouches that I made was removing people from back as well as removing their reflection on the Audi glossy base, I think both for FP and for educational purposes, it is more preferable than original version, a fun way to compare both images: if you have IE7 or higher, FireFox or any other tabbed browser, open both versions in tabs, then switch between tabs, and compare them, I think my edit is much better than original image, but of course thanks to "Der Wolf im Wald" for taking this high quality picture. LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
@Muhammad, so please support it :) LiveChocolate (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, glad to Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Livechocolate, as the others have mentioned, on the image summary page you need to add a description of what you've done. The usual way is a template called: retouched (with double curly brackets around it). --99of9 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support replacement now. --99of9 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also prefer this one, IMO it's more useful, but please add a description of what you have done by adding {{Retouched|description of modifications here}} to the image page.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done I have added the template. LiveChocolate (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support new version, and has voted for delist old version (look below all candidates) --George Chernilevsky talk 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - The shadows of the removed people on the right (white ground area) are annoying me. Original featured version is IMO better, background looks unrealistic here. -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Peter Becker-Frankfurts Vorstadt Sachsenhausen zu Anfang des 17 Jahrhunderts-1889.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 09:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frankfurt panorama of the 17th century, 1889 watercolour by Peter Becker

Frankfurt panorama of the 17th century, 1889 watercolour by Peter Becker featuring the Alte Brücke.
Mylius said: It actually is an artist's impression from 1889 of Frankfurt (its suburbia Sachsenhausen respectively) as it looked like around 1600. But he didn't add any imagination, every single object that can be seen (i.e. the bridge tower, the bridge, the fortification, most of the buildings) is taken from historical descriptions / depictions of that time. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong support, well done scanned original. Rare, valued and interesting --George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Florent Pécassou (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, so many things to look at. --Cayambe (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --Herby talk thyme 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nikopol (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice!   ■ MMXX  talk  13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose Very nice, except for peculiarly looking horizontal and vertical defect lines (see annotations). Could this be retouched, please. If so, I am ready to support. I noticed a significant CCW tilt of the tower to the left. This may be there in the orginal as well. Is it possible to verify that? Just looks peculiar because other man made structures seem to have almost perfect vertical lines. --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It seems a matter of the original, as it's quite a big piece of work. For further information Mylius might help. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I too think that restoration is not necessary. This appearance has a historical value. And I support as is this image --George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question This looks very bright for a watercolor of its age. No notes on the file hosting page of whether this is a restored/edited file. Please explain? Durova (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Of course it's restored and edited, as Mylius always does. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Undocumented restoration. Also no link to unaltered file. Please correct the omissions. Also technical shortcoming in color balance: right third has excessive red. Durova (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scewing (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per Durova. Blurpeace 08:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Clouds over Africa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2010 at 14:41:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cumulus and stratocumulus clouds. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small size (2Mp only) and no wow, sorry --George Chernilevsky talk 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective on the subject is weak. --S23678 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - a QI, but no wow enough for a FP. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:P1170102 Viksvine hesperija Heteropterus morpheus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2010 at 15:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large Chequered Skipper.


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:360° Au Argenstein Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

360° Au Argenstein


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by --Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that a 180 degrees panorama centered on the church would offer a better composition, since the interesting phenomenon is centered there. As well, a moiré pattern in visible on the track, probably from post-processing (downsampling?) --S23678 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
nein, der moiré-effekt verschwindet, wenn man das Bild komplett öffnet. --Böhringer (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No, moiré is visible at full resolution as well (on the upper portion of the "center track"). It's small, but easily avoided by full resolution. --S23678 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Once again, excellent technical quality. I didn't see any significant Moíre. However, I don't find the location spot as beautiful as with your previous panorama. Maybe it is the church shadow trick, which might be excellent in a narrower crop, but maybe isn't optimal for 360-panorama. The composition does not work well IMO when viewing this downscaled to fit the screen. Anyway, when scrolling through it in 1:1, the picture works very well. This time Neutral from me, but please keep up your excellent work! (You have probably spoiled us since I would have probably voted "Support" if I hadn't seen your previous panoramas. :-)) I'll actually be in Austria next week and hope to see and enjoy views which would be near to something as beautiful as with your best panoramas. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ich glaube das Panorama hat kleine Stitching-Fehler. (Die "unscharfen Streifen" in der Spur unterhalb Damüls) Je-str (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I agree with MattiPaavola. --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Byodoin Phoenix Hall Uji 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 05:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wiiii - uploaded by Wiiii - nominated by Wiiii -- Wiiii (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wiiii (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The composition is ok. The low sun position creates a relaxed morning or late afternoon feeling. However, I find the shadows to be too dark for a FP. Also, the EXIF time stamp seems to be wrong. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, bit blurry, too tight crop. kallerna 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Technical quality is not great. Tiptoety talk 05:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)FPCBot (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Coracias caudatus Lilac breasted Roller.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 10:29:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Lilac-breasted Roller sitting on a tree
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Yoky - uploaded by Yoky - nominated by JarlBompe -- JarlBompe (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JarlBompe (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors.   ■ MMXX  talk  13:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice subject, composition and colours. But low resolution (<600 KB) and CA at right (blue-green and violet fringes). --Cayambe (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • There's a difference between resolution and image size. What you mention (<600kb) is the storage space the image occupies. This picture has more than the necessary 2megapixels resolution --Muhammad (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Oops, you are right. 'Strikethrough' above for that. --Cayambe (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it possible to have this image with less aggressive JPEG compression? I see small chessboards all around the image. They may be caused by the high JPEG compression, but I'm not sure. Anyway, the composition is good and the subject interesting. --MattiPaavola (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Matti noticed, there are a lot of jpeg artifacts, I will support an uncompressed version if you have. Great composition. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Alas I have to agree with the others. --99of9 (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Tiptoety talk 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2010 at 20:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zoom on Mandelbrot set
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Simpsons contributor - uploaded by Franklin.vp - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Zoom on the Mandelbrot set by more than 31 orders of magnitude. The scale difference from start to end is equivalent to zooming from the 100,000 light-year diameter of the milky way to a 0.1 nm diameter of a single hydrogen atom atom in one take! Doing this requires a lot of care dealing with precise floating point computations, efficient algorithms and represents 136 hours of computations on six processor cores. I think the resolution is well chosen in the respect of achieving a reasonable file size and the possibility to replay the animation with a satisfactory high frame rate on most computers. Much care has been taken to choose color palettes giving the maximum beauty and wow. Much more rudimentary versions of this was personally one of the things that triggered me into initiating science studies back in 1991, seeing that mathematics is cool! and wanting to understand this stuff. Hopefully this animation one can trigger new young people into thinking the same... --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain For balance, considering the creator is voting here as well. --Slaunger (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - a classic. (PS shouldn't the link to the Java source code mentioned in en-wp-fpc be added to the file page?) --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I prefer the higher res version now that it is available. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The source code is available here if somebody would like to add that link to the image. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done --Slaunger (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I can't see the link on the image description page. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I screwed up in my edit. Fixed now. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Certainly plenty of wow in good fractals. The last few frames seem to wobble left-right :-(. --99of9 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Now that a higher resolution version is available, I'd prefer to feature it. --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Simpsons Contributor (creator) voting here too! The last few frames wobble due to the breakdown of DoubleDouble (emulated 128-bit floating point) numbers at that point. Double primitives (64-bit floating point numbers) break down just slightly after entering the first Julia set. --SimsContPics (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is there a reason not to cut off the last few frames? It's amazing overall, but they just seem to spoil it a little. --99of9 (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I could. Some people say it's appropriate (to show precision breakdown) and some don't. There's more info here --SimsContPics (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a personal preference for keeping the last few frames showing the breakdown of the 128 bit precision floats used as I find it has an educational element. In practise you just cannot keep on zooming, as, although you can numerically use arbitrary precision floating point, you will hit (much harder) a computational wall, where you simply do not have the computing resources available to keep on zooming, so at some stage you just have to stop. On the other hand, I think such Mandelbrot set animations are typically shown in zoom regimes where numerical precision is not a problem, and maybe for the more casual viewer it would be better to cut the frames off? What you could do is upload an alternative under a new filename (as this file is currently being considered at WP:FPC, where the trend is to keep the wobbling frames, so it should keep those frames in the present file name). The alternative can then be put up for voting together with this and we can see, which one is preferred by the reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The wobbling is a property of how you've calculated it, not a property of the fractal. That's why I think it's less timeless with wobbles. --99of9 (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid there is no pixelated version for the DoubleDouble animation, this one goes right to the last frame I made (the old rainbow images might still be available on Wikipedia). On the subject of resolution, the first animation was 640x480 and that was something like 80MB+. --SimsContPics (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, OK, then forget about a pixelated version. For certain applications, a higher res 640×480 pixels, large file size version could certainly also be interesting - but just keep them under separate file names such that users can decide which to use depending on the use case. Would you be able to generate the same zoom sequence as this in 640×480 pixels with the same per/pixel high fidelity (except at the very end of course)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
OK I've uploaded the 82.8MB 640x480 (File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif) version. Could you add the particulars to the file description? (Slight change: this uses 3x supersampling, not 6x) Thanks. --SimsContPics (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done Added the particulars. Please check that it is OK. I also linked to it from the file page of the nominated animation. You know, you could do this yourselfSmile? --Slaunger (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I haven't used WC much. All the details are right. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, please Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the wobbling frames, but please document them in the file page. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be quite simple for me to upload a new version without those last few frames, shall I do that? I certainly agree that there is educational value, so to speak, in leaving those last frames in. When I made my first basic double precision “rainbow” zoom I zoomed past the point of breakdown until the image pixelated for the same reason and I made that part of the description. --SimsContPics (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It would have value independent of this nomination to upload both a version without any wobbling as well as a version, where you proceeed with the zoom to see the complete numerical breakdown with pixelation and everything (using two new file names on Commons). You should then link this media file to the other versions using the other_versions parameter of the {{Information}} template.--Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely --Herby talk thyme 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! --Aktron (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 12:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is an amazing work, but its resolusion is low, so I'm not sure if it can be a featured picture. --Patriot8790 (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yes it is always difficult to find the right balance concerning resolution, file size and fps for an animation. Please note though that the usual 2MPx requirement for images is explicitly excempted for animations. Comparing the nomination with the last four promoted FP animations I get, (nomination bold faced)
        • Resolution: 280×264, 300×200, 320×240, 600×300, 1000×375
        • File size: 381 kB, 555 kB, 2.06 MB, 4.54 MB, 23.64 MB
      • ...which hints at a resolution very representative of other animation FPs and a file size (information content) in the high end. Although I am confident the creator could make even larger resolution animations given enough hours of processing time, I think the file size for a zoom of this depth would become so large that many would give up downloading it to see it. --Slaunger (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support THIS IS WOW!!! --Phyrexian (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing!   ■ MMXX  talk  00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh no! Looped psychedelic madness make Nikopol go crazy!
    Support above by (23:40, 2 February 2010 Nikopol) --SimsContPics (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh yes ! Takabeg (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful work. I'm torn between the two versions. I support whichever has consensus. -- Avenue (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternative File:Mandelbrot zoom 1.gif[edit]

Zoom on Mandelbrot set
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This higher resolution version. Users can use the low-res one if that is better for their application, but it seems to me that we should feature the high-res one. My only concern is that this will cause 80MB downloads for everyone viewing the galleries. Is there a way to stop this (Perhaps a special warning on the animations gallery?). --99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that's complicating things. The smaller version is much more suited to most networks (it took about ten minutes for me to upload it with cable internet). It might be better to just leave this article to the subject of featuring the original size, or maybe featuring a set of images in which both are part of a set (like the still zoom in gallery of Wikipedia's Mandelbrot article) --SimsContPics (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Alternatives are always complications, but we have a voting mechanism that handles them. I don't think a set is the way to go here because the images don't bring anything significantly different to the table except for size. It's easy for a user to chose their size from the "alternate versions" section of the image page. My main point is that this version is more in line with the guidelines: we do not know how these images will be used in the future, so it is better not to downsample (especially when the dimensions are actually small, as they are here). --99of9 (talk) 06:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it terms of image size and especially file size 320x240 is internet practical; 640x480 is not. Few people have the patience to wait for a 80+MB image to open and I don't think the animation is better even when open. --SimsContPics (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Prefer this higher resolution version for future compatibility. PS please document that wobbling on the image page. PPS there is a slightly related discussion going on on the VI talk page regarding featuring videos or animations if anyone would be interested to share their view on that. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am torn about the resolution question. On one side I agree with 99of9 that it is in the spirit of COM:FPC to go for the highest possible resoution as we have to have also future developments in mind. On the other hand I also think the creator has a pretty strong argument that at present this high resolution version is unpractical due to its file size and bandwidth limitations and its (in)ability to be shown in the intended frame rate on most present day computers. Since we have both we could in a few years delist the "small" one and feature this instead if progression in technology and badwidth matches this. Finally, this whole resolution discussion is actually also due to the fact that animations are only covered very sparsely in the present guidelines, which are very much focused on still images. Maybe it would be time to give animations and video some more special attention, i.e., by making a Featured videos (sub?)-project. That is, move animated gifs out of the FPC scope and into a FVC scope and treat them on an equal footing as videos (.og*) and then make specialised video guidelines for those media types? --Slaunger (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Which one is going to be featured? It seems that people withdrawing all their votes for image a and voting for image b is an unusual move. I've given up trying to keep track of what's going on now. --SimsContPics (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Voting closes on February 9, so at that time we will know. When there are alternatives the procedure is this
    1. Check which version(s) fulfill the criteria for being promoted (if any)
    2. If more than one version fulfills promotion critera, select the one with most support
  • That said, there is a slight risk that vote moving will deplete the intial overwhelming support for the original such that there is a risk that none of them gets featured (which would be a pity as clearly the Community is in favor of promoting this Mandelbrot zoom). But let's see what happens, still plenty of time. A reviewer can also support both versions, so it does not have to be vote moving (I just added a vote, as I abstained from the original to retain a balance). --Slaunger (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a risk that all support is being sucked away from the original image now. I wish we could just stick to the original one. --SimsContPics (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Don't stress. There are well more than 10 votes in total, so at least one will get 5. Relax and watch the fun! --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What about delisting previous fractal FP's? This animation explains the concept, while the previous FP's are "simply cute", nothing else. --S23678 (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To my knowledge, we have two related FPs in our archives already: One of a Julia Set, the other one a single image from a particularly esthetically pleasing region of the Mandelbrot Set. Now, the Julia Set is not the same as a Mandelbrot Set (although related), so I think it would be fair to have an FP of a Julia Set as it is also very well known. That said, I do not fancy the colors in that one. I also think a single high-res image of the Mandelbrot Set is OK to have featured in parallel with a zoom animation, as you do not really have the oppertunity to study the detailed structure when watching a zoom animation. For this purpose a single, well-chosen high-resolution image is better IMO. Moreover, the visual appearance is greatly dependent on the chosen color palette, which I think is very well chosen in the FP we have today, albeit I could have wished for a substantially larger resolution of that FP. We also have a 3D FP of the Menger sponge, which is also fractal, but of an entirely different nature. That one should certainly not be nominated for delisting IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I would personally get rid of both current fractal FPs, and feature a set of high resolution frames from every step of your fractal. I think that a fractal frame, alone, has only very limited value. --S23678 (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Every frame of my animation? That might be tricky; there are 476 frames. --SimsContPics (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I was thinking about a set of images with images from every order of magnitude, or something similar. In the same way as it's presented here, in the image description. --S23678 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, if you're interested in new Julia sets to be featured I have a string available on Wikipedia if you want to transfer them over to Commons.--SimsContPics (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I personally think that something representing the concept of fractals rather than a simple frame from a set is FP-worth. I must be honest about my lack of knowledge about fractals in general. I understand the concept from your video, but I do not from the Julia set series of images you sent me. Hence my support for your video and my delisting support for previous fractals FP. --S23678 (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Durova (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated
The chosen alternative is: File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif

File:Felipe Pigna.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 19:28:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Argentine historian Felipe Pigna
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Roberto Triguez - uploaded by Belgrano - nominated by Belgrano -- Belgrano (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Belgrano (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perhaps you should try QI first. No wow for me. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The image is not mine, I can't nominate it there. I would prefer to know if it fails any of the image guidelines, "no wow" sounds like a very subjetive opinion Belgrano (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the moment this has captured (eyes down, mouth slightly open) has unfortunately robbed the image of life and emotion - Peripitus (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose idem. ferbr1 (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. kallerna 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Tiptoety talk 05:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 18:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wladyslaw Sojka - uploaded by Tohma - nominated by -- 190.31.218.23 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, cool! I think it could use a little perspective correction on the left side and maybe also a little more selective denoising of the sky, but I´ll also support if you don´t change it. Looks spectacular. Nikopol (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there is also an ugly error (maybe failed clone tool application?) in the upper right corner in addition to the rest of the flaws. I produced an edit where I tried to fix the problems. IMO this photo should become a FP, it is a nice depiction of the impressive architecture Nikopol (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano edit.jpg[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edit with corrected perspective, selectively denoised sky and corner clone error? fixed. I tried to keep the changes as subtle as possible. Nikopol (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The edit is a big improvement, thanks Nikopol. My hesitation to support is due to the lighting. There are some shadows cutting across the natural surfaces of the building. I'm not sure if there is a better hour of the year to take the shot to resolve this. --99of9 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you think it´s that bad? I find the composition very effective, and the one loner walking down the stairs makes it perfect. I am gonna
Symbol support vote.svg Support Mr. Sojka´s work :) Nikopol (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, I'm afraid the shadows mean it just falls short for me. The single person is no problem at all. --99of9 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh light and composition (centered subject and too tight crop) --S23678 (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support support this version --George Chernilevsky talk 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678. The crop is far too tight. kallerna 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I dont like the red and green edges on many places of the building, on the men and the flagpoles. What a pity! Otherwise I would like this image with the "rainbow" on the top of the building. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture
The chosen alternative is: File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano edit.jpg

File:Porlock Weir harbour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 16:15:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Herby -- Herby talk thyme 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Porlock Weir Harbour in Somerset, UK. It is a small tidal harbour that has existed as a port for at least 1000 years. Such small working ports are rare in the UK nowadays. First light and the tide capture the tranquillity before work starts.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Herby talk thyme 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 07:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like painting, nice --George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition - IMO too much going on. kallerna 12:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No big quality Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the atmosphere, but IMO the crop is tight on the sides.   ■ MMXX  talk  20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna. --S23678 (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Snowboarder in flight (Tannheim, Austria).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 15:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sören - uploaded & nominated by ahgee -- Ahgee (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like the composition, colors and the feeling of motion in this picture, although it is not a 100% sharp and noise-free. Same problems here so I think they are negligible Ahgee (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral i had voted pro still in the last year, but as i did lot of skiing action sports photography that winter, i now know that this picture is just average... as you also realized, there are some technical problems.. these are not unsolveable. --Jeses (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Wow! Amazing composition! kallerna 12:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The backgroud is very noisy and not clear. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background is a little noisy, but IMO not terribly so (and it could be fixed maybe). The blurriness of the background is a pro, highlighting the speed. The boarder himself is sufficiantly sharp, considering he´s jumping, and the composition is nice, as mentioned. But what finally does it for me are the colors and forms: The contrast of the bright (mainly yellow) primary colors in their planar / areal shape (don´t know whether these are the correct expressions in english) against the "detailed" darker blueish background is beautiful. Nikopol (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not really care about background noise in this case.--Garrondo (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have de-noised the sky only. I uploaded over the top as it is a minor edit and won't change the votes here (apart from maybe one). Maedin\talk 17:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jonathunder (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 17:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Audi e-tron.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 23:06:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment new version already has 5 support votes and 0 oppose --George Chernilevsky talk 11:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:CZE vs FRA (01) - 2010 European Men's Handball Championship.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2010 at 22:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

2010 European Men's Handball Championship
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by LiveChocolate -- LiveChocolate (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LiveChocolate (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great action! It is too noisy as it stands, perhaps this can be improved? --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. Mulazimoglu (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - the composition isn't perfect, but this captures the moment very well. (BTW, this would be the first indoor sports FP if it succeeds. Indoor sports photography isn't easy because of the low light.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, I hadn't considered that it is indoor. I agree that indoor light makes it too hard to expect noise perfection when zoom and a short exposure is required. --99of9 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support pure action. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MattiPaavola.   ■ MMXX  talk  00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 07:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having thought about it - yes, per Matti --Herby talk thyme 13:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --elemaki (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support gutes Sportbild --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Matti. Great action shot. -- Avenue (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Von.grzanka (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Cinematheque francaise.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 04:59:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Athoune - uploaded by Athoune - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, poor composition. kallerna 12:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective issues with the buildings I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 15:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Danielg1987 (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don't see a problem with perspective issues, that is the crazy architecture ie. the lines are not straight in real life either.--Avala (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose These trees hides too much the main subject. --S23678 (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - how would you fix this issue?--Avala (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Different perspective; find a way for the trees to enhance the subject, if possible, rather than being a distraction in front. However, the trees makes this building quite difficult for FP IMO. --S23678 (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor composition, the trees are in the way. Tiptoety talk 06:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2010 at 20:33:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lop Nur and the potash fertilizer production plant
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler-- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This satellite picture shows a part of the former See Lop Nur in Xinjiang, China, with the production plant to produce yearly 1.2 million tons potash fertilizer. This picture in wikimedia commons is in general the only picture with the production plant. Have a look to Google Maps or to other satellite pictures: there is no comparable view. The production plant has the size 10 to 21 km and has the area 164 km². In the building is enought area for Brussels Region (161.4 km²), the capital city of Europa. Or else there is enought area for Manhattan (87.5 km²), Monaco, Vatican City and other famous places all together in this building. - The image shows also parts of the „Big Ear“ and of the former Tarim River-delta. If you want to read much valuable informations about Lop Desert and Lop Nur please read my research reports in the German Wikipedia Wüste Lop Nor and Lop Nor. -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image feels distorted, none of the corners of the buildings are near right angles. Presumeably this is because it is not taken from directly overhead, but it distracts me. --99of9 (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I agree with 99of9. The point of reference is a bit straining on the eyes. Scewing (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I turned the image 90°. This is a better view for your eyes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That is a better view, but the distortions remain. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

File:The Peacemakers 1868.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2010 at 05:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Peacemakers 1868
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by George P. A. Healy - uploaded by me - nominated by Scewing -- (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Scewing The Peacemakers is an 1868 painting by George P.A. Healy displayed in the White House. It depicts the historic March 28, 1865 strategy session by the Union high command (see image notes) on the steamer River Queen during the final days of the American Civil War, 18 days before Abraham Lincoln's assasination. (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historical importance and visually good. There are some small spots and paint cracking, but that is a true representation of an old painting. I would also be happy to support a further-restored version. --99of9 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per 99of9. --Cayambe (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per 99of9 Belgrano (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good and historical valued --George Chernilevsky talk 06:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Chacaltaya Pano MC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2010 at 03:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chacaltaya panorama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Chmehl - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Since Chmehl's other pano got such a great response, I'll put in another one of his that I think is fabulous. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice panorama --George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work! Very nice light and lots of details because of the high resolution. --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good nom :) Good image --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support fantastic panorama. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support LiveChocolate (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Pretty. Tiptoety talk 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good. Takabeg (talk) 11:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sharpness, a very impressive landscape. There is a bit too much of the foreground imo, but this is a personal feeling. --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special... IMO just a panorama, the composition isn't superp anyway. kallerna 14:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Taken from an altitude of 5421m is nothing special? Bringing a tripod and a pano head to this height is quite special IMO. I mean, fair enough if the composition lead you to opposing, but calling it nothing special seems for me a little rude. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as Kallerna - ordinary composition. --Aqwis (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 06:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--elemaki (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Difficult. If it had been described as a pano of the alps, I would not have been very impressed by the composition. The image as such, although technically perfect, does not impress me in terms of esthetics. But on the other hand, 5421m makes it special. Nevertheless it would be great if the author could add image notes to point out which city is which. Nikopol (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Roke (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Thomas Bresson - Creation-goutte-eau-redim (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2010 at 20:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Creation of a water droplet under a stalactite.


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural_phenomena

File:Landscape Puchenau HDR (DFdB).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 10:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rural Landscape in Puchenau, Austria (HDR)

Hope the HDR is not overdone, but I think it should be ok -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 10:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry but the HDR has left the clouds looking very noisy, even at a small image size. Particularly as as the sky is smoothly textured this really stands out. Peripitus (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, IMO boring composition. kallerna 16:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Galerie Lafayette Haussmann Dome.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 03:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Lebanon mountains from near Maqial el Qalaa.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 03:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Peripitus (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. kallerna 14:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Fine composition, colors and exposure also good. At the moment I´m simply not shure whether it wows me enough to support, but I might change to support later on. (BTW, Exif time stamp seems to be false) Nikopol (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Exif time stamp is set to UTC +9:30 (Adelaide, South Australia time), I think Lebanon was at UTC+3 when the photo was taken. I think this gives a shot time of 4:45pm. - Peripitus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:New River, Islington.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 20:17:20
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New River, Islington
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nick Sarebi - uploaded and nominated by me Laim (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very much CA in the upper left corner and composition is imo not special enough for FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Etincelles (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Snakelocks anemone in pool.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 13:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Snakelocks anemones (Anemonia viridis was Anemonia sulcata) in a rock pool in Torbay, Devon, UK.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The colour of the tentacles was just lovely. To see what this looks like out of water see here, the colour can still be clearly seen.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Herby talk thyme 13:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull colours, no wow. kallerna 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support = Strong support: composition rather very interesting IMO. Live animals and stones in one diagonal line. Lovely scene from underwater life in the wild nature, nice colors --George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For George Chernilevsky. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vertical line of the composition and the color of the tentacles are nice, but they´re not enough for me, I´m afraid. The image looks averall rather pale, without much contrast and the subject is rather small. I think I would prefer an underwater shot of a reef, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The colours/contrast I could of course "fix" (though I prefer reality), however the UK is rather lacking in reefs :( --Herby talk thyme 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors look pale because of the water. Here's a color enhanced version: [2] Would you prefer it? --Alex:D (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Personally it is a little over saturated but I appreciate the thought. I'll maybe tweak mine a little, thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I've tweaked the image slightly but I'd prefer not to do more. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subjects are too small a fraction of the image for me. --99of9 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Berninabahn zwischen Lagalb und Ospizio Bernina im Winter.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 15:56:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Local train on the Bernina Express line between Lagalb and Ospizio Bernina pulled by two ABe 4/4 multiple units. The two multiple units have excess power with only two passenger cars, so some freight is carried along.


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:KleinarlWinterwonderland.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 17:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Winterwonderland after a good night of snow. Alps, Austria.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leuo - uploaded by Leuo - nominated by Leuo -- Leuo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Leuo (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow! Nothing special --Llorenzi (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I venture to disagree with Llorenzi: for a Dutchman, this has enough wow.;) MartinD (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like to come back to this image again and again: technically well done and composed, it shows the grandeur of an alpine winter landscape, with some human presence. --Cayambe (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nothing special, no wow. Renata3 (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems a bit out of focus Scewing (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:MissionSantaBarbaraHDR-perspective-edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2010 at 18:36:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mission Santa Barbara was also known as "Queen of the Missions for its graceful beauty." This mission was founded in December 4th, 1786, and was number ten of the 21 Franciscan missions throughout California. It was established by Padre Fermin Francisco de Lasuen. Padre Antonio Paterna was the first of many Padre's in charge here, but he was the first to begin building the mission. Adjusted perspective to straighten vertically.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kevin Cole - uploaded by Julielangford - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice look, well done photo --George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! -- Bidgee (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes - good example of a good hdr --Herby talk thyme 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO badly overdone HDR (FP-nomination of the original file). kallerna 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a brilliant demonstration of how to videogame the reality. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tonemapping used makes it look like a computer render rather than an image of reality. HDR is best used to high-dynamic-range compensate for the failings of camera technology, not make the world look like it's been run through photoshop - Peripitus (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't mind the photo looking like it was computer rendered, but the HDR altered so many shadows, that things look fuzzy at full resolution. --Alex:D (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It it´look is too artificial for me, and as Alex:D noted, it also looks fuzzy (for example on the walls). Nikopol (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a bad picture, but the HDR is bit overdone. Far too much contrast in the mid-tones. --Calibas (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Does not look natural. Tiptoety talk 05:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

File:STS-130 exhaust cloud engulfs Launch Pad 39A.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 10:26:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An exhaust cloud engulfs Launch Pad 39A
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An exhaust cloud engulfs Launch Pad 39A at NASA's Kennedy Space Centre in Florida as space shuttle Endeavour lifts off into the night sky on the STS-130 mission (the last shuttle night launch).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! kallerna 11:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture! -- Schnobby (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  22:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Tiptoety talk 07:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning. --Von.grzanka (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Etincelles (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a splendid image! --Vprisivko (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Technically, most of the cloud is not exhaust. It is water from the sound suppression system: [[3]]. 75.41.110.200 19:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Spectacular--Pianoplonkers (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Bismuth crystal pyramid.jpg, not featured[edit]

Existing FP of bismuth

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 19:37:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bismuth crystal pyramid
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by imunarriz - uploaded by imunarriz - nominated by imunarriz -- Imunarriz (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Imunarriz (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Including our existing Featured Picture of bismuth for comparison. --99of9 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Existing FP is IMO much better. kallerna 12:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the composition could be better. There too much white at the left and the right and I don't like the blur in the foreground. --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Vivienne.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 03:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Tullkammaren och gamla varmbadhuset, Varberg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 15:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknown - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Wolfgangus Mozart (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --UnreifeKirsche (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- terribly blurry, grainy, scratchy, and dirty. Maybe some digital restoration would help? Renata3 (talk) 18:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Black Bovan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2010 at 19:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rooster Black Bovan
Black Bovan-color-corr.jpg

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment shame that the sun wasn't shining. I don't like the blueish tone of the pic. I tried to reduce it (see pic right) --Amada44 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the original version. Etincelles (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Infantryman in 1942 with M1 Garand, Fort Knox, KY.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2010 at 23:59:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

WWII Infantryman
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Scewing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I'm constantly amazed at the quality and condition of some of the old color photographs maintained by the Library of Congress. This one really caught my eye. Scewing (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSymbol support vote.svg Conditional support -- Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 07:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- Is the color of his uniform correct ? Takabeg (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment He's wearing Army HBT first pattern uniform (photos)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems much bluer. Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --George Chernilevsky talk 09:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 10:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that images of that kind are much interesting. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Basar (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks!   ■ MMXX  talk  23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A snapshot of history. Very cool. Tiptoety talk 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kordas (sínome!) 19:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Completely undocumented restoration. Misrepresents the historic source. Durova (talk) 03:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image contains the retouched template tag with detail, and links to the original LOC image. The photo in no way misrepresents the historic source. Scewing (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And the unedited version has never been uploaded for comparison. The strong oppose stands. This nomination cuts exactly the kinds of corners that hamper our negotiations with libraries and museums to gain access to more material. Institutions have actually backed out because they feared that editors would do exactly what you're doing. Very strong oppose. Durova (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The retouching is described in quite general terms. Can you explain in more detail what the "histogram fix" and "contrast fix" did? My concern is especially with the colour of his uniform, which seems bluer here than in the original photo, the unretouched shot from an alternative angle, and the link provided above. -- Avenue (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to my concern above about colours and the fact that the original has not been uploaded. It is a nice photo, and I would support a version closer to the original. -- Avenue (talk) 09:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:The Dome Church at Les Invalides - July 2006.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 02:13:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Is it too picky to say that I expect an interesting or blue sky in FP's? --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No, it's not. At least not for such a famous monument in an easy to get location. --ianaré (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could do with some more foreground. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Toulouse Capitole Night Wikimedia Commons.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 02:14:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Toniná Stela 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2010 at 13:24:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maya stela
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Simon Burchell - uploaded by Simon Burchell - nominated by Simon Burchell -- Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simon Burchell (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but I do not find the composition particularly interesting. Also, the sun light is harsh in certain areas and there is too big difference in the light levels due to the areas of shadow. Moreover, I find the wall in the background to the left mildly distracting. Independent of my review, I suggest you geocode the photo as it adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger, plus blown sky. --Cayambe (talk) 19:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Nestor notabilis -Fiordland, New Zealand-8b.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2010 at 23:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An adult Kea (Nestor notabilis) in Fiordland, New Zealand.
  • It is interesting to speculate that the parrot has evolved camouflaged plumage. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Should imo be cropped --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you mean cropped from the right? Snowmanradio (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I like this parrot Smile - Darius Baužys talk 20:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - hunched posture, somewhat bedraggled, distracting background near head. I like keas too, but this is not an impressive portrayal of one. No wow for me. -- Avenue (talk) 08:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

File:German, maple Violin.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2010 at 16:14:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A German, maple Violin made in c.1880. It has dominant strings and ebony fittings. Beneath is a W.E. Dörfler bow
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pianoplonkers - uploaded by Pianoplonkers - nominated by Pianoplonkers -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pianoplonkers (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A shame that I cannot support such instrument but the quality is not good enough, especially the masking and the noise. Keep trying, music is an excellent theme -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, problems with technical quality, no wow. kallerna 12:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Pianoplonkers (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Catbells Northern Ascent, Lake District - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2010 at 23:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Catbells Northern Ascent, Lake District


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Heron tricol 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2010 at 03:13:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tricolored heron, fishing.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chrharshaw - uploaded by Chrharshaw - nominated by Chrharshaw -- Chrharshaw (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chrharshaw (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic pose and composition - the bird arranged itself even better than one could ever direct it! The drawback is that the focus seems to be on the front wing rather than the eye, and the DOF is not quite enough to reach the head sharply. --99of9 (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WoW photo! --George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)