Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2011

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

Contents

File:Klebriger-hörnling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 16:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Calocera viscosa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 --Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but a bit tighter crop on the left side would be better IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes to me. --Danny (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The quality is good, but I think it needs cropping. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely not! We must show clearly that this fungus grows only on coniferous trees.--Citron (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette (Paris) 7.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 16:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Peter17 - uploaded by Peter17 - nominated by Claus
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 1.6 mpx, but it's very very very beautiful.-- Claus (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (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:10-56-41-pano-hohneck 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 08:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° Panorama seen from the summit of the Hohneck mountain.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Maredentro (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Huge panorama is huge. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Just amazing! But is there a mistakenly connection? Look at the mark nearly the center of the left half of the picture... Does that matter? --Danny (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are no errors. It's the real view. --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Okay. But what else could it be? Did you see what I mean (especially at the horizon at the mark)? It's still there - and I don't think that I am the only one who could see it (at least I hope so^^). --Danny (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the lens flare in the sky, can be easily removed.. I suppose the Danny is commenting about this.. Ggia (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Yes, there are many errors and visible seams. Check out the roof of the building on the left, for instance. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd support when the stitching is fixed. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-- Wow, such a huge picture to show nothing. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Freudenberg-014 crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 14:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old town of Freudenberg, Germany.


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Hafen Mgarr-CN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 17:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Port of Mġarr (Gozo), "entrance to Gozo".
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Felix König - uploaded by Felix König - edited from Carschten - nominated by Felix König -- -- Felix König 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -- Felix König 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Nice pic, although the ship seems overexposed and I'm not a fan of the position of the horizon in relation to the entire frame. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO Only minor issues.--Snaevar (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like a tourist shot taken en passant. Nothing worth being featured here in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, of course it's taken en passant, it was taken from a ferry. But it that a reason against FP status? -- Felix König 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, when it looks like it was taken en passant, yes. It really looks like a touristy shot to me, sorry.- Benh (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Locomotive ChS8-075 2011 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 13:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Electric locomotive Škoda ChS8-075


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Falco sparverius cinnamonimus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 19:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Español: Falco sparverius cinnamonimus en Montevideo, Uruguay.English: Falco sparverius cinnamonimus in Montevideo, Uruguay.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fernando da Rosa - nominated by Marinna (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marinna (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ismael Luceno (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Only two edits. W.S. 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just wish they'd gotten the rest of the tail, but no real loss. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition, even with the tail cropped out. The direct gaze is particularly striking. Steven Walling 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would like that the whole tail was seen, but I like the composition--Miguel Bugallo 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per those above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Lens flare and tail cut off.--Snaevar (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would not be difficult to clone out the lens flare, but I don´t mind it at all in this case.--Nikopol (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Snaevar. A poorly cropped image for FP? what next? W.S. 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharp but bad composition - bird is cut off. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Màñü飆¹5 talk 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Snaevar and Mile. --Bgag (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is very beatiful and it's very good about creating. --Tokvo (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • As a user of less than 50 edits you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Fadesga (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Galandil (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Though I'd have loved it better cropped, it should still be featured. --Izmir2 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The tail...--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - interesting; would likely support if not for the unfortunate crop of the tail. Jonathunder (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop: the tail ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Great, but don't like the crop. However, it isn't all that easy to get a pix like this one! hoverFly | chat? 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The direct gaze of this bird is amazing, you just do not pay attention to the crop of the tail. --MotherForker (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tail it´s a minor detail. The animal it´s ready to fly watching the camera. I think it´s a pretty much hard work and a ver good picture. --Andrea (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Esteban (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose : end of tail missing. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hmmm. It's a good "capture"... despite the tail-cropping ;) Good work. Tirithel (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Per hoverFly. TFCforever (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others above --Cephas (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut tail hurts. --ELEKHHT 11:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent work --Wilfredor (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 10 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - 072010 western pond turtle wray odfw.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 03:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Western Pond Turtle in Oregon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - uploaded by Boing-boing - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. Steven Walling 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The log is severely overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As The High Fin Sperm Whale and, to me, the background is disturbing--Miguel Bugallo 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the background is natural and alright, but the way this picture has been shot makes it overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question To anyone: Other than the log this looks pretty good. Anyone think the levels can be switched around digitally to dim the log? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Steven Walling 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:A sculpture at the entrance to the palace of Versailles.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 15:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by jchristopherrobinson (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's Iris. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry no, it is an allegory of "The Peace" (look, the lady puts out the torch of the war...), by Jean Baptiste Tuby, after drawings of Charles Le Brun--Jebulon (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC) .
      • Iris the female equivalent of Mercury in some ways. They are the only 2 gods as far as I know that carry a caduceus: Therefore I think it's Iris. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentSorry again.errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum. I encourage you to follow the link (in french, sorry) i provided above. Do you really think you know the place better than Mrs Béatrix Saulé, General Director of the Museum and National Domaine of the Château de Versailles, which Is responsible of the website ? Here Is shown an allegory, not a goddess. There was indeed a statue of Iris in another place in Versailles, but it Is destroyed now.--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I went to the link, still didn't explain the caduceus. And why would such an object, one that is only associated with the deity pantheon be included in this unless it was meant to point back to that same mythology? No, I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better than that. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can do nothing for you, because you want that it is Iris. This is your opinion. But it is "The Peace", and it is not an opinion, but a fact. This statue is part of a set with an allegory of Abundance. Peace and Abundance makes sense. Iris and Abundance is a nonsense... About the caduceus, there is an explanation you obviously didn't read, but let's go, no matter.--Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I re-read the text, I missed that line. Hmm... Fine, still skeptical but I'll accept your claim. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even if the sky is a bit noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful sculpture, nice composition. TFCforever (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only sharp at bottom. Noise in sky. Little CA, see note. Distortion at right. Bad perspective to me --Miguel Bugallo 00:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age and numer of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good enough--Claus (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Antonius Kloster BW 15 Retouched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 21:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Monastery of Saint Anthony, Egypt
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the shadows-- Miguel Bugallo 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. Slightly noisy and unsharp, but well, the subject does stand out. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support} but (maybe) a sky denoising would be good --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks better. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. New version with only the sky denoising. I can denoise the sky more, if you want--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bgag (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't find the composition attractive for the image to be FP. I don't find ie. the shadows attractive.. and I don't like the tight crop left and top-right. Ggia (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great retouched. TFCforever (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Ggia. W.S. 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the shadows of the people distracting. --99of9 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per 99of9--Claus (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Cymbium cymbium 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 04:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Cymbium cymbium, Volutidae, False Elephant's Snout; Length 10,5 cm; Originating from the coast at Oued Chebeïka, Morocco; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Kreuzberg, Rhön.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:26:27 (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 -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 14:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg (Weak) Support: very good composition, quality is good enough, lighting is very nice. I also like the perspective, just the pixelated cables are a bit disturbing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry tower and unsharp wires.--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The intended composition is interesting, yet it seems the focus (camera-wise) doesn't match the focus (composition-wise). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Llorenzi (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Whatever it is it was photographed pretty well. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great in the snow. TFCforever (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mexican yoyos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition and lighting. Steven Walling 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-- the color composition is, of course, very attractive. The spacial composition not so much. For example, there is a strong diagonal of yoyos that is cut off at the lower right. A flawless photo would have the third yoyo completely inside. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hermosos colores! --MotherForker (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support --Snaevar (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per MotherForker: beautiful colors! TFCforever (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colours but composition seems a bit random - Benh (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice view (and one has to crop somewhere) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit. That book-copy-pasted phrase we all know would mean something if there were not space wasted in the top-left. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome colors and quality. --Lošmi (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Number of edits and account age too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-- A teaching or remainder to the photographer. There is a trick that can help in pictures like this. When there are so many bright colors (Fall pictures, carnivals, crazy parties ;) ). Use live view in black-and-white mode (and shoot RAW to get the colors in the file). This allows you to concentrate con the actual composition. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Dwonsampledbokeh, that is a good trick... let´s see if an old dog can learn it... I hate the live view, but will try it at least once, and take it from there... and btw, I do have other versions of this pic, and you may have a point, however, this is the one that was uploaded... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I dislike the life view too. That is just a trick and some people don't really need it. It is something related to the Stroop effect. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Tonna sulcosa 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Tonna sulcosa, Tonnidae, Banded Tun; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Galandil (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the background color for this subject. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh, yes !--Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm glad you've got some shells which retained magnificent colours! I also agree that this is a well chosen background. --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miguel Bugallo 08:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough for a static picture. Try using a tripod. W.S. 07:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear W.S., all the pictures have been made with a tripod! --Llez (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mr W.S. you use a tripod? We are still waiting for your first photograph. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't take photographs. Do I have to? W.S. 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Number of edits and account age too young.--Snaevar (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Citron (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Claus (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 06:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Koodalmanikyam Temple is an ancient Hindu temple in Irinjalakuda, a small town in Trissur district, Kerala, India.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pyngodan - uploaded by Sreejithk2000 - nominated by Sreejithk2000 -- Sreejith K (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am not voting oppose because of the low quality (noise issues) but also the composition is not well balanced (a lot of sky), unnatural colors (a better lighting conditions taking this photo is possible) but also the image needs white balance. Ggia (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Bad general quality due to jpeg artifacts and a blurry image.--Snaevar (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (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.


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hypsizygus ulmarius.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mushroom, Hypsizygus ulmarius
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Susulyka - uploaded by Susulyka - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flash lighting too harsh and flat, and not sharp enough. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree with the previous. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree with the previous. W.S. 07:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are some frozen water droplets on the mushroom, witch IMO technically would make the picture worse if sharpened. Also, Susulyka (the photographer of this picture) did take another one of this subject, but the brightness is even higher there.--Snaevar (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale about the flash. TFCforever (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

*Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 87.106.215.227 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) No anonymous votes, sorry. Please log in.--Jebulon (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done Fixed Info.--Snaevar (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How do we know that the colours are correct? --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Idk EN seems to have toyed around with the colors and decided that these were pass-able. =\ -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Try to compare this picture with the "closer look" feature of the Louvre museum, located here --Snaevar (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors of this picture look unatural in comparision with the louvre picture above (perhaps coused by too much lightning). Also, there is a blue line at the top edge of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice scan of an excellent painting. TFCforever (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Snaevar. --Zeroth (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too small--Claus (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 13:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:archaeodontosaurus
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good--Miguel Bugallo 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wonder though if there's enough background in the case this were used on a taxobox. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This point is an obsession for me, I always pass a moment to measure the frame, trying to find a good compromise or release a rule that I never found. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A cute trilobite! --Citron (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've always wondered what flavor they might have ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Are horseshoe crabs edible? They're related, aren't they? =) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mais pourquoi autant de caillou sous la bête ? --Jebulon (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Schloss Neugebäude (Delsenbach).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of Neugebäude Palace near Vienna around 1720, engraving by Johann Adam Delsenbach
I'm wondering what noise spots are. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "noise spots" he is referring to are marks on the paper itself. That is not a fault of the file though, it's in the nature of old prints like these to have impurities. Gryffindor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • True, but those spots can also be triggered while scanning. Eather way, I have cut the number of annonations down, and change my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral broken lines in the frame of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great digitization of a file this old! TFCforever (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Cassis flammea 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 19:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Cassis flammea, Cassididae, Flame Helmet; Length 13 cm; Originating from the Caribbean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK don't get me wrong, this looks very nice, and good execution (scales seem consistent and all) but few issues annoy me:
    • reflections on the upper right view (but maybe you can prove me this is unavoidable and that this actually add value to the pic),
    • very noticeable compression artifacts,
    • I don't think the subject is symmetrical enough as to tolerate missing a sixth view

Little issues... but on repeatable shots, I consider we shouldn't forgive. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Far right shell is overexposed and the bottom right shell is blurry at the area nearest to the bottom edge of the picture. --Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Megyeri híd.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Megyeri bridge, in Hungary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Samat - uploaded by Samat - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Couple blown highlights, but positively fantastic composition and color. Great work. Steven Walling 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excellent technical quality I think, but I really don't like the composition, too much centred in my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distorted ad nauseam --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Those lamposts are designed to be inclined towards the road, i.e. not in 90 degree angle with the road (more details here). Also, I´d like to point out that this bridge is a 2x2 + layby lane bridge, seperated by a slight gap in the middle.--Snaevar (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite the distortion -- MJJR (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ditto hoverFly | chat? 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support just beautiful! --MotherForker (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! --Admrboltz (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others above--Miguel Bugallo 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technical not perfect, but good and very good architectual view --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no specific reason ... GerardM (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture gives no idea how this bridge really looks. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Ich weiß ja nicht, was du siehst, aber ich sehe eine Schrägseilbrücke mit zwei Pylonen. Komisch, dass ich das sehe, obwohl das Bild laut dir keinen Eindrucken vermittelt, wie die Brücke wirklich aussieht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Eusebius, bad composition.--Claus (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Lycoperdon-perlatum.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lycoperdon perlatum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see what's so nice here (artistically speaking) - Benh (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info You can see in the foreground a immature foot and to second 4 mature feet, which one has a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by raindrops, a touch, falling nuts, etc. --Citron (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sure it has encyclopedic value, but I don't find this picture very beautiful otherwise. As per Steven Walling. Maybe en wiki FPC is a better place also. - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would suggest nominating for Valued Image. Capturing the puff is of extremely high educational value, but the quality isn't quite there for featured status. Steven Walling 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong qualitatively speaking? Thank you to develop. --Citron (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems a little dark, and the composition isn't super clear if the subject is the puff. Steven Walling 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good depth of field, educational, the lighting seems very natural and it's framed pretty well. This image might not grab everybody because few people really care about mushrooms, but I find those other things I mentioned of this image better than the majority. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • On commons, we care a lot more about artistic issues - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I Disagree with opinion just above.--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
What's wrong artistically speaking? The colors are not shimmering enough? This is not the fault of this poor fungus. --Citron (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do agree with Benh's assessment. Image is good value but misses the pizazz to be considered the best of the best that commons has to offer. W.S. 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Please, see the other featured pictures of mushrooms and tell me what is so extraordinary compared to this one. --Citron (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong chromatic aberration at the far right mushroom, and lacking space on top becouse of the puff. I agree with Steven Walling on nominating this picture as Valued picture.--Snaevar (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rework (masking) is not precise enough, very visible at high resolution (puff, and right mushroom) and it is a pity. Furthermore, please consider the over-categorization of the file.--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Citron (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Burg Taufers01archedit 2011-01-03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 17:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle in Sand in Taufers

Alternative[edit]

Burg Taufers01archeditcrop 2011-01-03.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info cropped version as suggested by Aktron. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Personally I prefer the towering feeling of the uncropped image. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good picture made even better.--Snaevar (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Two mistakes. One, follow the advise of amateurs. Your picture was better as it was. Two, alts (unless the original is clearly wrong) distract voters. They can catch votes that could otherwise be on your original. Follow your guts, most of the people voting here don't know a thing about photography. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • ...and we don't know how happy we are to have specialists as Downsampledbokeh for shepherding us...--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture
The chosen alternative is: File:Burg_Taufers01archedit_2011-01-03.jpg

File:Gips 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 11:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crystal step of Gypsum (Calcium sulfate, Ca[SO4] • 2 H2O)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by H. Zell - uploaded by H. Zell - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 11:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 11:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon C (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 03:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miguel Bugallo 07:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning! TFCforever (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Limited detail and noisy --Citron (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Citron.--Snaevar (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor DOF resulting in an inevitably poor masking job. W.S. 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear W.S. we are still waiting for your first masking job! --Llez (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.S. --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Hofkirche by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 14:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hofkirche in Dresden by night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon C (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice place, nice picture. But much too tight crop (top, bottom, the irght and the left...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with kaʁstn. W.S. 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful night photo, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with kaʁstn.--Miguel Bugallo 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On the cross, on the top of the church, and the statues, is too little light, and detail, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Pinicola enucleator m CT3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 00:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pine Grosbeak
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is too imposing IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm usually am a big fan of your work, but this one is a bit short on sharpness (most of the details seem to have gone away on the feathers) and the background is a bit distracting, as mentionned. Something wrong to me with lighting as well (but can't really tell what) - Benh (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh. I was thinking about the exact same thing.--Snaevar (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have been away of photography for a while, I just have to get back into it. :-) -- Cephas (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Cephas (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Claustro mudéjar de la Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, Aragón, España - 20090426.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 22:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by José Luis Mieza - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Improbable. Extreme processing. Nonartistic for me--Miguel Bugallo 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO post-processing photos shouldn't disqualify them from being featured! -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Post-processing photos does not disqualify them from being featured. This nonsensical kind of pseudo-HDRization does. I would have supported Miguel had he FPX'd this candidate. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Photos can be processed, in that case appropriate Template should be added. --Mile (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imho this pseudo hdr look is not appropriate in a encyclopedia --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the overall effect. --TFCforever (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unreal --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Enhanced beauty, not the real one......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose flickr kitsch. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To me, after reading the full exif data, I belive the image looks that way becouse of camera settnings, but not any restoration, and that the high saturation is one of them. None the less, this picture can´t possibly be featured, so Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination.--Snaevar (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bundesautobahn 72 Sachsen01arch 2009-04-01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Motorway bridge under construction.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KlausFoehl (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not "special enough" for FP in my opinion. W.S. 07:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've done plenty of such pictures and none of them is FP material. Logically, this one is not either. --Aktron (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It might be a Quality Image, but I have to agree with W.S.: it is not outstanding enough to be a Featured Picture, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadow of the right column is cropped, and the picture does not IMO illustrate well how a autobhan is constructed.--Snaevar (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For quality, even though it doesn't seem these types of images are that hot. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Flowers-2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 20:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photo of a flower, cool backlighted... +2 exposure for flower details..
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Captain - uploaded by Captain - nominated by Captain -- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain As nominator -- ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 20:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Private collection" is not a good enough description; it should include a botanical name. Are these petunias? --Avenue (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of poor categorization and description. --Admrboltz (talk) 03:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - As uploader i have no idea what is this flower, i just got it from a park, Does categories affect photographs..??
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support now. Interesting composition and color. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors are interesting, but very little of the parts that had to be sharp, are. W.S. 07:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The main subject is blurry in parts, i.e. not focussed. Some of the insects on this flower look like noise spots. Also, its impossible for me to support an image that has been nominated for deletion, so please do resolve that issue.--Snaevar (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info File is not listed for deletion, it was done by a user ignited after his talks on several deletion requests files by me...--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 14:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks for clarifying.--Snaevar (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Is it a new blossom or an old one? I can never tell with petunias unless I'm there to feel them. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I am not sure, but think its an old one (Petunias will hold the old ones..) ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It looks new to me, its too bright to be old. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors! --Aktron (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are fantastic! TFCforever (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! Jack21
    • As a user of less than 50 edits you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad detail, blurry or unsharp--Miguel Bugallo 00:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info - The noted subjects are insects, small ants, quite natural.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 03:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Out of focus, messy composition. Nice colours is not enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support love that halo! hoverFly | chat? 17:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Lewis&ClarkBridgeSP.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 00:38:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Lewis and Clark Bridge crossing the Columbia River.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cacophony - uploaded by Cacophony - nominated by Admrboltz -- Admrboltz (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Admrboltz (talk) 00:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition! Steven Walling 03:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very fine. I am not agree with the description french of the photo, since it has obviously been machine-translated. But well, whatever. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
    • That was Google Translate and me, but I wanted something to be there, since the image is in use in the French Wikipedia. Would you be able to clean it up?--Admrboltz (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the attention. Google translations are, actually, let's say... somewhat frowned upon on fr.wp. I'll have a look into it. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:20, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fine as a panorama, but dull colors and average compo for an FP. W.S. 07:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors might be dull but the smoke from the factories make it interesting and the bridge somehow fits the whole scenery. I think it would be better to call it "mild". --Aktron (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is good, but that is not enough: The lighting and colors are unimpressive. The bridge is well placed, but the cluttered bright buildings and vehicles make the composition too busy. I like the attempt to feature a more unusual motive, but IMO this is not quite among Common´s best. --Nikopol (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Aktron. TFCforever (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Nikopol.--Snaevar (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. --Lošmi (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. My eyes fell on that bush-trees. --Mile (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Imzadi 1979  07:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Saarbrücken Hafenstraße.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 10:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saarbrücken, Hafenstraße
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wolfgang Staudt - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per unnatural coloring. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural coloring. chromatic aberrations (see note). Noise--Miguel Bugallo 21:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural coloring. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga. (lot of CA both sides)--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I actually really like the colors. TFCforever (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unnatural colours, and 1:1 symmetry (as opposed to rule of thirds) makes it unappealing to me. --ELEKHHT 08:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The rule of thirds, the normative of thirds, the legislation of thirds, the dogma of thirds. OMG, who taught these kids photography? Rule of thirds is a guideline that enhances the composition of photos in many case. It is not a must have for a picture to be excellent. This picture is not good anyways but let's not have square heads with the rule of thirds. Mirror symmetries, patterns, ... are also, together with rule of thirds, some of the many structural displays that make a composition appealing. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose coloring is good, but it is too noisy --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much noise in the sky, too much ca and i don't like these colours --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Ullal Bridge Mangalore.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2011 at 21:04:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sunset at Ullal Bridge Mangalore - Nethravathi River
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nithin Bolar k - edited & nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JovianEye (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice, but slightly deceptive, quality-wise. I forgot the name, is this green spot called a lense flare, or a lens glare ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support It would be an easy nomination if it weren't for that green spot. TFCforever (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anybody willing to edit it out if possible is most welcome to do so! --JovianEye (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I made glare correction, picture is interesting. --Mile (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support --Snaevar (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-01-15 15-12-56-lac-longemer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 12:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Lac de Longemer, in France.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Trees lacking sharpness, especially to the right and left ends of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 15:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice! TFCforever (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the tight composition and it's very dark overall. Nothing special here. - Benh (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The trees look very sharp to me. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-- That tree is like a margin line in an striped notebook. Was any attention paid to the composition at all? Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Fête de la Concorde, arrivée des corporations au Champ-de-Mars.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 01:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jules Gaildreau - uploade & nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this in pencil? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's lithograph.--Paris 16 (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Symbols in this piece? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • A lot !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think it needs more work done on it. Sorry, I'm just spoiled. I've seen old images like these where, for one thing, the frame was whiter. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media
The chosen alternative is: File:Fête_de_la_Concorde,_arrivée_des_corporations_au_Champ-de-Mars.jpg

File:Quentin Massys 008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 07:35:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quentin Matsys - A Grotesque old woman.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by w:Quinten Massys c. 1530 - uploaded by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A very good gag image of me after I get out of bed on those groggy mornings. ;) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Paris 16 (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good technically, and accepteble in comparision with a picture of the same painting at National Gallery of Art (where this painting is located).--Snaevar (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the very interesting and complete informations on description page--Jebulon (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Compliments! --Llez (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice quality, high encyclopedic value. --Nikopol (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others. TFCforever (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this is a classic GerardM (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Citron (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Horrifically good. ;) Steven Walling 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive, and nice quality. --ELEKHHT 04:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Color is not correct. The real painting has a tad more yellow. W.S. 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear W.S., what about the colours of your pictures??? --Llez (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The reviewer is entitled to his/her opinion, this is not about his/her picture, please avoid biting reviewers. --99of9 (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Zanzibar stone town pano.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 14:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent panorama! TFCforever (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose heavy sharpening halos and imo too tight crop at bottom. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place and colors, but it's a bit over sharpened and the composition feels unbalanced to me. - Benh (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As long as there's no stitching errors, I like it. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Calaveras skulls.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 02:30:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Classic Day of the Dead iconography. Steven Walling 03:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Conditional Support Powerful image, but really needs a more precise description of location. Mexico is a big country. Also the date field needs to be filled in: the exif is not sufficient, and in this case confusing: Day of the Dead is November 2, not January. --ELEKHHT 11:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ELEKHH, picture was taken in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, in the central part of the country where a lot of the old traditions remain. And yes, you are right, picture was taken in January, however, these skulls are typical of Day of the Dead as I mentioned in the description. The fact that they are still on sale in some markets is just that they never really dissapear, much like Christmas or other figures, for example, they can be found in small scale in some markets. This picture was taken in a temporary Mexican Crafts show/market at the central city plaza along with items of different celebrations. I hope this adresses your concerns. If you want additional info, I´d be happy to supply it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --ELEKHHT 02:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks nice to me whatever this is - Benh (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Evalowyn (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful! --TFCforever (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and I'm sorry for that. It is a good idea and an interesting picture, but I feel the technical quality is not good enough (sharpness, noise) for a modern digital photograph, and for a Featured Picture. --Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As sorry as Jebulon, but for the same reasons. W.S. 16:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:I want you for U.S. Army 3b48465u edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 19:59:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I want your for U. S. Army by James Montgomery Flagg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by James Montgomery Flagg - uploaded, restored and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a nicely restored iconic image GerardM (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, this image is below the 2 Megapixel minium for an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
    • This is not a digital picture. Applying a rule that makes sense fpr digital photography is plain wrong. GerardM (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. I change my vote to: Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Uneven brightness value (dark frame at the top and bottom, and bright at the centre).--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • A digital restoration is intended to keep the features as they are. The point of a restoration is to remove the blemishes and to restore it as much as possible to its original state. The original does have this "unevenness" in the original. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Obviusally, you are going to argue about every single sentance that contradicts your own opinion of this picture. Unfortunatly for you, though, I have other more important things to do.--Snaevar (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is AFAIK no special rule for 'nicely restored iconic images'. Too small is too small. W.S. 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • the fact that the rules do not consider something does not mean that as a consequence they apply. Also rules are not supposed to prevent you from thinking. GerardM (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Spanish (sorry) Imágenes como ésta no pueden ser imágenes de la portada de Commons por presentar, a mi parecer, ideología. No es una imagen neutral. Será mejor o peor, pero si aparece en la portada, siento vergüenza. Not 2 mp.--Miguel Bugallo 22:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info English images like this should not be images appearing on the commons mainpage, because in my opinion they represent ideology. this is no neutral image. this might be good or bad, either way i would feel ashamed to see such image on the commons mainpage. not 2mp. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 14:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTo Miguel (sorry I understand a bit spanish, but I cannot wright): It is an historic picture from 1917, and it has a very high historic value. It is not "propaganda" for today, but for (almost) a century ago, the goal was to enlist US people for the WW1...--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This version (already featured on two Wikipedias) is bigger, and the quality is better. --Lošmi (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lošmi. Jafeluv (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others.--Claus (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment-- A line of the frame was removed instead of reconstructed. A restoration would either put arms to Aphrodite of Milos or leave it like that (this last the most widely used practice) but not to remove the head of it. The repeated patterns of red and white or blue and white stripes in Uncle Sam depictions is a reference to the American flag. It is not clear to me that destroying this pattern by only leaving one red stripe in the frame is a good restoration practice. It should be investigated, but in principle it could be subtracting semiotic content. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Tschengla Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:20:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tschengla Panorama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ski resort on the Tschengla Bürserberg. The mist covered the whole Walgau and pulls up in the Große Walsertal. All peaks are annotated.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support altrough some of those annonations, you mentioned, are up in the sky.--Snaevar (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's good but not outstanding. Lighting could be better (flat on background, dark on right side). - Benh (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh, amazing landscape but poor quality, even the person in the foreground is not sharp --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (a) there is no person in the foreground, (b) the red guy does not really needs to be sharp since the image depicts the landscape, (c) the image is pretty sharp, considering the minimum standard of 2Mpix. Please look again and reconsider. --ELEKHHT 04:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Selbstverständlich gehört der Standort der rot gekleideten Person zum Vordergrund des Bildes. Für den Gesamteindruck des Bildes spielt die Schärfe dieses Objektes zwar keine Rolle steht aber exemplarisch für die technischen Mängel. Wenn das Bild mit dieser verhältnismäßig großen Auflösung zur Verfügung gestellt wird dann muss auch diese zur Bewertung herangezogen werden. Im Übrigen ist mir dein persönlich motivierter Kommentar aufgefallen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • To me this is an image with person in foreground. Regarding (b)&(c) I expressed in numerous occasions that IMO images should be judged based on the same standard, not taking into account the camera type or submitted resolution. PS. Im Übrigen, mit der "persönlich motivierter Kommentar" liegst du ganz falsch. --ELEKHHT 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Für dich mag die Person im Hintergrund des Bildes sein, für mich gehört das zum Vordergrund. Unabhängig von dieser Kaisers-Bart-Diskussion: die technischen Mängel sind unübersehbar. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Wladyslaw --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Einstein2 (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --TFCforever (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thomas888b (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! --Aktron (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But could be improved by local adjustments (mountain background, snow in right part shadow), as suggested by Benh. I've tried something with GIMP(in the file description page)--Jebulon (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Turtle mazunte oaxaca mexico claudio giovenzana 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 15:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently born turtle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Giove - uploaded by Giove - nominated by Giove -- Giove (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Giove (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one and an intresting perspective, becouse turtles have a natural tenancy to retract their head into their shell, when they are pressured like that.--Snaevar (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible image! TFCforever (talk) 18:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality and lighting too poor. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adorable, I love it. And its such a tiny thing the overall quality seems more tolerable than if it were a full-size turtle. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Adorable, I love it, but per The High Fin Sperm Whale and not sharp enough--Miguel Bugallo 00:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral leaning support, almost irresistibly cute, but limited detail on subject and noisy. --ELEKHHT 09:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality too low. Unidentified turtle. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus --Citron (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dirty fingers and as Archaeodontosaurus. W.S. 12:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info further scaling up does not bring back quality. ;-) However, good and valuable picture! Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting poor.--Claus (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really like the photo, but There is no species identified, and the fingers seem to distract from the image. Thomas888b (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Tuscany landscape west of Siena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 21:07:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by NorbertNagel
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Seems to be technically perfect, but still, it doesn´t amaze me.--Snaevar (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Kupari - destroyed hotel Grand.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 09:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kupari, Croatia - destroyed hotel Grand
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some kind of disortion in the windows near the left edge (chromatic aberration maybe?), lack of brightness near the wooden box at the left and the column at the far right....Also, cropping that far left column would give more depth to the picture (perspectively speaking).--Snaevar (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice photo, certainly a Quality Image, but I don't see anything truly outstanding about it. --TFCforever (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To me it has "Wow", it reminds me the ruins of Detroit[1]. --Myrabella (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting compo but suffering from substantial chromatic aberration, especially in the left top area. W.S. 12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Art Tatum, Vogue Room 1948 (Gottlieb).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 17:03:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Art Tatum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by William P. Gottlieb - uploaded by Freimut Bahlo - restored and nominated by Ras67 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of Art Tatum, Vogue Room, New York, N.Y., between 1946 and 1948.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ras67 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it (perhaps I like Tatum). Too tight crop at top --Miguel Bugallo 19:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've done my best, but Gottlieb photographed this.--Ras67 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but I would like some information on that restoration on the page of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Retouched picture tag added.--Ras67 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks pretty good for its age as far as I can see from this version. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, great artist, great photographer! --Freimut Bahlo (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Freimut Bahlo. --TFCforever (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent portrait picture. — frank (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Scratches near his left hand, and dust over the lower back side of his jacket. Maybe exceptional if you know the subject, but to it doesn't strike me as amazing enough to ignore problems. 99of9 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. Old snaps also have to fulfil technical and compositional requirements. W.S. 12:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Linksfuss (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:1944 NormandyLST.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 18:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A LCVP (Landing Craft, Vehicle, Personnel) from the U.S. Coast Guard-manned USS Samuel Chase disembarks troops of the U.S. Army's First Division on the morning of June 6, 1944 (D-Day) at Omaha Beach.

Alternative[edit]

1944 NormandyLST clean.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info cleaned version and IMO better quality than the previus version.--Snaevar (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSeems strange to promote as FP a so well-known image we can find in all books about WWII, but OK, obviously. The quality is so-so because the lack of tripod, but there were mitigating circumstances :)... Oh, by the way : thanks to those guys !--Jebulon (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Another classic picture, spruced up, well done.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice improvements. Steven Walling 02:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I concur with Jebulon. Without the courageous men on that day, history would take a much dark turn. Jon C (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something went wrong in the restoration, imo. There are weird artifacts in the black areas (they look like sort of gradients). Also, I don't like intensive "shadow and highlights" (or similar) filter applied. The original has some amount of pixelation, and this version makes it even more visible. --Lošmi (talk) 02:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lošmi --George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one. The other one is way too bright on the beach area and you miss a lot of details - This one is better. -- IdLoveOne (talk)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical
The chosen alternative is: File:1944 NormandyLST clean.jpg

File:Aleuria-aurantia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:35:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aleuria-aurantia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as my other comment. Looks too much like a casual shot. - Benh (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
If you say so! Difficult to make extraordinary photos with simple mushrooms... --Citron (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Could you try cropping out the smidgeon of fungi that is already partially cut off? It's a great photo, but that little bit cut off drives me nuts, visually speaking. Either than or expand it perhaps? Steven Walling 01:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
✓ Done --Citron (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Merci! Looks much better IMO. Steven Walling 23:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality, valuable subject. Steven Walling 01:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D.O.F. could be a little deeper, but it's still great. LeavXC (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the DoF is not good enough, and the crop is too tight below IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Steven Walling. --TFCforever (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thomas888b (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Different camera angle and a bit warmer colors (editing RAW) would do the trick :-) I mean to make it something a bit more like the current pic on the Main Page. --Aktron (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors look fine, DoF not. W.S. 16:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Charlotte catherine de la Trémoille de Condé Guillain Louvre LP 400.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 04:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Claus
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Claus (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, Symbol support vote.svg Support, of course, and thanks for the kind surprise of this unexpected nomination ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sharpness and lighting, well isolated from the background, and high encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but if we feature this, then we can go along and feature all statues out there. Execution is good for sure, but no specific skills and equipment required, and this can be repeated again and again. Maybe this is a sort of rare statue ? Since I don't know I oppose. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment skill: pas de tripode ni de flash, pas si simple à main levée... Equipment: On ne doit donc distinguer que les photos prises avec du matériel de luxe ou professionnel ? Accessoirement: quel type d'image (à part les panos de nuit, bien sûr) doit-on distinguer ? (je suis l'auteur, mais j'ignorais cette proposition que je n'aurais pas faite) --Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Pas de trépied ni flash... Et ? ça ne rend pas la prise plus difficile. Il suffit de se placer correctement, de se mettre dans un mode semi automatique, et l'appareil fait à peu près tout. Ça n'est pas comme si un appareil moderne à 200-300€ n'était pas équipé de stabilisateur et avait une très bonne qualité à hautes sensibilités de nos jours. N'importe qui peut prendre ce genre de photo et le détourage ne représente aucune difficulté particulière. Une fois maîtrisé (l'affaire de qq minutes), on peut répéter avec autant de statues que comporte le musée du Louvre. Je ne distingue pas l'équipement, mais je suis certain qu'il est beaucoup plus facile de prendre ce genre de photo qu'un panorama de nuit correctement fait (exposition, netteté de l'image, éclairage, opportunité, post traitement). Je te laisse vérifier (moi c'est fait)... Je pense qu'une FP doit représenter tout de même un certain challenge. Tu n'as pas à te justifier pour la proposition. On a fait qq propositions de photos à moi que je n'aurais pas faites non plus. Je trouve qu'on est devenu un peu trop "permissif" par ici. Les critères semblent tombés assez bas. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • Ha ben je comprends mieux vos oppositions catégoriques et peu argumentées. --Citron (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Français ! ça va être plus simple. Oui j'ai un point de vu et je m'y tiens. Je trouve que j'ai la courtoisie de suffisamment argumenter (mais au bout d'un moment tu en as marre et tu abrèges un peu). Je pourrais te montrer des photos de champignons bien plus réussies d'un point de vue esthétiques, mais elles sont dans des magazines papiers. Elles sont prises avec un éclairage plus doux, peut être avec des réflecteurs sur le côté etc. Et elles font très bonne utilisation de la profondeur de champ en présentant des fonds flous, jolis, et qui détachent bien le sujet. Les photos que tout le monde peut prendre, je vote contre, sauf si ce sont des photos que tout le monde peut prendre mais qui sont jolies ou sauf si le sujet est particulièrement remarquable à mes yeux. Et j'insiste sur le fait qu'ici, la valeur encyclopédique ne prime pas, contrairement à ce que tu sembles croire. Dernière remarque, il ne faut pas se vexer pour un rien (référence à ta nomination de la photo du serpent sur FPC du wiki anglais et à toutes tes remarques en général), après tout, nous sommes là pour donner nos avis. - Benh (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
            • (Pourtant mon pseudo ne le cache pas!) Je comprends tout à fait que "mes" champignons ne te plaisent pas et qu'ils sont loin d'être parfaits. Je sais bien que le label FP se mérite, mais ces deux là ont retenu mon attention car ils restent vraiment intéressants. Je conçois que la deuxième ne soit pas parfaite techniquement et artistiquement parlant (d'ailleurs je l'ai retouché), mais la première est "jolie", alors forcément, je ne te suis plus. Je vois que tu as remarqué ma nomination foireuse, je t'avoue avoir été très surpris, je pensais qu'elle remporterait le même succès. Je ne suis pas vexé pour autant hein, mais j'aime à savoir ce qui ne va pas et si on m'avait dit que c'était la valeur encyclopédique qui primait sur En WP (je l'ignorais), j'aurais mieux compris. --Citron (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
              • Oui, les règles sont parfois longues et rébarbatives... Je rajouterai encore que d'après ce que j'ai compris, on nommerait plutôt ce type d'image (la statue, pas les champignons) dans les Quality Pictures. Pour moi ça correspond tout à fait à la description. Les champignons iraient plutôt dans les Valued Images (meilleure image d'un sujet donné). Et tu peux trouver qq chose de joli, mais pas d'autres... c'est un concept subjectif. - Benh (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
                • Pardon d'interférer, mais peut-être pourriez-vous vous étriper à propos de commentaires sur la WP anglaise, les champignons, la définition et l'usage des "QI" ou des "VI" etc etc, à des endroits plus appropriés ?... ;) --Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC) (PS Pictogram voting info.svg Info: cette photo de statue est déjà une QI...)
                  • Désolé Jebulon! --Citron (talk) 08:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Au contraire, il faut bien préciser les différences entre QI, FP et VI pour éviter de répéter ça. On fait moins de mal aux FP à débattre (quel problème au fond ?) que de promouvoir ce type d'images à mon avis. - Benh (talk) 10:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
                  • Rien compris... Éviter de répéter quoi ? Je sens bien que c'est désagréable, mais... ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Commons is basically an image repository. We are just supposed to vote on which images are highest quality, best looking the "creme of the crop".. We're supposed to judge the image, not just the subject, for which in this and many other cases the subject is not the photographer's responsibility. Nextly it's really very subjective when you start talking about which things like which statues are better or more interesting than the all the other ones in the world and everyone might have different opinions on that, which again is why it's best just to stick to stuff we all already agree on: That our judgment is supposed to be on the images themselves. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
      • You're point of view looks justified to me, but mine still stands. FP has to be special. This kind of picture is so easy to take that is has nothing special anymore. If the subject is very special, rare or whatever I would think about it, but I don't have enough knowledge to see what's so extraordinary with this one. Louvre museum has hundreds of statues like that. There's no challenge in taking a picture like that. In short, an FP has to be a challenge a little IMO. Just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
        • You and Jebulon maybe know something about that, but I'm American and have never been to France, so most of what I know about the Louvre is that the Mona Lisa is there and I have never seen this statue before. Which, since Commons is international, is why I once again remind you about subjective points. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • you are right and don't worry. On your opinion, is this picture good enough to deserve the FP status ? If yes, then support. If no, then decline, and explain shortly why... And don't follow anybody but your own taste and feeling. --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
          • Hmm, hard to say. It was taken under daylight, wasn't it? Because it seems very white and a bit bluish against the black. It's a little hard to discern how sharp it is also, but it's still pretty good... Meh, Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically good.--Snaevar (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically good and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Floating out of context. W.S. 15:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful sculpture, photographed well. --TFCforever (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. --Aktron (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Húsavík (8).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 14:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape around Husavík town in summer 2009, Iceland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose technical reasons: the clouds have only little structure and you see only white mud, further the building in the middle have strong chromatic aberation, the landscape is for sure amazing, but the composition is ordinary, nearly boring --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To Wladyslaw. I'm desagree, perhaps with all, but ¿can you say with a note where are the chromatic aberrations?, thanks--Miguel Bugallo 19:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
revenge for [2]? --Tlusťa (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
(Poor english) I don't know. Persecution? I'm not sure. Perhaps if the user does not respond with criterion… must have administrators who punished. This is a precedent, unless Wladyslaw respond with criteria. Sorry, I am not nobody--Miguel Bugallo 21:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately not a precedent, Taxiarchos228/Wladyslaw, has already been blocked on two other Wikimedia projects. --ELEKHHT 03:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
would be interesting to know what the (unjustified) blockades have to do with my opinion concerning this candidate. I was interessted why Chmee2 critizes facts but his own pictures not approach the criteria. it's a pity that Chmee2 nominates a poor quality picture I critiszed instead of anwsering my questions. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad that Tlusťa gave here link to my review. Everybody can easily see in other edits, if I answered your questions or not why yours two images are not good candidates for QI. However thank you for your vote here, but I nominated this image regardless your comments on QI page. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure. What an amazing coincidence that I mentioned this picture 15 Minutes before you nomineted it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not deny, that I realized via your link, than I do not yet try to nominate this shot from Iceland. However this was not main message from my previous comment. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tlusťa (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really like the atmosphere and the colors, but I've to agree with Taxiarchos and the image is unsharp/soft and thus the details are low. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Agree with kaʁstn, but I think that I agree with Tlusťa and there are things more important than the image, and than one image--Miguel Bugallo 21:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks kaʁstn. You can see chromatic aberrations, but the chromatic aberrations of User:Taxiarchos228 or Wladyslaw must be seen in (or "on") the building: "further the building in the middle have strong chromatic aberation". I wait for comprehensible answer: It is possible, in spite of everything.--Miguel Bugallo 23:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, kaʁstn. ¿What are you doing? ¿Are you trying to say that the world is good? To me, your notes are ridiculous--Miguel Bugallo 23:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • We must hope to Wladyslaw. He can opine--Miguel Bugallo 23:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad aerial perspective and lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Per kaʁstn and Miguel Bugallo. --TFCforever (talk) 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Vypadá to docela pěkně (barvy), ale křiví se tam horizont a působí to na mě trochu neostrý dojmem. --Aktron (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 18:08:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a little bit of humorous culture. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good techically, though I don´t get the context.--Snaevar (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mexico is a land of colors, contrasts, paradoxes, etc. Religion is a major element of Mexican culture, and so is chaos, and breaking of the rules among other things. If you study Mexican culture, you inevitably come upon the term "sincretismo", which is a term that translates into the modification and adaptation of two belief systems merged into one. This comes from the merging of two cultures, Mexican and European. In this particular case, one side of the image promotes drinking, smoking and whatever behaviour is associated with alchohol and tobacco, being carried out by a monkey, which in turn personifies among other things reckless or funny human behaviour, and the other part of the image depicts religious figures, the Virgin of Guadalupe, a powerful icon in Mexico´s religion, venerated before God! who in turn represents whatever religious values represent, but associated with opposite values of the monkey... Anyway, so we have monkey, drinking, smoking on one side, then we have the Virgin and other religious icons on the other, and then we have the consumer-like merchandising of the icon, and on top of that we have the colorful artistic expressions of the icons. If anything, this picture is just a very, very small window into cultural practices. That is the context. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you mean Native American and European? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The colors are excellent! --TFCforever (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and Bravo for explanation --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ethnologically interesting, well executed and funny. But my best reason is : I like it.--Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technical quality, high educational value, and funny too. Steven Walling 20:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Mycale laxissima (Strawberry Vase Sponge).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 14:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mycale laxissima (Strawberry Vase Sponge)
These are not worms, these are Brittle star. I am unable to identify them accurately. =) --Citron (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Schnobby (talk) 08:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 00:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Quito calle García Moreno.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 21:05:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Street in Quito, Ecuador
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe --Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Street in the historic centre of Quito, capital of Ecuador. Altitude: 2,850 m. Quito is a UNESCO-World Cultural Heritage Site since 1978.
From en:Wikiepdia: According to UNESCO, Quito has the largest, best-preserved, and least-altered historic centre (320 hectares) in Latin America
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. This image provides lots of information, such as type of building materials, architecture, installations, topography, etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one, even though the pole at the right is a bit distracting.--Snaevar (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition, and excellent encyclopedic value. --ELEKHHT 03:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall it's pretty good quality-wise and so is the background I almost want to support, but I don't like the dark alley foreground. Could you have maybe photoed when the Sun was higher in the sky? The sky seems strange, too, like darker and not white and blue where it should be. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky is blown. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this one beautiful, and believe the sky and dark areas are results of playing with curves to compensate for short dynamic range from camera (although a D700 !). However this was done, it was in an enough pleasant way to me. Very nice composition. - Benh (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great composition, but the lighting/exposure seem off. Steven Walling 06:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHION (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --Bgag (talk) 21:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Claus (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done --LeavXC (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellente! Royalbroil 02:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brilliant! --TFCforever (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well perhaps it is a bit pale picture, but the composition and contrast level makes it great! --Aktron (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the colours, the hill, the long street, and the architecture, but the wires upper left (and perhaps the satellite dish) spoil it for me. A shot from a few metres further down the road could have been much better IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iadrian yu (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:The confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 19:52:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

he confluence of the Sava into the Danube at Belgrade. Pictured from Kalemegdan.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lošmi - uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 19:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mile (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing extraordinary here (composition, place, execution). A quality shot, but not FP in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh: clearly a Quality Image, but lacking anything truly extraordinary. --TFCforever (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obviously a nice shot, but I think the angle of the camera makes it a bit problematic → there are large parts of the photo underexposed (forests around both rivers) and overexposed (clouds). When the sun is much lower on the horizont and Novi Beograd is already lit by some lamps, that would make a great shot! --Aktron (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the nom and the comments. I took pictures with an old camera that my friend had with him. A scene looked very good in the real life, so I tried to capture the moment. Not so successfully I guess :) And thanks for a tip. Maybe I'll try that next time. --Lošmi (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. This is the symbol of Belgrade, therefore it is notable. Iadrian yu (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 22:15:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe.

UDFj-39546284, Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. 1-26-2011.

Astronomers have pushed NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years.

Hubble Finds Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe. Astronomers pushed Hubble to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder.

The farthest and one of the very earliest galaxies ever seen in the universe appears as a faint red blob in this ultra-deep–field exposure taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. This is the deepest infrared image taken of the universe. Based on the object's color, astronomers believe it is 13.2 billion light-years away.

The most distant objects in the universe appear extremely red because their light is stretched to longer, redder wavelengths by the expansion of the universe.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field infrared exposures were taken in 2009 and 2010, and required a total of 111 orbits or 8 days of observing. The new Wide Field Camera 3 has the sharpness and near-infrared light sensitivity that matches the Advanced Camera for Surveys' optical images and allows for such a faint object to be selected from the thousands of other galaxies in the incredibly deep images of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field.

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Very cool! What is the lower right b/w suppose to indicate? Jon C (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Can you please explain what the lower right image is? I see no connection between that one and the other images. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
    • It is a grey-scale close-up of UDFj-39546284 (see [3], or around 0:32-0:34 into this video). The montage does indicate that this is a close-up view of the image above it, but I'd agree that the change from colour to grey-scale is confusing. --Avenue (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral That's very interesting trivia, this might be good for 'Did you know?'s, but this, like most astronomical imagery, isn't really amazing quality-wise. I almost want to support it because it might be a good Picture of the Day... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Per IdLoveOne: interesting and useful image, but the quality leaves a bit to be desired. --TFCforever (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Scientifically splendid, encyclopedic woithout any doubts, but it's quality and design (rather "paperish" style - like from some publication) don't make me moved. For me it just looks like one of the zillion images from scientific journals. Masur (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think inserted (or montaged) pictures are frowned upon on FP. The big picture along with an annonation would tell the whole story.--Snaevar (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Hugh Hefner Glamourcon 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 15:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Playboy founder Hugh Hefner at the Glamourcon 2010 convention
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Toglenn - uploaded by Toglenn - nominated by User:Tabercil -- Tabercil (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tabercil (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor background. W.S. 16:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Grainy background, along with some noise spots on his hat.--Snaevar (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The background behind this ODB could probably just be made basic black. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 11:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Bürstegg 2011-01-30.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 21:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bürstegg bei Warth
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alex.vonbun - uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info At the foot of Warther Karhorn 2.416m in Lechquellengebirge is the oldest and highest (1.719m) Walsersiedlung in Vorarlberg. The church, built in 1695 dedicated to St. Martin. Until the late 19th Century, the settlement was inhabited throughout the year. After most of the houses were demolished.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wahaa, reminds me soo well my last winter trip to the Alps... Very nice ! - Benh (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I still support, but isn't the pic a tad underexposed ? We're looking at snow after all... should be bit brighter than that. - Benh (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this image needs enhancement.. the color of the snow is grey, not white.. and the overall image in underexposed. Ggia (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The blown sun is a bit annoying, but I guess it's unavoidable in this location. Valuable subject, good panorama. Steven Walling 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Underexposed. --LeavXC (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. W.S. 10:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much filter ? Too dark anyway, the snow looks grey. --Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. A bit brighter picture would make the trick. I know it is hard to make nice shots in a snow covered countryside, but FP nomination requires perfection. --Aktron (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Bürstegg 2011-01-30 edit.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC) viel besser, Schnee ist nun weiss und das Licht stimmt nun auch
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The whitest snow I can find has R:180G:183B:188, and that is definitely not white. Even the sun, which should blow out anyhow, has R:250G:252B:251. So still (much) too dark. W.S. 10:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive winter and mountain picture where the snow is light blue (like in reality) --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! --TFCforever (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better, but still too dark IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Changed the latter nomination to an alternative, since it didn´t have it´s own nomination page, the picture is of the same subject as the first one and without it Bohringer would have 3 active nominations. Additionally, Bohringer´s support vote hints that the latter picture should have been an alternative.--Snaevar (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because the overall composition is good. But the image needs more light.. but this can be enhanced.. it is not a fatal flaw to vote oppose. Ggia (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative by User:Ggia[edit]

Bürstegg 2011-01-30 edit ggia.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I propose this version.. you can upload/update if you like your original file.. Look to the levers of you image and you will see a gap between toward the edges (of the histogram). I reconfigured the levels, I applied some mask in the snow.. and I think that this image is enhanced and worth for supporting it. Ggia (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one. I think Ggia did a good job.--Jebulon (talk) 00:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe the next edit can remove the noise and the patchiness in the sky? W.S. 13:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it will more kind for the community to try to do it yourself. Why don't you try to edit this image yourself? Ggia 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment W.S. please do not remove my comment [4].. This image is not mine but I tried to improve it and I proposed as an alternative.. Why don't you try to upload a new version with corrected these technical flows? Here in commons and FPC we are trying also to help other photographers with kind comments.. If you find my comment as a attack please go and give a notice to the community. Thanks.. Ggia (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The comment was not removed by W.S (Wetenschatje), but by Walter Sigmund, if I'm not wrong...--Jebulon (talk) 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
T'as tort. The comment was removed per Walter Sigmund by W.S. - W.S. 15:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. Sorry. Good lesson to me : Never care about things I'm not concerned. For me, rule hard to enforce, as one can see sometimes :)--Jebulon (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It is not polite to remove others comments. If you find it "tort", report it to the community.. do not remove it. There is a discussion [5] about that in the commons FPC talk page.I left you a message in your talk page in case you want to participate in this discussion. Ggia (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --alex.vonbun (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iadrian yu (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Still want to know what that strange yellow spot is, but this is the nicest-looking of the bunch. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Vote is late. W.S. 08:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /W.S. 08:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel - Bryce Canyon National Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Callospermophilus lateralis
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by LeavXC - uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LeavXC (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hairs on the squirrel´s back are lacking focus.--Snaevar (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful composition. Steven Walling 06:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice diagonal, but this is a bit on the soft side and I don't like neither the pose nor the fact that so much of the subject is hidden. It looks a bit like a lucky shot. - Benh (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the DoF is not good enough: the nose is out of focus. W.S. 10:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done! --TFCforever (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Photo. --Thomas888b (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes! Nice one. Good composition and colors. --Aktron (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many gray areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • - Are you referring to the imperfections in the rock? LeavXC (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would be proud to have taken this photo, but I don't think the animal posed quite well enough to make it to FP. I also agree with some others about the depth of field.--99of9 (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support considering that close view limits the depth of field. Ggia (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little more off-center than I would like, but it's good. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Harpago chiragra 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 17:08:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Chiragra Spider Conch; Length 19 cm; Originating from Samar, Eastern Visayas, Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks oversaturated to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, this are the natural colours of this specimen. For colour variation in Strombidae see e.g. [6],[7], especially this species [8] and on the other hand very pale ones like [9]. It can vary from very intensive colours to very pale. --Llez (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support. It's just that the colours looked so bright and vivid. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Snaevar (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --Citron (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Again, why not providing six views ? I'm a bit concerned with overall quality. Seems it could be more detailed. Why using f/25 ? And I don't like the direct harsh flash lighting. Subsidiarily, are we going to feature all the shells out there ? - Benh (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Six are not necessary. In the lower row, you have the back and the front view. The lateral view is identical with the lateral view in the upper row, only inclined on 90 degrees. Why do you insist on two identical pictures, only differentiating in the angle of presentation? BTW, if it is necessary to show more views, I do so, see [10]. --Llez (talk) 06:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Because I believe (naive thinking maybe) that six is the minimum to have a comprehensive view of the subject, which I think is the goal of such images. Thank you for the answer... but I still oppose :) (because of the other points I raised, but that won't change anything). - Benh (talk) 08:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't understand your answer to Ben's question. Where is the image from the exact opposite side of the shell compared to the central image in the top row? That is not equivalent to any of the ones you've presented. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, because you're understating that the missing view can be deduced from that central lateral view. Which is wrong because the shell doesn't show any symetry to me (unless I've really missed something...). - Benh (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This five views show all characters, which are necessary for identifying the species: The form, colour and structure of the shell, the decline of the aperture, the (possible) different structure and colour of the ventral side, the aperture itself, the apex anf the siphonal region. The sixth view you want to see, gives no further information. That’s the reason why. But please let me know, why you insist on six views only in my pictures?
    There are several featured pictures of shells, which show only one or two views ([11], [12] ,[13], [14], [15], and so on). Can you please explain me, why you didn't oppose in this cases? I was the first, who showed more, and you oppose. Are two better than five? And why only in shells? Are gastropods the only animals, which have several aspects? I've never seen opposing a FPC of a bird with the the argument, that one can not see the backside, the ventral side, the left and right side, the front and the anus at the same picture. Birds look somewhat different, too, regarded from a different view. I wonder, if these animals [16], which were nominated by you, look identical if seen from backside. But not only animals. What about churches [17], lakes, mountains? Do you want always have six views, before become featured? Then we will have really little candidates in future. --Llez (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I haven't looked at all examples, but I didn't support either I think. I'm not always wandering on FPC, some time, I'm away for a while. I may have opposed. I'm OK to feature 1, 2, 3 shells... but so many of them, I become bored. Then they must feature something a bit special. And you're kidding right ?? Animal aren't as simple to shoot as still shells... the picture is also much more beautiful IMO. Same applies to landscapes, which aren't as simple to take as one might think, and can't always be repeated. I mainly vote based on photographic skills. If you intend to be encyclopedical, do it right (or see en:FPC, de:FPC etc.). If you can't justify the missing view, I oppose. I still think u need at least 6 on most objects. And anyhow I have others reason, as already given. If you shoot still objects, you should at least do it right (better then using direct flash light, choosing better aperture... I don't think f/25 is suitable choice, but if you think the contrary, I'm open to discussion, which doesn't seem to be the case by your side since you always skip the questions). - Benh (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I really don't understand the suggestion of seeing en:FPC or de:FPC... Here is "Commons", not WP.--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm meaning that if the encyclopedical value prevails here, then it seems to me that the FPC of Wikipedias (in most langs but french) should be more suitable place. - Benh (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand the words, but I don't understand the assertion above . In my opinion (I read the guidelines like others...), this is wrong, or a misinterpretation, and I strongly disagree (as one can see). Commons is not a place for "only" photographical beauty contests (many other sites for that). But here is not the place for such a discussion. The question is (again): what is feature-able ?--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, not everyone read the guidelines... as already seen on the nomination of your image below. And if you have already read the complete guideline, then I'll just recall you that high technical merit is important component of an FP, as well as wow factor. This picture has none of them. And sorry to say, but neither does yours. It's well done, but anyone could do the same. - Benh (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Anyone could do the same", but I feel really alone sometimes with my "inside" pictures... Anyway, I give up... Some reviewers seems suffering very hard here and it is a pity. I don't understand why they stay if it is so painful to stand those poor pictures... Something funny : if they oppose, their vote is immediately followed by two or three support votes... I don't really know why and it is unfair: they are so sure to hold the Truth...--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I get Benh's point, but not quite. I've wondered about the choice of 5 and whether a simple back and front shot combo wouldn't accomplish the same basic educational effect, but whatever. That's Llez's signature style (Benh, did you bother going to Llez's user page? Though Llez has done 6, 4, even 8 angle before). I could see a 6th angle for the side the opposes the furthermost point of the "lip," whatever the proper scientific term is, but the 5 angles I think usually works because Llez tends to arraign them nicely, but to each his own.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful and useful--Miguel Bugallo 00:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good, but colours are a bit too harsh. Even though the shell has high saturation, try to make it a little less 'jump' towards the viewer. And no, you don't need six views in order to get a good comprehension; if comprehension is the argument, then you talk about reference, and reference books usually only use one or two views. The rest is extra. Besides that, the arguments used for featured pictures are of a totally different nature.MerlinCharon (talk) 15:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Intensity a little reduced --Llez (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Landmannalaugar in summer 2009 (13).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 12:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape around Landmannalaugar region in summer 2009, Iceland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the sharpness isn´t high enough at the grass between the mountain range and the lake. And oh, I might just as well tell that those three dimmensional-white spots are hay-rolls, just so no-one gets the impression like they are something else. Just saying.--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Changing to Symbol support vote.svg Support--Snaevar (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness could be better, but still good enough to be an FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me it's not QI: the sharpness isn´t high enough--Miguel Bugallo 00:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I supported its nomination to QI. I agree that the sharpness could be better, in my opinion it is in an acceptable level. I wouldn't oppose to the nomination because of this factor, it is a minor error which could be easily fixed. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. ---donald- (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is really a beautiful landscape, but Aaargh that river on foreground really kills it all to me... I'd have framed otherwise... or moved a bit around until I possibly find better spot (you probably tried...). A bit soft as well. - Benh (talk) 19:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Per others regarding sharpness, but still a borderline FP in my opinion. --TFCforever (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Thomas888b (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sry, but I think it's a bit unsharp. On the other side, this picture is a real beauty :-) I mean colors. --Aktron (talk) 14:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Bugallo W.S. 14:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tlusťa (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support very artistic! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Opal Pool YNP2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 04:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Opal Pool at the Midway Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park
There was no color enhancement in this image; the raw image is virtually identical, with no in-camera enhancement either, and I dislike enhanced images as much as you do. The bacterial mats and water at Grand Prismatic Spring and its neighboring pools like Opal really look like this. Acroterion (talk) 03:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok, sorry, but noisy--Miguel Bugallo 18:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A great shot that demonstrates the extremely bright coloration in these pools. I've been to the Yellowstone geyser basins. This isn't extreme color processing. I remember pools with brighter colors all over the color spectrum within the same pool, such as the Grand Prismatic Spring. Royalbroil 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Great photo! Thomas888b (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per RoyalBroil. --Snaevar (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)... transferring my support to the alternative image below. --Cayambe (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just to make it clear that the alternative is better. Just look at the noise in this one people. --99of9 (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Opal Pool YNP2 filtered noise.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know I can't vote, but that doesn't mean I should abstain of commenting. I really liked the image, although I agree with Carschten that the image is quite noisy. Therefore I retouched it, my noised filtered version is this one.--Gaendalf (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. I'll get in touch with you about your methods, as I'm aware that my camera has a noisy sensor and have had some difficulty in dealing with it. Acroterion (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The noise reduction job looks like it was done well (why wouldn't you shoot at ISO100 in the first place??). Nice scene, I think the cloud formation adds that special something to the great colours. --99of9 (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning! --TFCforever (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per my other vote on the original image - Benh (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well framed, high composition and clear illustration of the features.--MONGO (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In preference to my original upload. Acroterion (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done. Ggia (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena
The chosen alternative is: File:Opal Pool YNP2 filtered noise.jpg

File:Raphia farinifera MHNT.BOT.2007.26.50.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 06:56:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fruit of Raphia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A QI maybe, but no wow factor at all, plus use of direct harsh flash lighting (it seems). On a personal side I'm also getting tired of all these museum or personal collection shots. They certainly are useful, but I'm not sure they are this featurable on Commons. - Benh (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thomas888b (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Personally I do not like panoramas, but I've never voted negatively because this argument is personal to me. We are fortunate to have museums that have opened their collections, because we get up here things that do not often see. This cluster of raffia palm fruit, it is possible that you did ever seen before, has historical value. It is particularly well preserved so that the fruits have retained their brilliance although it did over a century. There is not a flash but three with attenuators. I will continue not to vote negatively and panoramas, to make you see the interiors of museums. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sure. Notice I don't oppose based only on the fact that I'm bored. Just this makes me more picky on my assessments. Your only justification is that the object itself has value. I never thought otherwise. But from a pure photographic point of view; I'm not impressed (I still maintain the lighting is harsh and flat despite the three attenuated light sources. And why these context removal around objects ? Cheap and easy way to hide bad looking shadow ?). I prefer lighting on the following scenes, here or here or here. Hence my opposes. I'd see FPC on the wikipedias themselves to emphasize the encyclopedic value. Let met add that contrary to some, I don't restrain myself from giving my full opinion on something. If I don't like something, I say so. Otherwise, I would consider starting political career. Is it a shame to oppose ? - Benh (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Vos goûts artistiques sont effectivement très personnels. Je reste donc les musées, où je suis sûr de ne pas vous rencontrer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Remarque facile... (quoi que vu le temps qu'elle a mis à venir, ça ne semblait pas si facile pour vous) mais fausse (au vu des autres avis, ça n'est pas si personnel) et vraiment hors contexte. Je suis peut être direct dans mes propos, mais au moins ça tourne toujours autour de la photo même. Je ne vise pas gratuitement les contributeurs mêmes. Même si je dois dénoncer certaines choses. Si seulement ça pouvait être votre cas... Si vous insistez, vous pouvez rester (dans) les musées où vous ne risquez effectivement pas de me croiser souvent. Moi je préfère prendre l'air. Dommage, en dehors de ça, vos contributions me semblent plutôt faire du bien à Wikipédia en général. - Benh (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose full ack. Benh. I know, you can take better photos! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh (except not tired...) Royalbroil 15:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good quality, just a shame there are so many wite dust spots.--Snaevar (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion, such pictures increase very much the level of FPC (which was not so good some months or years ago), and "we" (is it a we ??) need more. But my reasons for support are due to the qualities of this one I think is good. It is not a shame to support neither. --Jebulon (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not turned off by the light reflections as they seem pretty minor to me and the white spots appear to me (correct me if I'm wrong) to just be part of the cones, as I notice none of them appear on the leaves. A bit skeptical of the gradient background choice, though.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! What a masking job. --Llez (talk) 07:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ouch. what happened to nature? Very much per Benh. W.S. 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good evening Mr W.S. can not say that you are not predictable. The only thing that surprises me is you see your first picture. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeGood, but direct harsh flash lighting--Citron (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Okay: I'd effort for flash --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Hexaplex erythrostomus 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2011 at 17:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Hexaplex erythrostomus, Muricidae, Pink Mouthed Murex; Length 9,5 cm; Originating from the East Pacific.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy (surprisingly for a ISO 100 shot), unsharp, lighting (whom pattern reflections can be seen of top left view), and missing the sixth view. If you insist on providing 5 views, you shouldn't use 90° steps between the shots. - Benh (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh.--Snaevar (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good.. continue uploading such educational images.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Snaevar, but agree with the second part of Ggia's comment. W.S. 15:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Junquillal beach gaendalf 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2011 at 23:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The vast ocean... Photoghraph of the sea and its activity taken at a tropical beach in Costa Rica.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gaendalf - uploaded by Gaendalf - nominated by Gaendalf -- Gaendalf (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gaendalf (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the composition is a bit dull, and the rocks in the foreground look badly posterized. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my humble opinion, the picture's composition is according with the Rule of Thirds, what makes it special is the figure produced by the waves crashing against the rocks and the time of the day at which it was shot with the moon in the sky and a nice natural colors. --Gaendalf (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per THFSW, oil painting look, and overall very poor quality. What kind of NR or artistic filter was applied ?? Composition not to my tastes with too much room given to the sky (subjective issue, not my main raison for opposing). - Benh (talk) 12:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Polarizing filter at dawn and at the specific degree of rotation of the filter creates this looks. --Gaendalf (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I was talking about the digital filter you applied with image manipulation soft ;) The bottom part has more color blotches (sorry for the poor english) than details (Noise Reduction ?) - Benh (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think I get what you are referring to. And you're right about it, this color "blotches" or posterization of the bottom section of the image was probably caused by an inappropriate tunning of both sharpness and noise reduction. Any filter was applied. I incorrectly manipulated this parameters in posprocessing. --Gaendalf (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definitely a Quality Image, but it is just not outstanding enough to be an FP, in my opinion. --TFCforever (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition - too much sky, to few of that thing on the bottom, sry. --Aktron (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Remember the Rule of Thirds, there are almost 2/3 of sky and 1/3 of sea. IMO there's no composition problem, having 1/2 and 1/2 would make the picture boring and having more sea than land would imply to lose the moon in the composition. --Gaendalf (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Because I want to crop it, frame it and put it in my bathroom. =) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good mirror symetry and sky-reflection in the sea.--Snaevar (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is not well balanced.. too much sky. Ggia (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The moon wouldn't appropriately fit in the picture if there wasn't so much sky. It maintains the Rule of Thirds: 1/3 of sea and 2/3 of sky. --Gaendalf (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks closer to 1/2. The Moon is so minor in this. What about cropping the image down to 2/3 sea 1/3 sky? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 23:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ruby Beach

- nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural colors.--Snaevar (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
    • ...Where? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
      • As far as I can see, everywhere. Mainly in the yellowish-ocean and least in the sky.--Snaevar (talk) 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
        • This is a tide pool, not a postcard from the Caribbean. In my experience water doesn't usually look blue unless maybe it's reflecting the sky on a bright day and usually shallow or pretty deep in that case, you're underneath it or it's unusually clean. Otherwise water tends to be somewhat clear, thus a rocky, sandy environment could make the water appear brownish or takes on some colorings of minerals in it. This is the Pacific in this picture, but it looks like many beaches I've been to on the Atlantic. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
          • I´ve been to several beaches on the Atlantic too, so I get your point. I´m going to discard my vote now, and get back to this picture later.--Snaevar (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice photograph, but I don't think there is anything exceptional about it. It might make a good Quality Image, though. --TFCforever (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - small illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Mespilus flower.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2011 at 21:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Focussed Mespilus flower.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Christoph Ahlhaus IMG 3175 edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 19:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Christoph Ahlhaus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by PETER WEIS TALK 19:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Framing seems too tight for a portrait. --JovianEye (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jovianeye, plus the right ear seems still a bit unsharp, despite the restoration.--Snaevar (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Snaevar and JovianEye, and I also object on the grounds of the subject. I am strongly against nominating current politicians for FP, as they are seldom of enduring interest. Jon C (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with the opinion above. This man is not only a politician (it is not a shame to be one), but the highest representative of one of the most important cities in Europe. Therefore his photo can be nominated IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
      • "This man is not only a politician (it is not a shame to be one)..." "YES IT IS." -Almost every American ever -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Somewhat weak support I don't know who he is (and his English article is lacking), but he's not very photogenic for this type of shot. Still I like the background, the quality's pretty good, but my favorite detail is the droplets on his glasses that make me wonder what was going on at the moment, is it raining.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Carcasssonne vieux pont.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 12:02:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A panoramic view of Carcasssonne
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jplavoie - uploaded by Jplavoie - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obviously... - Benh (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great job of planning out this shot! Royalbroil 13:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sry, but somehow I don't like that overexposed places... I mean not because they are overexposed, but they are grey instead of white. --Aktron (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed walls. --Mile (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Allright...but how much does such a little residence cost? Still affordable? Yes, I mean the house on the far right...MerlinCharon (talk) 16:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mile.--Snaevar (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Spectacular combo of shots, but the perspective of the bridge at right is very disturbing to my eyes because it looks strongly wrong. Is the expression "parallax error" good in this case ? Could be good if the bridge were alone in the picture, but it looks unnatural and deformed, near the city at left. Then, because of this, the composition is not good between "foreground" (bridge) and "background" (city walls) in my opinion. Not a fan of the colors, exposition and contrasts. Sorry for my bad english, I'm not sure I explain very well what I feel. This picture is (was :2005) too ambitious maybe.--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Obvious stitching errors, per Jebulon. Nice lighting (though the castle looks hellish), but too strange. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Eeerh, sigh... Could one of you actually show where the obvious stitching errors are (you mention several ones) ? I see one, but not as obvious as that, and I believe I'm a trained eye... It's not even sure you were talking about the same. To me the bridge looks like that. I've been there. No parallax issue here. Some overexposed parts but that really can't be avoided here given the circumstances... - Benh (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand "Eeerh, sigh...". I've been there too. Perspective could be good if the bridge were alone (if you isolate it, point de fuite centré au milieu du pont), and I personally didn't talk about "obvious stitching errors", that's not exactly what I mean. I just say that, if I were in this place, I couldn't see this as it is shown.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Sigh = soupir. No u didn't mention stitching issue directly, but mentioned parallax. Then you'll have to explain more clearly in which way the perspecive doesn't look good... Because I really don't get you here. The slopes at each end of the bridges aren't parallax, perspective or stitching issue. They are... just slopes. Please be more careful when reviewing images and look deeper into your memories. Image googling or Google street view can help... In any way, if none of you can justify, you should consider revising your opinions. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, and not convinced. Even if the bridge is slightly curved in real (I know it is), I think the perspective is wrong. I'm very able to admit when I mistake, and I revise my opinions many times. Furthermore nobody is well founded to explain me how I have to review, or patronizing with me or trying to provide me lessons. No need to be contemptuous or giving me orders. Here is the place for public comments about pictures, not for binary controversies about comments of others. I've got a PDD for direct discussions with other reviewers if needed.--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this panorama is messed up. The bridge seems distorted and improbable, the perspective doesn't seem to be a smooth curve but seems to be broken in three or four (compare with something like one of these). I found one ghost I noted on the image itself since the annote thing seems broken for this one. Since the bridge is the main subject with the castle the secondary, if the bridge is messed up... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow... what can I say ? Why is the bridge broken in three parts on the picture ? Oooh maybe because it is in reality ! Please check by urself. Image googling, street view or whatever, and eventually revise ur review. U may oppose, but please do so based on true facts. Your comparison has no sense at all. On the other picture, FOV is far wider, hence the pronounced distortion. The curve may also depend on the projection used. A straight line may not be curved at all on rectilinear projection. And one ghost... do you actually take night photos of touristy places ? Please try and you should realise how empty of meaning your remark is. It's already very nice there's so few ghosts. You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about. - Benh (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, so you live under this bridge then? I still don't like the ghost man and tree. I see them as subtractive of quality and as nasty, unrealistic, unfeatureable and non-artistic image screw ups that might've been more understandable a long time ago even if this bridge is lop-sided by design or then-current architectural restraints, and no panorama can do justice to such an apparently flawed structure. Such an irregular design looks so much like a messed up stitch, so maybe if you knew something about what can go wrong with panoramas you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Furthermore this image is not "tourist-y" in the sense that there's practically no one in it and if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines, which I don't see in this nomination, the buildings on the right even seem slightly tilted, but since this is roughly what the actual bridge looks like I'm switching my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, even though I don't think this image or this type of image is best to showcase this type of structure and anything more than a thumbnail version of this image looks God-awful. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Really don't get it here. But at least you recognized your error, unlike some. The fact you don't like the structure is completely different matter, but photographer can't do anything about that. And I think you really got my point here : you would've understood and known why two frequent Commons FPC voters could have such an opinion. Yes that's how far FPC has gone... such reviewers which such non sense reviews. Where did I say that the image is touristy ? didn't I mention the place ? And where in the world if it were rectilinear I should expect to see some parallel lines ??? I'd like to know more about that. Could you develop ? Being frequent reviewer doesn't automatically qualify you as good photographer it seems. You and Jebulon please try to take such pictures, just by curiosity. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You should restrain yourself from reviewing a subject you apparently don't know much about.. I think this kind of quote is very interesting (it means something like shut up), but dangerous like a boomerang...--Jebulon (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Trolling is as trolling does. Benh has basically been firmly rebutted a bunch of times just last week, but... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Same applies to you Jebulon (restraining from reviewing)... Seeing perspective issues where there isn't. I just mention facts contrary to you (did you give me more details about why the perspective is strange ? No, hmmm curious how some of you avoid factual answers over here...). Anyone searching a little sees that the picture is faithful to reality. But oh well... - Benh (talk) 06:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem for me to admit that I'm not able (as yet, maybe) to take such pictures, indeed. And ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • How about admitting when you're giving wrong review, and mistook architecture features when perspective issue (which you still haven't justified...) ? - Benh (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I said it before and I'll say it again: I don't believe this perspective is a good idea for this bridge. A snap shot would've probably been more believable to the eye. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unnatural colors (ie. sky) and a lot of overexposed, underexposed areas. Ggia (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Toronto - ON - Schaft des CN Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 15:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tyndall effect on CN Tower, Toronto
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wladyslaw - uploaded by Wladyslaw - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very educative demonstration of a rare optical effect, combined with an esthetic visualization. Composition could be a bit less centered, though. If only all illustrations in school-books were like that! --Nikopol (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Nikopol. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much posterisation IMO; the concentric bands around the sun are a bit too obtrusive. The description also attributes the atmospheric effect here to w:Tyndall scattering, but I would have thought simple reflection was more likely, since I don't see any real difference in colour (just brightness). --Avenue (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting and quality's fair, but the angle doesn't show off the building much. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • the intention of this picture was not to show the structure of CN Tower, for this I had shot a number of other pictures --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, it shows that the building is clearly tall and there's a circular structure on it, but IMO it's kind of hard to get a gauge for the uniqueness of the building since from this angle you can't see much. I guess that's a passive way of saying something more straight-on that shows a side of a really tall building seems better to me in most cases. It's interesting in that it shows a shadow of the building, but there's also so much dead space.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As a said: the building itselfe (here: the CN Tower) is only a derivative aspect of this picture. Therefore there is no need to show the architecture in a way you would surly do if you want to show the structure. The physical phenomenon was my first intention. On the other side this interessting and non common view straigt up shows as a beautiful graduation of blue tones; and this is in my view not dead space; on the contrary: it needs space. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Nikopol. Jon C (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to clarify although it is definitely Tyndall effect, but it is not rare. It is yet another image of a w:crepuscular rays, which all are shadows that arise through the Tyndall effect.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree that the shadow visible here is (the opposite of) crepuscular rays. But crepuscular rays do not have to arise through Tyndall scattering, e.g. when they are cast through steam or fog with droplets larger than the wavelength of light. Getting back to this image, it is at least not a good example of the Tyndall effect, because there is no overt colour change. And I am still not even convinced that it is due to Tyndall scattering, which by definition is caused by particles similar in size to the wavelength of light. Why do you think the responsible particles here are of this size? --Avenue (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice phenomenon but composition issue. I'd have used diagonal better, and set the top of the tower to the center of the frame, or using the rule of third thing - Benh (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much posterisation W.S. 14:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Grave of Auguste Rubin.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2011 at 23:27:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aschaf (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like colors and composition. --Mile (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily overexpossed parts, even in the main subject. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Berthold Werner. --Cayambe (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Clearly heavily overexposed, no doubt about that. Lack of DOF is also elsewhere than on the gravestone and the angel. A canditate for FPX in my opinion.--Snaevar (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg  I withdraw my nomination.--Paris 16 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

File:Parablenius pilicornis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 04:46:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ringneck blenny
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Lophiuspiscatorius - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iadrian yu (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Whatsamatter, Commons? Not in the mood for some fish? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO, this is a strange composition for a photo of fish. The fish don't moving, the sharpness could be better. --Citron (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't quite get the comment, but I think this fish is incredibly sharp and if nothing it's either a very lucky shot that the fish didn't swim away. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps (talk) 01:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Image:Hoh Rain Forest, Olympic National Park, Washington State, 1992.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2011 at 22:19:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hoh Rain Forest
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as a native Washingtonian. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral leaning to support: very nice and useful (to me: this kind of landscape is unknown in Europe, I think), but clear parts look overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality so-so (but maybe good for 1992), a lot of heavy blown out and overexposed parts, composition not featured to me (e.g. tight crop at bottom, would be nice to see more at the right, top, left, ...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barely above requirements in size, some overexposed part and tight framing of the tree at the bottom. The footpath is a "natural environment" killer IMO. - Benh (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh and kaʁstn. W.S. 16:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has many overexposed parts -- Marmoulak (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Could you justify your oppose as courtesy to nominator ? - Benh (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kinda like it, conflicted about the trail though. On one hand it makes me think this isn't natural, then I feel like it's a generic shot anyone could've taken. But I like the quality, this is framed well, the lighting is very good and it's a good tourist-y shot that kind of makes you feel like going on a hike IMO lol. I think it would be better if cropped on the left so the eye would be drawn toward the path instead of the tree, because looking at it now you look at the tree, then the path and it makes your spirit sink a little because you go from "Wow! What a wild, old tree!" to "Oh, a clearly man-made walkway. This setting must therefore be in some kind of park or botanic garden; Now I feel like the whole scenery could be imitation". At least if it were cropped my theory is that more emphasis on the trail changes the mood of this image to wonder of what is up ahead. One idea of mine (I would've liked to crop it more but it's below 2MP then). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) (here's the other one 'til the links get fixed.) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice film quality colors. Ggia (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Dislike the composition and the overexposed areas are intolerable. But has a big illustrative value. --Gaendalf (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Erie PA Panorama c1912 LOC 6a14402u.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2011 at 14:25:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic photo of Erie, Pa., c1912.