Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2011

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

Contents

File:Head of Nectanebo II-MBA Lyon H1701-IMG 0204.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:53:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of Nectanebo II
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Head of Nectanebo II, last indigenous ruler of pharaonic Egypt. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality is good, but I find the crop too tight. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    Good point. I've loosened it a bit, but it's going to be a bit of time before the thumbnail servers catch up, I fear. Rama (talk) 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    With looser crop I can support. And I don't think all our FPs need to scream "look at me". --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't see what makes this an good image. (QI maybe, but definitely not belong our best pictures) -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good but not sufficiently eyecatching to make this an FP for me. --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with others above. --Tomer T (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kleiner Fuchs bei der Eiablage.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 20:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kleiner Fuchs bei der Eiablage
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Small Tortoiseshell during oviposition, all -- Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a good catch, and to see the moment of oviposition is refreshing as compared to standard "butterfly doing nothing but looking pretty" photos. But the butterfly looks odd as if it has been oversharpened? Not too thrilled about how the leaf partially obstructs the view to the animal either. Overall, not quite on par with an FP macro IMO, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground leaf is hogging the shot. The main subject is cut in half. Otherwise great focus on the head. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:58:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canary Islands Large White
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Quartl (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 08:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Despite the cropping, I still think there is too much empty space on the left. I'm also struggling with the DOF, which I think is a little too close to use, and it looks like the blur just begins where the eye is at. The right antenna looks great, but that shouldn't be drawing my attention. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • According to your suggestion, I slightly cropped the image a bit more. Unfortunately, there's nothin I can do about the DOF, though. --Quartl (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mmm, I think it helps. I'm having a difficult time with the image caching issue, so at the moment I can't really see the image in full size. But did you tweak the colors? They look really dark now. The colors were fine the way they were when I commented earlier. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's difficult to tell, but looking at the thumbnails, it almost seems like the image is getting darker/more saturated with each upload. Is this intentional? I can't compare the images (I can't see a damned thing) because of the caching problem, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
          • The Commons server seems to have problems at the moment and displays wrong images in the current version and the thumbnails. Probably we have to wait until the bug is resolved. --Quartl (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
            • Symbol support vote.svg Support Changed to support. Finally got around to comparing images. The crop definitely works better; I still wish there were a touch more room on the right, less on the left. And I really liked the original colors of the wings and flower, they were less saturated. Otherwise, looks good. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colours of the butterfly and the background --Schnobby (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice colors, outstanding picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done shot. sharpness could be a little better but overall ok for me. greetings mathias K 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Carduelis tristis CT2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

American Goldfinch
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 05:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Eye is crystal sharp. My only comment would be on the composition, which seems juuuust a touch too high, but the bird is wonderful. Throw that image into an article already! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Snaevar (talk) 10:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some areas are a little darkish, but anyhow a good picture. Good enough for FP promotion, i'd say, which sure is ”quite” good. --Ximonic (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't know why nobody noticed, but this picture is so strongly oversaturated that it even misses details. A postprocessing fail that i would call "Flickr kitsch" -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Uploaded a new version with less saturation. Little less kitsch now. --Cephas (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, compare the bird of both images, the last version is one degree less saturated, it is at the level I usually put my pictures. For the background, of course, I coudln't work out exactly the same modification. --Cephas (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Do you find Zonotrichia leucophrys above also oversaturated? --Cephas (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No. That image is basically fine. Just compare the two histograms / wave form diagrams with each other: Zonotrichia, Carduelis

    You can clearly see that peak on the far right of the histogram of Cardelius. This peak indicates truncating of the red and green channel, which is clearly visible inside the wave form diagram. Since this does not apply for the blue channel we have oversaturation. Zonotrichia is a little overexposed (all channels) in one part: the white stripe on top of the head. But otherwise it is fine. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 00:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Wow, ok, I'm learning something here. Is there a way to correct this? --Cephas (talk) 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If you have a raw with more then 8 bit per channel than you could have imagedata which is not truncated already. I don't know which kind of software you use, but normally you can reduce the saturation while looking at a histogram before saving the raw as JPEG or some other format with only 8 bit per Channel. If this isn't possible you should try to save the image in an format which supports at least 16 bit per Channel (TIFF, EXR, HDR, ...). After that step you should be able to open the image with a graphics software like Photoshop (or the free Blender) that supports more then 8 bit per channel and reduce the saturation until the peak inside the histogram fades out. Ideally histograms have no peak on the left or right side, since that means that some channel(s) is/are cropped, which results in loss of detail. Like the feathers on the front of the bird in this case. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 01:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Great, thank you. --Cephas (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 09:18:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gatineau, Canada: Museum of Civilisation
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question It might just be an optical illusion, but is the image straight? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 10:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --Pretty nice but no color profile embedded (sRGB, AdobeRGB?) and the barrel distortion from the lens, too much visible at the left, could have been corrected. Sting (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I never heard that there is a need to embed the color profil. There is not distortion at the lens. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Open the image in an editor and attribute a sRGB profile, then attribute (and not convert) an AdobeRGB one and you will understand why it is important to embed one, even if it may not be stated in the FPC Guidelines (I didn't check), because the colors aren't the same. This, of course, if you care about how people will look at your picture... And if there's no lens distortion I don't understand why the left column is curved. Sting (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software. You have not explained what I have asked. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Seem to be a missunderstanding. I know that a color profil is, no need for private lessons. My question targeted on why you are thinking that here is s.th. wrong with the colors. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If you know what a color profile is then you know its importance for the display and printing of a photograph and you know too that when an image comes out from your camera it comes in a color space, usually sRGB or Adobe RGB, depending on your camera and settings. If you take a same picture one in a sRGB space and another in an Adobe RGB space, take out the exif data (and so the color profile information) like in yours, open them in Firefox for example and you should notice that the colors displayed are different. EDIT: Which is the good one? We cannot know as we don't know the original profile. It's illustrated in J. Friedl's page, first row of buttons. What if a visitor wants to print your image? He brings the file to a photo labo (because the image is larger than his A4 printer) and if that labo is serious it will ask for the color space. Embarrassing. But, as you wrote, you know all of this. Sorry for trying to explain my first comment. Sting (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, here we get stuck. You did not answer my question for second time. No necessary to go ahead with the discussion. This picture is shot by three single shots and fused by HDR-algorithm together. Therefore you can also not find an EXIF or further informations. I have not set the lights artificial but, they are similar to the natural impression. I see no reason to add the color profil and there is furthermore no need for that. Feel free to oppose the picture. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Was following that topic because I feel concerned : Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? And been disappointed because it didn't show up the way you intended to ? I believe there's nothing wrong with the colours of the picture, and I understand neither does Sting, but rather with the colours consistency it might not present to the viewer. But the colours I see might not even be the ones you wanted to show. Small detail for you it seems, but maybe not to people who work in graphic or printing. If we want common to be seen as serious, it's natural our featured pics are faultless from a technical point of view. I think like Sting that a color profile should be embedded in every FP (I should review my own...). - Benh (talk) 17:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Haven't you ever looked at a printed version of your picture, or even at a picture of yours, but in another screen/soft or whatever ? No, never, and I had developed some of my pictures even in a very large scale. For the rest: I don´t agree. It is not the first time and surly will not be the last time that we have not the same opinion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • We don't talk about opinion here, but about technical facts : if your pictures don't show up the way you intended to, how could anyone review them ? Sometime, I work on WB, or to add a little touch of blue cast or anything else, and I'm not happy to see this ruined because some other viewer don't see what I spent time to show, because of missing colour profile, non calibered screen... In short : no one can faithfully review this picture in its current state. - Benh (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I tried to explain why there's a need for a color space information in an image. If that wasn't your question I don't know what it was regarding your first comment. You may not accept or see the need of the color profile but I think I've answered to this point, even if you're not convinced. “I look pictures with my eyes and not with an image processing software”: and what does display the image? Your computer has settings which show you the image as you want it to be, but what about mine which has for sure different settings, and what about all the visitors, each one with different settings? An embedded color profile allows everyone to see your image with Firefox (for example, as it handles color management) as YOU see it. Many thanks Benh for these explanations, for sure much clearer as mine (unfortunately it seems not sufficient). And no, I never wrote there's something wrong with the colors; I simply don't know which ones they should be. You're right: there's no need for further discussion. Have a nice day too. Sting (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without the need for color profile, exif information, pixel count, white balance, ca, micro tilt, dead pixel under the bushes, a little noise, etc., etc. A good picture is a good picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sure... we see so many “good” pictures promoted here with stitching errors in panoramas, white balance off, heavy CA, over-sharpened showing bright fringes, architectural subjects with distortions, etc. I'd like to remember there's also a QI page. People don't have the same perception of quality, even with the guidelines. I only think it's a pity for all those other pictures, almost perfect at least technically, being placed at the same level as the first ones. May be we should create an Outstanding Pictures Candidates page? Just kidding. Sting (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Your personal view of point in general is amount of space here in a candidate. You have still not make clear what problems this image should have. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry to see the bad faith some have concerning the comments of Benh and Sting. I think their comments are very helpful and understandable. Reading the comments was really eye-opening for me at least. It is not something I have ever thought of before - that even with a calibrated monitor what look good one place may not look right the other due to the displaying client having to guess what was the intention concerning the colors. Please understand that they are not trying to say that the colors are off, but that there is no consistent way for a browser to show the image with the intended colors from the creator without the embedded color profile. However, requiring a color profile is not something we have in the FPC guidelines today, but maybe we should.... --Slaunger (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)`
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you refer to my comments, no bad faith here, just a sarcastic comment on the ways pictures are evaluated in FPC, which is more as a result of personal taste and often irrelevant technical issues that have absolutely nothing to do with photography as a whole, not to mention good old cronism. For FPC in Wikipedia, considering its stature in the cyber world, the amount of good, solid photographers out there, pros and amateurs alike, the statistical amount of good photogrpahy is just not in tune with the possibilities out there, ever wonder why? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Agree with Slaunger (no need for a small type...). At first I didn't understand Sting and Benhr's comments, but because I respect and trust their opinion, I waited for some light to shed. I'm still not sure what we should do about it because I don't know how seriously the lack of a color profile can affect an image in a monitor or printing. But there is no doubt in my mind that the requirement to have one (if aproved) should be extended to QI and VI (at least). Thoughts? Should we open a thread about this issue? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Because a color is not only defined by its RGB values but also by the color space in which it should be displayed.
To show one more example of the problem of an image without color profile, I created a map under the Adobe RGB color space, saved it then converted it under the smaller sRGB color space, preparing it for the Web, and saved it under an other name. This is also the common process for photographs taken with most of the single-lens reflex cameras for photographers looking for quality and shooting in Raw.
I then deleted the color profile of both maps and uploaded them on WP. Open the following images in new windows and compare them:
The difference is striking, even more if you have a wide gamut/good quality monitor. Which of them displays the correct colors? That's the problem here. And if you see very little difference... well... you must have a very low-end monitor and I must agree in this case (only!) with the amazing points 1 and 2 stated by Niabot below!
Now download these images on your computer and open them with Gimp, telling the software the first is an Adobe RGB one and the second a sRGB. What do you see? The colors of both images match! That's because I told you what was the original color space.
And what if I didn't tell you like in the case of the FP candidate here? You can only guess what I see. And you may be wrong.
For curiosity and comparison you can see that map with the Adobe RGB color profile embedded and with the sRGB profile embedded: they should be equal in your Web browser. Q.E.D. Sting (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are wrong. Color profiles describe a mapping between sRGB and something else. But you will loose quality if you use 24 bit formats with other colorspaces as sRGB, when they are converted to sRGB for display. Read the whole story behind this: User talk:Benh#Colorspace_and_profiles -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 23:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If we mention calibrated screens in the guidelines, I think it would be fine to mention color profiles as well. Opening a thread could be a good idea ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Sting and tiresome discussion. W.S. 20:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and my reasons:
  1. There is no need for a color profile if the image is in sRGB. This is the default for all applications that don't support colorprofiles or if an image does not contain a color profile.
  2. Colorprofiles for 8 bit per Channel are bullshit. I don't even know why colorprofiles are embeded inside images with 8 bit per channel. Any software that converts between this colorspaces for display on a screen with 8 bit per channel itself is just stupid. You loose a big portion of possible colors, with even worse results.
  3. Images without any distortion at wide angles are unrealistic.
  4. Nice and sharp image with good colors
-- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 21:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (will certainly change after some explanations by Niabot) You seem to got some points here (I wasn't aware of the issues you mention) but:
  1. What about if the colorspace of the image is actually adobe RGB or something else, and this wasn't recorded in metadata, and the browser reads it as sRGB ?
  2. Can you explain your issue 2. ? you can use my talk page if you don't want to clutter this nom, or stay here if you want to share.
  3. You issue 3 is not quite right. I believe Image without distortions are more realistic, can you prove me wrong ? - Benh (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentVery notable that Benh said he can not review this picture without color profil but suddenly he can when Niabot supports this picture. But it was clearly before that Benh appear at my candidates not for giving objective reviews. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Laisse tomber Benh, le premier a appelé le deuxième au secours. C'est devenu plus que jamais un dialogue de sourds. Bonne soirée malgré tout. Sting (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
oui, j'arrête après mon dernier commentaire plus bas. Je pensais avoir loupé un truc (j'aurais reconnu mon erreur), mais apparemment, non. Bonne journée ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Very notable you still like to troll on the reviewers behaviour instead of the facts about the pics themselves. Anyways, I thank Niabot for his explanations on my talk page. That still doesn't change what we said so I believe my issues 1 still stand. Since software read any value as sRGB when it doesn't find a color profile embedded, if these value were actually AdobeRGB (or anything else), it will render wrong. So I oppose on basis that this pic cannot be reviewed. I'd also like to mention that even with colour profile, it's likely you won't achieve accuracy. A color profile ensures only consistency in properly setup devices. I think I'll stop here on that topic ! - Benh (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't get the issue? Are you opposing because you want all QI/FP images to embed a color profile even when they are created in sRGB colorspace? sRGB is default colorspace. Specifying a colorspace because it might not be sRGB seems a little idiotic here. Will you oppose a nomination because the aRGB color profile might have been used by error on an image and that you cannot verify or trust the user who did the job here? Esby (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, It's likely that image is sRGB, and is understood by my soft as sRGB. But what I mean is that there's a possibility that it was something else (like aRGB) and that the color profil was removed during the expo blending process, and the output still had aRGB but is read as sRGB by my soft, since it's the default mode. Niabot mentions on my talk page that the blending soft automatically converts to sRGB (I'm looking for evidence of that for enfuse, the one I use), so that picture would be fine. To summarize, I still have no proof that the colors I see are what Wladyslaw wanted to show (even though I suspect it's fine). In the end, it's easier for everyone that the picture has a color profile, this would give no room for chance or unconsistency. And avoid these endless talks... - Benh (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • In general you are right. But each image displays a new side of this interesting building; it is not ascertainable with just one image. I know examples of FP from the same object of the same angle at nearly the same time photographed by the same user; I guess this nomination is far away from that. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --Wow!! Niabot, you're really amazing! You might be a “master” in theory but you're not worth the practical cases. You're assuming all people looking your images are using low end monitors, IE9 or Safari or FF with the color management mode value set to “1”! For those ones I agree with you, they won't see much difference. But what about all the others? Those using monitors of a little better quality with better color capabilities, much more common nowadays, those using earlier versions of IE or using FF in its standard setting because they don't even know the existence of that configuration page (and don't care about)?!? And what about those wanting to print your images? How will the printer handle those files? They're simply out of your target of visitors? And what for all of this? Gaining some kb on the file weight while it is already 2.48MB heavy?!? Well, that is a stupid approach (using your word)! If the image here had its color profile embedded I would have been able to see it strait ahead with the correct colors, instead of this I saw it over-saturated in FF with standard settings on my wide gamut monitor and Adobe RGB workspace. And there's no need of color profile? Stunning.
And what about the distortions as you were responding to my comment? Numerous great painters studying for centuries the perspective problem, all this wiped out by you in a few words?! Because I never never saw a perspective line going curved on a painting, neither in reality. And I don't think that curved column at the left is showing reality because we're not in a panorama or fish-eye case. Amazing again!
So many people putting their images here are much more concerned about getting the label than trying to set their images to a high quality level, sometimes with further improvements, because they are so sure of their perfection, even sometimes for cellphone-like snapshots. Each comment or what wants to be a constructive critic is considered as an attack rather than opening a way to improvement. What a selfish behavior. I don't think Commons and this label deserve this. That auto-satisfaction will give substance to those who are laughing through the Web about the inconsistency of the quality here, burying the really high quality images under the mass of mediocre ones. But keep going on, for my concern this page is all yours, you and your partner Wladyslaw, as the law of the strongest is on the side of the one demonstrating more stubbornness, even if it's not constructive for the project. Sting (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't know what to say to those words. But you make some big mistakes in your assumptions. Images that are using sRGB are quite as good as others in LDR format. You think a color profile increases quality when you still only have 224 possible colors? Clearly it doesn't. Even worse, that this color profiles only work on linear sources. As soon you use tonemapping (conversion from HDR to LDR) the color profile is obsolete anyways. Programms are suggested to ignore the profile in further steps, producing sRGB as the default. I might ask why your "super system" isn't able to display sRGB as it is? That might be a bug or wrong configuration on your side. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 18:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
You're attributing to me affirmations I never made or thought. I would just like to remember, for clarification, that FF in its standard settings doesn't manage untagged images. Sting (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Then all we would need to do is to add an sRGB profile to the image and anything should be fine. I really don't see the problem. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 20:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What do you see as not being a problem? Sting (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Excuse me, but it sounds like we are nailing ants with WMD. Let me explain. Who know color profiles? All the average commons re-users? No, only those who are dealing in printing should actually be caring. Will this kind of users be able to differenciate color issues linked to the profile? Probably yes. Will he be able to calibrate his screen correctly? Yes. Will he be able calibrate his printers correctly? we can mostly assume yes. Will he be able to determine if the current image needs to be tweaked/ changed for his needs (which might be differents than our needs)? I assume we can. Esby (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Barrel distortion is disturbing. Snaevar also makes a good point. --ELEKHHT 09:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • but doesn't give an answer --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is the exact field of view of this image? Esby (talk) 12:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I have specifyed the description of the image. On this picture File:Gatineau - QC - Canadian Museum of Civilization8.jpg you can see the plaza from which I have made this shot. If you want I can add also the camera position as geocode. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not what I asked for. I meant the exact angle of the lens (FoV) that was used for making the images that were later fused. It is present in the original exifs of each file. Esby (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for misunderstanding. If I have used the focal length of 10 mm (with I guess but I have to look it up to acknowledge) then the FoV seems to be 102,4° (referred to the technical data sheet of my lens) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Here how it would look on the basis the columns are to be straigth (correction made with hugin). Esby (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
look good but for my eyes it seems to fall a bit on the left side, mathematical accuracy is not every time best choice --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, basically I don't know which version should be the proper one and I mostly don't care. Some people might agree on one and not another one, some might not agree on any of the both, some will agree on both versions. There are also a few parts I was forced to remove due to the distorsion correction of hugin, Imo, The question someone seeing the photography should ask himself/herself: Is the column in the right vertical? Are the columns to the left vertical? Is this kind of tilt / distorsion acceptable or not? Not to mention that any image will still be distorded because you can't map a 105° angle on a plane without having some distorsion visible at some point: you'll always find some bended lines when they should not be if there was no distorsion, This is because you cannot map a sphere (or some big part of it) on a plane without inducting distorsion. Esby (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Wugongshan 8350.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 10:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ridgeline of Wugong Mountain in Jiangxi, China.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The ridgeline of Wugong Mountain in Jiangxi, China. Created, uploaded & nominated by Doctoroftcm -- Doctoroftcm (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Doctoroftcm (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 11:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition Aleksa Lukic (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a pretty shot. But the foreground is full of hill and I'm sort of wishing there were something more there. The house in the distance looks tilted, so the image may not even be straight. Too much sky, though seeing as how there isn't much going on in the foreground, I wouldn't have tilted the camera further down either. Overall, nice shot, but not really valuable. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lacking areal perspective and a bit overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Yak52-Harvard-001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 21:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Formation Flying
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NJR_ZA - uploaded by NJR_ZA - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, but the composition looks too right-heavy. Perhaps a crop? -- King of ♠ 22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is too soft. Crop isn't all that great and the lack of resolution is apparent for it. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 08:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Considering the EXIF data, this is a rather decent photo. As far as the crop is concerned, it might be beneficial to cut away aa few pixels along every edge. Is it right-heavy? It is. But I like it when planes (cars, animals, anything fast moving) seems to escape the frame. Wolf (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks contrast. Also, the aircrafts are better placed on the original image IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 10:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you all for your comments and feedback. --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hansons lagoon - laguna hanson.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Out of focus, incredible amounts of grain. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'll give points for creativity, but it isn't all that sharp, a lot of noise and I'm not so sure about the EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very moody picture with a nice simple composition and lighting. Image is large enough, and it's easily sharpenable so we can forgive the softness IMO. Someone better than me with toshop/gimp can probably get rid of most of the noise. On the cons side, a very strong vignetting...- Benh (talk) 19:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a negative scan for printing and display ar 20"x20" print at 300 dpi, which means that the film grain will be invisible. Magnification of either negative film or digital image will eventually yield either grain or pixels, and lose sharpness. So to judge this type of image under those parameters is obviously a wrong approach. This image has to do with the aesthetics of black and white photography, the zone system and craftmanship. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Changed my vote to neutral per Tomascastelazo's comment. I'm actually a fan of the image, it's very secluded (seemingly) and looks almost like a diorama. But anyway, can you explain your comment further, just a little? You said the negative scan would mean the grain is invisible, but then magnification would yield grain. I think I'm misunderstanding you. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:32, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Film is composed of silver halide particles, which is the grain of the film. When struck by light, and then developed, the silver halide crystals turn black, and when printed on paper, the process is reversed, black on the negative turns into white on paper. Anyway, think of those particles as dust on a surface, at normal viewing distance, you cannot distingish the individual particles, but if you zoom in you will start to see the individual specks of dust. Another way of seeing it is with skin, ar normal viewing distance skin appears smooth, but even the most perfect sking, under magnification, becomes a series of cracks, ridges, etc. In this particular case, when you print the image at 20"x20", the grain is invisible to the eye, for the eye cannot distinguish the particles. In here you see the grain because the image is magnified when displayed at full size in pixels, and in this particular case, the pixels are smaller than the film grain. So it is grainy because it is like looking at the image with a microscope... makes sense? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes! Great explanation, thank you. Please forgive my ignorance. Okay, I still have another question. The image is a reduced size, reduced rez version of a negative scan, but shouldn't there still be a little cleanup involved? The very top left corner of the image is filled with strange white specks. To the right of the trees, about halfway up, is a large black spot (dirt?). There is also a glaring vertical scratch I noticed yesterday: easiest way to explain its location is that it is in the lower segment of the second rock from the left, right in the center of the rock. And it's a shame there's graffiti on the farthest left rock. (One of my favorite rock parks is brimming with the stuff, thanks to high school kids.) "V.v.s. P.M.S." Should this be painted out? Finally, if you zoom in to the bottom left corner, on the bottom edge is a white hair-like thing. I'm not sure if this is damage to the negative or if there is land directly below and this is a blade of grass sticking up. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are and were absolutely right. I retouched dust, graffitti and other elements. For some reason the old version still appears, but the new one is there. I appreciate your observations. They resulted on a better image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is that so? That is a pretty intolerant statement, especially coming from you, since the art that you propose is also questioned as far as legitimacy as a form of art. Judge on the merits of the discipline. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a great analogue photograph. good to see that there's at least one person out there with a decent understanding of film grain. would be great if you could provide additional information on your equipment, film and the technical devices used for the digitasation. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks Peter. Mamiya C330f, 80 mm lens. Exposed according to Zone System. Tmax film, ISO 100. Normal development (but maybe n-1). Tmax developer. Scanner: Epson V700 Photo. Scanned at 4800 dpi, resized to 300dpi for a 20"x20" print. Photo taken about 20 years ago. Scanned May, 2011. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info i've added this information to the image page, please verify it. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Medium quality and above all matters which have no encyclopedic interest --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As far as quality, it would be nice to know the parameters with wich you measure it. If I look at a 2000 year old ceramic piece, and I am a regular person, the ceramic piece is a useless and fragile cooking instrument, for I am ignorant of its archeological value. If on the other hand, I am an archeologist, a 2000 ceramic piece is a treasure of history, etc., etc. The fact that you do not know photographic techniques and materials and how they express themselves within their dimension does not deny the quality that exists inside those dimensions. Same goes for encyclopaedic value. Things have to be measured and evaluated within their parameters. Judge this from Zone System parameters, from there a series of quality parameters will emerge. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should be universal values ​​and not intended to address has too specialized. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As defined by Webster: a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. So photography is a branch of knowledge, of the human experience, with a set of values of different types, photography can be judged on different variables, such as art, historical record, scientific record, technique, materials, etc., etc. Not all photographs are the same, as not all bones are the same. For example, paleonthologically speaking (this, btw, is a platform of analysis) a collection of bones of a cat dead 1 year may not be of the same interest as a collection of bones of a cat dead 100,000 years ago to a paleontologist. I doubt that under normal conditions, the new cat would be more interesting. To a vet, however, the story may be different. On one level one can say that bones are bones, and chemically speaking they may be the same, but each set of bones acquires relevance by the context in which they are observed. Same as photography. If you judge this image from the technological perspective, from that platform it will be at a disadvantage on some aspects, but even so, technologically speaking, digital, for example, cannot yet render a dynamic gray scale as found in this photograph. Photography is not reduced to pixels, ca, etc., etc., it is much more complex than that. Again, judge from the appropiate perspective. If, on the other hand, you don´t like b&w photography or this image does not fancy your personal taste, just say so. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • And you still think that an FP on commons must have EV, which is mentioned nowhere in the guidelines (again, you'd better look on en:FPC in that case. I don't know for the other languages). - Benh (talk) 20:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @ Benh: I don´t know if your comment is directed at me or even if I understand the question/comment. Regarless, my comment: Images, on a figurative black and white level can be thought of as having value or not having value. If an image has any type of value, then it can be thought of as an encyclopaedic valued picture, let it be aesthetic, historical, documentary, technical, sociological, psychological value, etc., for in the broad understanding of encyclopedia, it contributes to the understanding of a particular subject. So in this sense, if an image has any redeeming quality, in the FP context, it has EV. To what degree, how it is measured, etc., is another matter and an entirely different discussion. The problem here is that people evaluate and oppose images not considering the EV value of an image, but rather on personal opinions, lack of knowledge and understandig of either the subject matter or the discipline or both. It is ok to oppose on personal taste, but personal taste must not be a mask for lack of knowledge or understanding --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Tomas; it wasn't at all for you, but for Archeo...us, who looks to give too much weight to the EV alone. I'm not discussing whether or not ur image has EV, but even it if were not the case, I find it beautiful, and more interesting from a photographic point of view than a museum object. That's enough -for me- for an FP status on Commons - Benh (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If I understand well, it is a museum object ! I find it grainy, underexposed for parts, and I see a strong vignetting. Nothing to say about educational value in this case, but this image does not fancy my personal taste, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • @ Jebulon: I apologize, I am deleting the offensive text. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow. Funny. Now need to answer. Except that that my oppose vote counts for one oppose vote.--Jebulon (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, but at least we know where the oppose springs from. You see, an oppose vote is not necessarily a bad thing, for it can point out to ways to make things better. It is an opportunity to improve, unless of course we choose to make it sterile. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Logorrhea. Please stop trying (without success) giving me lessons about "some important technical aspects of photography" you suppose I don't know, I'm a bad pupil when I listen bad teachers. Who is "we know" ? The oppose "springs" from me, only. Any other suggestion ? It is not a bad, dirty and dishonest oppose. The fact is that you don't support, never, during your history as a "Commons" user, any kind of opposition. Then you use and abuse of irony, trying to disrepute adverse comments with despising and patronizing words. Some wrote to me that I am far to be the worst reviewer here... I'm pleased to trust them... I don't understand why you are so agressive with me, as I am not an enemy (I like a lot of your pictures as they are often a bit "different" and inventive). This is only a photograph, and a discussion about. It seems that you like endless conflicts, therefore I'm afraid you should probably answer... But as for me, I stop wasting my time here, sorry. No problem for me to let you the "last word". And sorry for my poor english, but I hope you'll understand. Regards too.--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
@ Jebulon: First of all I sincerely apologize for the appearance of my replies as a personal attack. That was not my intention. Second, I am not opposed to oppose votes in the general sense, but to oppose votes that are either baseless or that generally do not contribute to improvement. As you checked my regular opposition to opposes, also check my ratio of support/oppose votes. I bet it is at least a 20 to 1 ratio. Why? because support reinforce behaviour while an oppose vote, if issued in a certain way, can lead to improvement. I like to err on the side of caution, and if I have nothing to contribute with a negative vote, I opt to not oppose but rather remain silent. However, lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I have at times let the situation get the better of me and have opposed for the wrong reasons. I am human. My apologies, I guess you just got in the line of fire on an issue that I care about. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
You know what ? I agree with you about "oppose votes". We all are humans (I hope so...) This early morning, before to go to work (yes, sundays too...) I made some pictures near Place de la Concorde (nice location, nice weather, nice light, no tourists), and I was walking (almost) alone, thinking to this incident, and I thought that photography and "Commons" are really interesting. At least, we are very lucky to be able to discuss through space about this wonderful hobby. No need of "war". Let's disagree peacefully ! By the way: this incident does absolutely not imply that i'll be a structural "opposer" of your pictures in the future ! Have a nice day.--Jebulon (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I will enjoy more film grain in this image.. if this image will get featured I will try to nominate also a black & white image (film photo - with grain etc)! BTW it is a well balanced composition. Ggia (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ggia!!! It is hard to argue with this type of arguments!!! ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, because I don't like it (I really don't). Moreover, reasons 1 to 3 do not apply any more! All photographs are grainy anyway, perfect exposure is a utopia and vignetting is a kind of art. Or did I misunderstand? W.S. 22:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LOL! That´s a good, clean, honest oppose. Simply not liking it is good enough for me, a nice, naked reason, no further explanation needed. There is so much freedom there. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Louis-Charles de France, Louis XVII, Deseine méridienne Versailles MV8523 .jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 22:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Louis XVII
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Louis-Pierre Deseigne, sculptor (French, 1749-1822) - Photograph and nomination by me -- Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moving portrait bust of Louis-Charles of France, Duke of Normandy, second son of King Louis XVI & Queen Marie-Antoinette, then Dauphin of France, then King (titular) Louis XVII (1785-1795)-- Jebulon (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 09:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not much wow for me. I just see a head pictured from above, sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow and looks tilted. Nothing pleasant to the eye, in the means of outstanding compared to the rest. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 14:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also noticed the tilt. No wow, nothing special from photographic point of view... in addition to being noisy, small, and having a poorly delimited mask. - Benh (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is obviously no more place in FPC for this kind of work. I'm not really disappointed cause I had no illusion.

Sorry for this irrelevant and unappropriate attempt.
Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination--Jebulon (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 08:40:11
Berliner Olympiastadion

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Strongly oversaturated with very strong contrast enhancement. The histogram speaks for itself. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - still good FP -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Tomer T (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If ever there was a wow factor, this is it. My mistake was clicking on the histogram link, that hanged my browser up forever. : ) If you ask me, stadiums were meant to be oversaturated. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I like it as it is, but wouldn't be easier to make a version with desaturated colors, than making this colorspace animation? (Which I don't understand, I must admit :) --Lošmi (talk) 08:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • There is no way to fix oversaturation or over/under exposure if the image data is already clipped. You can decrease the saturation, but it doesn't improve the picture. The color information that is lost, is already lost. You will need to invent something new (e.g. new color information), to correct this. No way to go. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC) PS: I created the animation some time ago, to show differences between oversaturated and not oversaturated images. Just forgot to nominate this image. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I don't understand what color information is lost, but nevermind. If you think that image can't be improved that's ok. But, I still like it as it is :) --Lošmi (talk) 11:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • oversaturation and over/under exposure in detail
          I added a little illustration to the right. It shows you what happens when you try restore original colors on an already imperfect source image (top right in both cases). You won't get the original back. You will always get a worser quality as the original could had, if done right. Look at the file description for further details. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 12:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Ok, I get what you want to say. But, many of FP images are not straight from camera. They are usually processed − brightnes/contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc. You can't revert to original colors on them as well. I had something like this in mind when I said desaturate. --Lošmi (talk) 13:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Disc-comparison-desaturation.png
            Yes they are. But within the bounds of sRGB or any other color profile. But if you would look at the histogram of this image your will find anything needed to see that it is completely oversaturated. Since we have no original without manipulation we can't recreate the original image. Not worthy to be featured if you ask me.

            For further information i appended the histogram as well with the wave form diagram of this image and the desaturated version from Lošmi. If you compare the two wave forms (histogram for each channel and line), then you see, that desaturating the image does not remove the issues. Instead you get blury results due to an additional JPEG compression. The clipping of the color channels remains. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 14:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)



Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil pan.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 18:48:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Much below the current size requirements. It is also blurry and unsharp. (Original nomination; Previous removal vote)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep still has enough wow. W.S. 20:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist no wow, too small, very poor quality, bad lighting, poor detail, ... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per kaʁstn -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per above, plus "tourist shot" – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per above, plus poor composition. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist No, I rather like this photo and the composition, but the size and sharpness really don't make it FP-worthy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Jakarta slumlife54.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 18:33:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Too tight crop at top. Background is unsharp, noisy and too bright. Not up to current standards. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Awkward crop: poor judgement in 2005. W.S. 20:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --shizhao (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per above. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I'm fine with the crop. --Lošmi (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --Avenue (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist The only real problem with this is the awkward crop. This should have been taken with a vertical orientation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Because of the unfortunate crop above. --Cayambe (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Balaeniceps rex - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 09-2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 08:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) at Weltvogelpark Walsrode (Walsrode Bird Park, Germany)

Created and uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Raghith -- Raghith 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) at Weltvogelpark Walsrode (Walsrode Bird Park, Germany) -- Raghith 08:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather noisy, and the crop is too tight on top. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's close. The lighting on the body of the bird is dramatic, coming from the left. But I can't see the eye, it's really set back in his own shadow. Unrelated, he reminds me of Pixar's For the Birds. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good picture of an ugly bird. Could use a tad more space on the right I think. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 17:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Caprella mutica 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Biopics - nominated by Benh (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Long time no see ;) -- Benh (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 05:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose parts of the shrimp are not in focus.--Snaevar (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed about the extreme shallow DOF. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong DOF for the subject -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --W.Rebel (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks to nominator and supporters. This image is however no FP material. The largest of the two amphipods (NOT shrimps!) is about 10 mm long and they were photographed life in a small aquarium, lit by a few cold light beams. They are constantly on the move so a stacked photograph was not possible. It is a good illustration of the species, but not all good pictures are fit for FP, so Benh, I would rather you withdraw, with all respect. W.S. 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Will not, even though it looks not on the path to promotion. This picture is in focus where it matters, is certainly harder to take than the thousands of shells or museum objects on black background we see too much around here, and I think it looks beautiful enough. I admit aperture could have been slightly narrower. - Benh (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I dont understand why W.S. asks for a withdraw of a nomination of picture created by Biopics... Did I miss something ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shallow DOF, tight crop, I really don't like the black background here --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Helmhornvogel WVP2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 21:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sulawesi Wrinkled Hornbill (Aceros cassidix) at Weltvogelpark Walsrode
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 21:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose well, this is certainly a beautiful bird, but the image is apparently shot through the caging, which yields nasty distortions, and it is heavily overprocessed (oversharpened). --Quartl (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Quartl --Mbdortmund (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it, despite of some processing. Especially the eye. --Lošmi (talk) 06:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I had to familiarize myself with a dozen other images of this bird to get a feeling for the saturation of the colors, and they actually seem pretty on-key. The image may have been shot through caging, but the only distortion I see comes from caging in the background, which somehow yields a rather distinctive, sparkling emerald-city type background that's kind of interesting. Unfortunately, it's also distracting. In addition, I don't know what was done to cause the image to be so grainy, maybe corrected underexposure, maybe something else. I was really teetering on supporting the image, but I think the grain, an overwhelming over-contrasting, and a sense of underexposure are largely at fault here. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Quartl--Snaevar (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Quartl --ELEKHHT 09:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Kiril Lazarov 06.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kiril Lazarov preparing for 7-metre shot


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Water Turkey in Flight.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 02:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Water Turkey in Jacksonville, Florida flying ahead
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Craig O'Neal - uploaded and nominated by Hoangquan hientrang -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 02:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea here, but there are some problems. First of all, I don't think all the room behind the bird adds anything (no problem - can easily be cropped out). However, there are more grave problems: for one thing, the bird isn't exactly razor sharp, and the crop is too tight on the lower wing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per THFSW. Blurry, can't see the bird details. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Image:Buceros hydrocorax - Weltvogelpark Walsrode 2011-02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 22:22:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rufous Hornbill at Weltvogelpark Walsrode.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fiorellino - uploaded by Fiorellino - nominated by Fiorellino -- Fiorellino (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea, but the end of the bill is out of focus. In addition, the crop on the left is a tad tight. This one might fair a bit better, but again, many parts are blurry. What lens are you using? This doesn't really seem like a D7000 image. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cool. --Lošmi (talk) 06:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agreed with pretty much everything The High Fin Sperm Whale said. The image is too tight and restricting, and the DOF is too narrow. There is simply too much empty space at the top. I feel the frame could have been filled a little better (with the bird) at a different angle. Gorgeous eye color though. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 10:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the nose tip and the rest of the body is unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 11:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad image proportion --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support what I like at this image is that it's different. Here's a wow / a cool factor. Excellent composition (e.g. the standpoint), interesting and good quality (I really like the short DOF here, focus point not perfect but ok imo). FP to me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too many blurred areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sometimes blurring parts of a body while keeping the head sharp works, sometimes it doesn't. Unfortunately I think this one falls into the latter category. -- King of ♠ 10:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Image:Elisabethkirche Schneeberg.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 20:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elisabeth Church on Schneeberg, Lower Austria
Update 2011-05-31. Due to an unforeseen event (my twins were born 10 weeks early just now), I have tocount on the community to edit the image for better noise / tones, so the criticism can be addressed. Please find the CR2 file at [1]. It is available under the same license as the jpg. Thank you very much for your understanding and support. With regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Update 2011-06-01: Pictogram voting delete.svg Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC) I hereby withdraw the candidature. There is a consensus that the image could have the potential to be acceptable as featured image, but it also requires significant amount of post-processing (noise control, tone mapping, contrast, etc.) in order to satisfy the requirements. For the reason mentioned above, I am currently not in a position to execute the necessary improvements. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Update 2011-06-01: I have listed the picture in the Graphic Lab. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wanted to support, but in full resolution it is quite noisy. --Tomer T (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I have worked on the noise and uploaded a new version. For your consideration. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per TT, but I don't think it is bad enough to oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have worked on the noise and uploaded a new version. For your consideration. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know how this happened, but somehow the noise on the structure, the people around and the grass got worse. Did you sharpen it? This will make the noise come out more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
A very nice image with a good composition, but it need also a tonemapping correction! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flat and image quality is suboptimal. I do agree with some post-processing this image could be considerably improved to be FP. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Comet-Hale-Bopp-29-03-1997 hires adj.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 19:33:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very noisy and very unsharp. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agreed with delister's comments, though it's more the lack of sharpness that affects my vote, along with overall poor composition and the intense chromatic aberration. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I know it isn't great by today's standards, but I think that this is part of FPC history, and thus should only be delisted if it is really, really awful. I don't think we should delist unless an image didn't even meet the standards back then. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep keep in mind this is a 1997 digital picture, which is pretty good for the time for such a long exposure. It's not like we're ever going to get another chance to photograph this comet since it's next perihelion is estimated around year 4385. Keep it in prospective here, 14 year old photograph, long exposure, and an event we won't witness again for another two millennia. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep No way to take a better picture in the next weeks...--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Credit-cards.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 11:15:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Too small, no wow, unsharp and blurred at places (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Current standards are higher. Not so special picture novadays, per above. --Ximonic (talk) 12:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist The DOF is too short. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per others above. --Cayambe (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dactylorhiza majalis in natural monument Vojovicka draha (6).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dactylorhiza majalis in natural monument Vojovická draha (some spring feeling in FP :)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Chmee2 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 10:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I fail to see what's the subject here. Random composition. - Benh (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, not highly valuable. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disturbing composition, bad light --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Martinac bukovy 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 10:24:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female of Tau Emperor, Czech Republic
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tlusťa - uploaded by Tlusťa - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Sorry Chmee2, but quality is on the poor side (lighting, sharpness). I would have taken the shot from a larger distance (to increase dof) instead of using F/20, which causes difraction softness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't need to be sorry, it is life :) I think so it is good to have another opinions about it, cause I or Tlusťa can learn more from it and improve our skills for future shots. Thanks for your vote anyway. Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Great subject matter, just not technically correct. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:The Honour decoration for Merit of the Republic of Austria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 10:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Honour decoration for Merit of the Republic of Austria. Badge of the 1st Class
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't believe this type of image should have dramatic lighting, as it were. There shouldn't be any shadows. Also, it appears the DOF is shallow enough, or perhaps it's an aberration, where the bottom of the ribbon goes out of focus. Pleasant backdrop. Perhaps rephotographing it in more even lighting? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 17:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
    • this picture was taken in museum, than I can't rephotographing --Pudelek (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's nothing special and per Keraunoscopia. Tomer T (talk) 17:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose hard shadow --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To me the lighting helps bring out the 3d shape of this object. Aesthetically I think this may be the best way to present this object. Slight DOF issue, but I checked and could see all the details I wanted. --99of9 (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Varanasi Munshi Ghat3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2011 at 11:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Varanasi, India as seen from Ganga river.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- sfu (talk) 11:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Almost like a painting. Good timing with the guy holding the towel up. I'm wondering what the blue dish leaning against the wall on the right is? Otherwise, I found myself staring into every nook and cranny, good job. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simply wonderful. Very nice colours incorporated within the sky in the background.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- per Kiril Simeonovski. Azeri (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice lighting and colours, giving that nice mood. - Benh (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 05:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 06:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose respectable photography without outstanding attributes, quality (especially sharpness) could be better --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree that the image is a tad soft, but I really believe it works for this image, not against it. It gives the image a slightly misty, creamy and painted feel to it. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • your opinion, not my --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good mood aside, it fails in technical aspects. Not an FPC for me. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Definition and contrast a bit low --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low contrast. -- King of ♠ 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Haeckel Calcispongiae.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 08:57:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Haeckel Calcispongiae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ernst Haeckel - uploaded by Ragesoss - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Citron (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, interesting and valuable. I tend to support. Nevertheless I'm not sure about sharpness (could probably be better), and maybe could you correct some white spots in the black background ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Citron (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Testudinata Richard Bartz.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 15:33:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tortoises
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Are they marching to protest pond pollution? Smile --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Badly cropped to the right. What does it illustrate anyway? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 17:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 17:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, no light areas, poor detail resolution. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, rather small and above all not identified. W.S. 20:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Demonio mercado de guanajuato.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:23, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very busy image, and it's difficult to separate the background from the foreground. Nice colors, but slightly confusing image, especially if it's supposed to be a portrait of a single object. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

File:360° Hochalppass Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 19:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

360° Hochalppass Panorama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 360° Panorama am Großen Widderstein. all by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pano! Was this made with Hugin? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
nein mit PTgui --Böhringer (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sehr eindrucksvoll und hervorragende Qualität -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition. Steven Walling 01:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 08:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you!   ■ MMXX  talk  15:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I am very happy if you liked my picture. The snow has fallen during the night and shows one of the rare recordings in the Commons. --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Very interesting panorama. Azeri (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --alex.vonbun (talk) 07:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! ---donald- (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image is so sharp, it can cut you! (borrowing the phrase from another reviewer....) Excellent composition, great lighting conditions, fantastic job! --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It is indeed beautiful and a great job! I like very much the little yellow flowers in the foreground. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not too impressed. Awkwardly cut foreground and oversharpening are minuses, while amount of detail for the size and lighting are pluses. W.S. 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not sharpened the frames nor the Pano - this information. --Böhringer (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Mouthfull Heron.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 06:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Green Heron in Jacksonville, Florida eating a fish for its meal
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Craig O'Neal - uploaded by Hoangquan hientrang - nominated by Hoangquan hientrang -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 06:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 10:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Obviously an important moment (for both the bird and the fish) and a fascinating capture. Educational value definitely tips the scale. My dilemmas with the image are the busy background (fortunately the majority of the bird's head is over a dark area), and the extremely strange cropping. Lots of headroom, but no feet. I would almost prefer a tighter crop to make things "right". – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Changed to neutral, perhaps a different crop would work better. I agree, the composition really isn't great. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad light, composition (background, crop at bottom), quality (especially noise, CA?!?) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like the heron's having a good meal, but the composition is not ideal, it is oversharpened, and the background is distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop at bottom --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background is rather distracting, but I think it's a moment well captured. -- King of ♠ 10:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dlouis-crpd.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 11:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dom Luis I bridge in Porto


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Zebrasoma flavescens 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 12:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zebrasoma flavescens, Yellow Tang
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chromatic aberrations (was this shot through a glass panel/wall?), soft subject, and "flash" exposures (bright subject, extremely dark background). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Naturally it was shot through a glass, otherwise the camera would have got wet and unusable! And do you really think that it would be better if the subject wouldn't be bright and the background lighter and more disturbing? --Llez (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
My question rephrased would have been, was the fish photographed through a glass aquarium wall? Obviously underwater images can be taken with the camera in a watertight box, and obviously all images are shot "through glass" (the lens), so I think my original question was pretty clear in its meaning. Depending on the aquarium and the thickness of the glass, I would think any light would be overly refracted and the resulting image would not be crystal clear, as I believe the case is here—though I don't know if this was taken at a homemade water tank or a massive city aquarium. Either way, I think the glass is interfering with the light. As for the flash comment, flash photography can sometimes produce a rather unrealistic range of exposure, with slightly blown out foreground and extremely dark backgrounds. If it looks like flash photography, then I think that can be distracting and unprofessional. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 15:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why do you ask the question above? It is very simple, just read the description. BTW: It is strange. W.S. has dissappeared, at the same time Kerαunoςcopia appears. Nearly the same voting behaviour, the same vacous user-page. Are you an "old friend" with a new identity? --Llez (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For my part, I can tell u almost for sure that Kerαunoςcopia is not W.S., who is by the way one of the most valuable contributor around (which is why criticisms on him annoy me) - Benh (talk) 16:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, I'm W.S. because my user page is vacuous, you found me out. :) Anyway, sorry for missing the "museum" bit and for not putting two-and-two together. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the obvious flat flash lighting with its annoying drop shadow and dark background - Benh (talk) 16:23, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good apart from the lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 08:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Good apart from the lighting"? It is horrible in comparison to other underwater pictures we already have. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • If I found the lighting really, really horrible, I would oppose. However, the lighting here really isn't all that bad. The rocks could be dark just because of their colour (they weren't that far away from the subject, so I don't think that flash light would dissipate that quickly unless you're using a really tiny guide number). And if the fish looks flat, there's a good reason: yellow tang are flat. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kerαunoςcopia. W.S. 20:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Abolish child slavery.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 04:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two girls protesting child labour 1909
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by FightingMac - uploaded by FightingMac - nominated by FightingMac -- FightingMac (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- FightingMac (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All I see are two girls standing there wearing banners. I'm not really "moved" by the image or its message, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The image may not be all that moving, but the number of current child slaves sure is. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
      • But the image isn't inviting me to read more about it... the only difference between, say, this image and a picket rally (to me) is that this image is older. But that doesn't change its somewhat relaxed appearance. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Chelidonium majus vlaštovičník větší 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 09:04:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flower of plant Chelidonium majus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karelj (talk) 09:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe it's poor lighting and deep shadows, but the flower looks wilted and dying, at least compared to the other image on the article. Not very pleasant to look at. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Matthias Adl - Stattersdorfer Steg 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 15:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Matthias Adl, deputy mayor of St. Pölten, Austria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by AleXXw --AleXXw talk!•me@de.wp 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Matthias Adl, deputy mayor of St. Pölten, Austria
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AleXXw talk!•me@de.wp 15:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp, good portrait, if a tad overly bright with the sky. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Changed to oppose. Is that someone's forehead above his shoulder? I never even noticed that before. And after looking at the image again a few more times, the concrete block/building in the background is really distracting. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 16:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see nothing outstanding here: this is a centered close up portrait anyone can take. I don't find background aesthetic either. - Benh (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Benh.--Ankara (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Behn. Georgez (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is too cluttered. A shorter DOF would have done this good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cluttered background below, too bright above, producing too much scalp shine. Unexceptional composition. --Avenue (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Very GA candidate.svg Weak support The background is a bit disturbing and the crop is maybe a bit too tight, but I like it. Great quality, EV. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI, maybe VI, but not FP --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Matthias Adl, deputy mayor of St. Pölten, Austria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Some elements removed from the background.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 20:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as my above vote. Nice work for sure, but the small elements cloned out really don't change anything to me. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I actually didn't realize there was an alternative here... any way to get rid of that concrete block in the background? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good now. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Microgravity Burning.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 14:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Microgravity Burning
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Colourized gray-scale composite image of the individual frames from a video of a backlit fuel droplet burning in microgravity.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm not very familiar with the use of NASA images. The image is in the public domain (with restrictions), but what about the text in the description, is that also in the public domain? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't see the value of this picture with such an limited description. Its a very special case, but it worth nothing without knowing exact parameters of the picture. What is red, what is yellow, what is blue? Whats the mapping of the colors? What kind of fuel was used? Not sufficient description for encyclopedic context. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Despite the legend I struggle to understand what is presented. The central plane of symmetry, appears to have an aesthetic character. The encyclopedic value seems very narrow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Mosteiro dos Jerónimos 0424 - doors in the arcade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mosteiro dos Jerónimos 0424 - doors in the arcade.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by W.Rebel - uploaded by W.Rebel - nominated by W.Rebel -- W.Rebel (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- W.Rebel (talk) 17:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, lighting problems: too dark at places, too bright at places. Bad composition. --Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to contest FPX. It is not the most amazing image taken, but in my opinion composition is not that bad to justify FPX and surely we don't want to have only HDR images where every part of the image is equally (boringly) bright. bamse (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality. Portions overexposed, the other too dark with the background noise. Encyclopedic value low. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, a lot of detail is too soft. Left edge isn't straight. Nice play on falling light and if it were sharper, it could be a great study on texture. But it's a weird composition. I agree with bamse, I don't have a problem (in this case) with the light and dark. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Moth 01 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 07:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

a male White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) The White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) is a moth of the family Arctiidae. It is found in Europe.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Mathias Krumbholz - nominated by Raghith -- Raghith 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a male White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda)

The White Ermine (Spilosoma lubricipeda) is a moth of the family Arctiidae. It is found in Europe. -- Raghith 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- This is your third active nomination and only two are allowed. Please notice that this picture counts as a new nomination (pease check the rules). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I give my limit of nominations to this candidate. Let it is my nomination now. -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info also nominated by George Chernilevsky
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to dark. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Niabot. I can't really see what's going on. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Abstain" is always a choice in such situations--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great --Loz (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as the author. Thanks for the nomination. The picture is pretty dark, but I promiss there is nothing going on what you can't see. ;-) To the picture: It is a fokusstack of 19 pictures taken at f/8 and 0,4 sec exposure each image. The moth was still alive (!) during the whole session and was set free after it. So thanks again and best regards mathias K 15:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llez (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 08:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Niabot. + the reflective surface makes the picture very confusing. W.S. 16:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent image. The reflection adds information on the bottom face of the subject and is clearly distinguished from the direct view. -- Rama (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Pico de Fogo & summit of 1995 erruption.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 17:46:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pico de Fogo and a minor summit which formed in an erruption in 1995
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Pico de Fogo is a 2,829 metres high stratovolcano in Fogo, Cape Verde. In front of it there is a minor summit which was formed in an eruption in 1995. This volcanic landscape has been taken in 2010 December.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ximonic (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it! Only two hiccups - the composition seems a little off-balance to me, with the volcano so close to the top and the left edge, and the shadows in the foreground on the right seem too dark and imposing. Apart from that, great photo, great volcano. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • And it seems slightly tilted CCW, or is this just because of the terrain? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • It is hard for me to say if is the picture really tilted. The sure thing is the terrain certainly wasn't flat and horisontal – hilly every way around. But I have used a water balance thing which is included in my camera. I can fix the seeming tilt if it disturbs too much though. Also the image can easily be cropped every way, but maybe I'd like to wait for more opinions about it so I can be sure where to crop (or clone more sky). Thanks. --Ximonic (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I just wanted to add, for the record, that I never saw any tilt, but I know what Whale is referring to. I live near mountains and it can be frustrating when you pictures are level, but the mountains going off into the distance, plus varying heights, make the image look like you can't hold a camera for your life. But in this case, I never saw it and I still don't; but if anyone does see a tilt, it's definitely because of the landscape. If it bothers too many people, obviously it can be fixed. ; ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
          • Yes, this terrain can make it very confusing. If you say that the bubble metre said it was level, that's good enough for me. As for the softness around the top, I think that it is just haze. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the "tilt" may be the terrain; I don't see anything it can really be judged by. I'm hoping the soft blur at the top is smoke from the volcano? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
    • The soft blur... Atleast it can't be made by me. I don't know, huh? :D I don't remember that kind of stuff so it must have been really hard to notice if there were smoke. Atleast it is an active volcano. --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Nope, definitely not you, but it looks like a very fine dark cloud of ash or smoke right dead center. I don't think there's anything that can be done about it though. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, maybe it is you. Is this image composed of two images stitched together, and did you use a polarizer filter for these images? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is a stitched panorama. I didn't change the camera settings between any picture. No polarizer was used, just the lens itself. --Ximonic (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore the panorama is something like 150 degrees wide so I guess the changing of the sky is natural and can't be avoided (unless by digital manipulation). --Ximonic (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, if you didn't use a polarizer then that rules that out. I suppose it is just haze. Unfortunately, I find it really distracting and I'm not sure why, so I'm really on the fence. But it's still a nice shot! – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 04:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow for me -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting but not FP: there is nothing exceptional --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand this at all... Commons does not show the right picture in the previews at all! It doesn't show the updated images after the first release. However... --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Up to date now. --Ximonic (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Great quality and very interesting scene. Azeri (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks like an oversharpened resize of a multi-image panorama. Pano's should be mentioned in the description, BTW. W.S. 22:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose contrastless, heavy chromatic aberrations --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Another crop

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just providing a different crop --Ximonic (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular talk 07:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Yoke decoration shape as a horse-MBA Lyon X254-IMG 0611.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:26:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yoke decoration shaped like a horse
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yoke decoration shaped like a horse. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really don't know what I'm looking at. I don't know what a "yoke decoration" is, and the image isn't in any articles to help clarify. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 07:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Joakim Noah and JaVale McGee.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 11:00:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joakim Noah and JaVale McGee in a jump ball.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Keith Allison - uploaded by Chrishmt0423 - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very clear, well exposed, nice action sports shot. But the crop is too tight... and the referee eating butt... – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 13:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All said already. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 19:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very clear, well exposed, nice action sports shot. Great crop for a vertical-action photo. Wolf (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per... above.--Jebulon (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the crop is tight but in this case I see it as helping focus on the acion. -- Rama (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Rama and Airwolf. --Avenue (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Quito Centro Histórico.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:44:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quito Historic Center


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Viljo koirarannalla 18.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 17:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dog looking for his ball.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looking at this picture by itself, it's a point-and-shoot shot of a dog running through water, nothing I can't find at the local park lake about five minutes away from me. Looking at it as part of a series of images, what I see is someone uploading 20 images of their dog, using the images only on their talk page, and nominating them for "quality images". I find this kind of disturbing, but whatever. These are nothing more than non-educational look-at-my-dog pictures that are absolutely nothing special. Having said that, I do think you picked the best of the bunch. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Albeit I would probably have phrased it a little bit more gentle myself I sadly have to admit that I agree entirely with the review of Kerαunoςcopia. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think we should be reviewing the image, not getting sidetracked on user conduct (especially when the image's creator didn't nominate it). Other forums are better suited to that, if it's needed. Getting back to the image, it has some appeal, but IMO the composition isn't ideal - a bit cramped on the left, and quite remote for a fun subject. I think a couple of the others in the series have more impact, if still not quite FP material. --Avenue (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- I remember assessing (and supporting?) this picture, or a similar one, before. But I can't find the link. Am I having visions? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Weibliche Große Pechlibelle, Ischnura elegans 4.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 20:34:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Female Ischnura elegans
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Female Ischnura elegans; all by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Did it just go to the bathroom? What's the thing beneath it? It's a beautiful shot, but I'm frustrated by the eyes... the closest one looks really out of focus. The wings look fine. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 01:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but since we have several shot of this kind (I don't know the exact species, but definitely they look similar), I now expect something top notch to support. This one doesn't seem in focus where it matters, especially the left eye. - Benh (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To have a "wow" factor in these kinds of images, there must be a clear separation of foreground/background, not just on focus but also on contrast. Here the background is too dark, which clutters the composition. -- King of ♠ 07:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose focus problem --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Böhringer (talk) 22:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Etropole-Monastery panorama .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:36:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Etropole Monastery, Bulgaria.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MrPanyGoff 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid there's an unfortunate stitching mistake right in the yellow slide in the middle of the picture. Furthermore, the contrast is a bit harsh imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment not straight and I don't like the shadows on the building(s). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Shirvan Domes.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 12:31:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The mysterious and spooky 15th century Shirvan Dynasty mausoleum and graveyard in Shamakhi, Azerbaijan.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Walter Callens - uploaded by Azeri - nominated by Azeri -- Azeri (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Azeri (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is to grey for a FP image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support Azeri. -- Raghith 18:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not all our FPC images have to be bright, vivid colours. This is better than an oversaturated one. And saturation can easily be increased. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it is a little bit tilted.. nobody saw that? it can be easily fixed. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Its not tilted, its the mountainous landscape of the area. Azeri (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • look to the building.. not the mountains. Ggia (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. It is actually a very nice image, it just needs a little tweaking in Photoshop, to make it absolutely perfect. Grandmaster 17:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Classy image --Alakbaroff (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting composition, but quality is soso, even for such a small image. A bit "washed out" and dull. Also looks tilted to the right. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This image needs some post-processing, definitively. It could greatly be improved by adjusting the levels, to start with. There's a lot of range being lost as it is now. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. W.S. 07:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice composition, but per Benh --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Alchemist --Llorenzi (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it gray -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose /Ö 19:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Wladyslaw (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Shiva as the Lord of Dance LACMA edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 14:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Why not? Is that bad?--Citron (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe I'm being dumb, but this is already a featured image, isn't it? I mean, it says so. Also, not sure how you know the background is fake, looks real to me? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 14:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
    • It is featued in English Wikipedia, not in commons. Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Geeze, I really was being dumb. I didn't realize there was more than one FAC. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 15:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I think the image is fantastic. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 04:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is not a "faked" background. It is an artificial one, but it makes the subject better IMO. I like both, background and subject, very much --Jebulon (talk) 09:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very nice "faked" background! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background highlights this Shiva in a good way. I don't mind it being "fake" – atleast the sculpture is not fake which counts for me. --Ximonic (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't have any problem with the background - on the contrary: it works very well! Nice job! -- MJJR (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Background seems to enhance the value of the image. Steven Walling 01:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Compliments --Llez (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that it's one fine background. --Lošmi (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miguel Bugallo 00:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Volcán Tungurahua 2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 07:43:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tungurahua Volcano 2011
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dr. Carlos Costales Terán - uploaded by Dabit100 - nominated by Dabit100 -- Dabit100 (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dabit100 (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, that's better in terms of exposure compared to your other nomination, but the exposure looks like it was pushed in post-processing, resulting in a lot of noise. Also, nothing in the frame seems to be in focus, unfortunately. Nice composition and framing with the silhouetted trees, though. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Out of date clock icon.svg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Tomer T (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Carpodacus purpureus CT3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple Finch, male
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, Cephas, your bird pictures are amazing. You can even see the landscape reflected in the bird's eye. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 23:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Citron (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support eye-catching!!! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support though the background is a bit distracting in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice pose. --Avenue (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I guess you used the Canon EF 400mm 5.6L lens? Absolutely wonderful! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gamaliel (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magnificent image... and bird. --Cayambe (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Miguel Bugallo 00:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Francesco 13 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 06:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous bird, great pose. -- King of ♠ 22:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Oh ! Something new in FPC ! A bird ! On a tree branch ! Great pose indeed !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Rosa ‘Gloria Dei’ syn. ‘Peace’.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2011 at 21:18:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rosa ‘Gloria Dei’
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler- uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. My only wish is it weren't so bright in the top center, we lose a lot of detail. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "A lot" ? really ?--Jebulon (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --W.Rebel (talk) 09:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice flower, well done photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's nice, but not the most beautiful rose I've seen, and the background looks weird (The patterns look like a badly compressed file). Some small parts of the subject (mostly the edges) are blurred and it feels like it was added over the background in post processing. Is it because of the stack focusing ? - Benh (talk)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Focus stacking is a digital image processing technique which combines multiple images taken at different focus distances to give a resulting image with a greater depth of field (DOF) than in this image. The hazziness in a resulting image may have one of three reasons: 1) The used image is on this place out of focus and there is no second image with the right focus on this point. I used Helicon Focus and 21 images taken at different focus distances. Maybe Helicon Remote takes more images and solves this problem. 2) There are some images (also sharp images) with different focus laying one on top of the other like a sandwich. The problem of Focus stack is: images with different focus have different sizes. The resulting sandwich-image is sometimes blurred (there are different images not congruent on the same place). Therefore I put copies from the sharp images to all blurred places. 3) The edges may sometimes be blurred, because images with another focus are looking over the edges and hides the background, because they have a larger size than the sharp image. Then it is needed to restore the background. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job. ---donald- (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overall very good imo --Cayambe (talk) 07:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the lighting, and the sharpness is generally good. But I agree with Benh about the image's problems, and I think some of the blurred edges haven't been healed well (e.g. the wide stripe on the yellow petal outlining the central group of petals). --Avenue (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strange background, tight crop, lighting is partially too harsh. Amazing sharpness though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Very nice flower, but the background ruins it. -- pro2 16:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Also to me the background ruins it, but it's a good image--Miguel Bugallo 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose /Ö 19:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pico de Teide.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pico de Teide, Tenerife
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 17:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Centered composition and harsh lighting coming from above. Not much wow. - Benh (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • no much wow or surprising about your vote, but you are definitly wrong with the estimation this picture is a centered composition. where is harsh lighting? there is nothing overexposed, expert Benh. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Who said it was overexposed ? If you have time, u could use it to fix ur previous nom instead of judging people over here (obviously, wasn't as easy as you first thought...). - Benh (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • maybe you could stay factual, but this seems not to be your excellence --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition doesn't bother me as the pillar on the left makes a nice contrast with the centered mountain, but I have to agree about the lighting. It's uninteresting lighting, and a bit hazy. Can it be re-photographed at sunrise/sunset? The sameness of the colors makes the image seem flat. Maybe a polarizer could cut through the haze. Just my suggestion. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Flat lighting, uninteresting composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • commend Benh says the lightning is harsh, Alvesgaspar thinks it is too flat. What is the truth of this contradict opinions? Maybe non of them. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No contradiction that I see. The light coming from above is strong and flat, a little like a flash aimed directly at the subject. This results in harsh shadows but little structure and detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Benh said harsh lighting not harsh shadows. By the way: shadows may be dusky or gray but for sure not harsh. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Komposition --Böhringer (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Wladyslaw Don't kill the messenger. --Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The rock is dark. Bad light --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad light and quality. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ötlingen - Blick auf den Tüllinger Berg.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 13:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ötlingen: view to the hill "Tüllinger", image is showing the typical hilly landscape of the winegrowing area "Markgräflerland" (South West Germany)
  • FPC should not be misused for personal reckoning. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Nor should it be grounds for incivility, but we both see it, don't we? Anyway, I do like the image, but I think the sky is a touch overexposed. The framing of the trees and the foreground on the left is a wonderful play on the perspective, but the village is too "tucked" into the leaves. Had the photographer stepped a little more to their right, removing the strange crop of the road on the right and shifting the village over a bit, then the image would be much better. The sky can always be corrected. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not exciting, but very nice landscape and good light & composition. -- MJJR (talk) 21:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The buildings attract the eye, but are partially obscured by the foreground tree. This spoils the peaceful scene IMO. --Avenue (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNothing special; rather flat lighting ; attempt to make an interesting composition, but the element in the foreground are unbalanced and partially obstruct the village, which is annoying since it looks to be an important subject of the image, and that is where we look ultimately (per Avenue). - Benh (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Aglais urticae qtl4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 15:31:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Small Tortoiseshell on a package of Marlboro cigarettes
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded und nominated by --Quartl (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture is not supposed to be an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes, nor does it depict a Small Tortoiseshell in its natural environment. It just shows that nature sometimes manages to live side-by-side with what humans to do it. The image is no collage, this small butterfly chose that old package to rest on and I liked the contrast. Let's see what you think about it. --Quartl (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain --Quartl (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The butterfly's colors are overpowered by the red of the cigarette box, so even if I know there's a butterfly there, my eyes are drawn to the white of the box. I'm sure there's a nice message with the "nature and garbage" artwork, but I don't see the value of the image at all. Where would this even be used, what Wikipedia article? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special--Claus (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nicely done, has wow to me, where the B&W does not. Jonathunder (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose /Ö 20:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Small Tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae) on an old package of Marlboro cigarettes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The background is black and white now. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, I like it. It's very artistic ;-). --Quartl (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I posted this figure to my social network and my friend said that it looks like a hidden promotion of the smoking. I don't know. May be he is right :( -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A promoter would've probably used a shiny new package, not an battered old one, but I see the point. --Quartl (talk) 09:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:C. Bechstein Poster, about 1920 edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2011 at 14:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

C. Bechstein 1920 advert
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bruno Bielefeld, restored, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 14:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice example of the poster as an art form, where even commercial promotion was in tune with art. Art Nouveau, Art Deco, constructivism, Bauhaus, etc., etc., were a golden age of graphic communication. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really good. --Tomer T (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hard to review a scan when I don't know how the original looks. I see banding artifacts (even more obviously on the thumbnail), and a lot of "grain", noise, but this doesn't kill it IMO. - Benh (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't see the banding. It's a shame the piano's manufacture stamp (or whatever it's called) doesn't appear to say "Bechstein"... just looks like some random alien letters. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition of this drawing. --Lošmi (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg support /Ö 20:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 19:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restaured.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 05:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leading actress of "Gone with the wind ", this picture has a high historical weight
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 a nice and classic scene, but unfortunately the snapshot is far below the 2Mpixel resolution guideline. --Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 5 June 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.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is impossible to get a 2mp image for any frame of the movie. At that time there was no powerful cameras as we know. This has a high historical value, would be good to reconsider his retirement. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Making Death Mask Edit 4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 21:37:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two men making a death mask, New York, circa 1908
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bain News Service, restoration by User:AutoGyro - uploaded by Kelly - nominated by AutoGyro -- AutoGyro (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AutoGyro (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow, this is a highly interesting photo. Creepy, great focus on the work on making the mold. Intriguing really. However it is far below the 2 Mpixel guideline. At the original source there is a 7056×5505 pixel 37 MB tif scan available for download. I think that would make a much better starting point for a high resolution restoration. Given that better possible strating point I really cannot mitigate for the size it has here. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree completely. We should not be restoring reduced resolution images, much less featuring such restorations. Restorations should start from the best quality image available. (I've now uploaded the original image in its full resolution.) --Avenue (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Pl. XXXIII. Diastylis rathkei-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 12:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Georg Ossian Sars in 1900 - uploaded by W.S. - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Mind giving a reason? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The reason is: I see no reason why this scan is so outstanding to be FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too fuzzy at smaller scales. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:The Wave Swinger, Gröna Lund, Stockholm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 15:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by samwong124 - uploaded by samwong124 - nominated by samwong124 -- Samwong124 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Samwong124 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, atmospheric and slightly tilted CCW in smaller resolutions. Deceptively unsharp when viewed in full size. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, visible CA. Nice atmosphere though. -- King of ♠ 09:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry - look at image note. Next time wait for darker background. Przykuta[edit] 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great light indeed, but technically speaking could be improved:
* Way soft! Slightly misfocused or suffered from vertical camera shake. Use tripod, mirror lock-up, stop down the aperture to f/8.
* The image is tilted to the left.
* Parts of the sky are overexposed. Maybe 5 minutes later, it would have been better. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Crucita Ecuador beach 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 08:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crucita, Ecuador
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Because of the coastal mountain range and excellent wind conditions, es:Crucita attracts paragliders from beyond Ecuador.
    Please, be aware that this country is "poor", though rich in its people, culture and nature.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Awkward stacking of objects in frame, signs growing out of towers or the boat anchored to a tree, etc. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perfect lighting, superb quality. But I'm still looking for the featured thing. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The featurable thing: I believe it to be the entire scenery, as such, with its geometry and colours, and with what it tells us about the place. --Cayambe (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This has grown on me. I don't think all our FPs need to hit the viewer like a sledgehammer. --Avenue (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too many objects. Cut this boat on the left. Przykuta[edit] 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Volcán Tungurahua3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 06:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dr. Carlos Costales Terán - uploaded by Dabit100 - nominated by Dabit100 -- Dabit100 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dabit100 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure is too dark, awkward framing (lots of wasted space on the left), simply not all that interesting. I prefer the exposure of File:Arenallong.jpg, for example. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You don't get opportunity to take a picture of active volcano every day + I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Arenallong. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose /Ö 20:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ansel Adams - National Archives 79-AA-Q01 restored.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 01:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Church, Taos Pueblo National Historic Landmark, New Mexico, 1942
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ansel Adams - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Kaldari
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. High resolution historic image by a famous photographer. -- Kaldari (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, it's a Ansel Adams after all ;) But I actually find the composition a bit trivial. - Benh (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I feel like I'm going to curse myself if I oppose an Adams, but I really kind of agree with Benh... trivial is a good word. If this image had anyone else's name on it, I wouldn't have given it a second look. The frame-within-a-frame-within-a-frame may have been a novelty in the 40s, but it's really nothing amazing today. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MrPanyGoff 20:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I did not know about the photographer beforehand, but I find the composition and light excellent. --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, light. Not featured imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition. --Avenue (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @Kerαunoςcopia: Precisely. We can't fault Shakespeare for being unoriginal when he says, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet" or "The course of true love never did run smooth," just because they're clichés now. -- King of ♠ 22:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As kaʁstn --Miguel Bugallo 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As kaʁstn W.S. 21:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Butcher at guanajuato market.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 23:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Here´s one for meat/pork lovers! -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Difficult to understand what's going on at first. Also looks a bit like an advertisement for the company named on the wall. Very busy image. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition, imo. I like the contrast between the head of a slaughterer pig, and the happy face of a drawn pig. Doesn't look like an advertisement to me. --Lošmi (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, this does make the ham lovers world very happy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great idea, but IMO the hanging head needs more separation from the background. --Avenue (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it a lot, but would it not be better with a slight CCW rotation? --Slaunger (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose /Ö 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like it (DOF...), but tilted to me--Miguel Bugallo 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've been reflecting on it for a while, and I think I like it a lot. --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically not the best, but visually striking. W.S. 12:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Citron (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Geysir (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 19:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eruption of Great Geysir, Iceland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think it is refreshing to see a geyser from a distance. The combination of colors and the scene is interesting. The light is a bit too dull though for my taste and the overall image quality not quite FP quality IMO - seems like the saturation knob has been turned a tad too much on a slightly underexposed photo - leading to some color noise - although I am not sure. --Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - unsharp and not enough "wow" factor. In general, landscape shots taken on cloudy days only work if the clouds are especially dramatic, or the sun comes out approaching sunset (producing a bright/gloomy juxtaposition), etc. IMO. -- King of ♠ 09:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness clearly lacking, dull colors. But the idea as such could very well lead to a FP. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri (16).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 19:20:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri snake
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The eye is in perfect focus, the mouth is open, and the overall color theme is wonderful. The only thing I find weak is the composition, which is a touch unimaginative. The snake is just a straight line (somehow didn't realize the snake's body is in the background!) and the photographer obviously kept the eye dead center. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Excellent quality, it gives me the creeps :) Azeri (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 04:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition seems not really featured to me (leave is die bottom right; head centered), red colour cast. Two minor issues are the DOF and the flash light (and light conditions in general). Overall the image is not bad, but not more. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only a interesting. Overall, a space unbalanced. Missing separation background and theme, same color. Absent "Golden ratio" 1:1,6 --W.Rebel (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wow! Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not a killer and I quite like the colours, but harsh flash speculars and too shallow DOF make me oppose. W.S. 07:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not in love with the composition either. - Benh (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Carschten. --Avenue (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.S. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's cute. -- King of ♠ 09:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment crop it :) Przykuta[edit] 15:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.S. --Miguel Bugallo 20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.S. --Apollo1758 (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Tarsiger rufilatus - Doi Inthanon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2011 at 01:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. It's a shame the left leg is out of focus, the DOF seems just a touch too narrow. The dead-center bird and slightly square framing is a little off-putting for me, but John Singer Sargent was criticized for his very square portraits too, sometimes : ) Nice mossy bough, too. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 06:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very, very nice (including a nice license). --Slaunger (talk) 06:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the colors. If author happens to read me, is it a crop ? doesn't seem as sharp as the other pics despite the size (I'm thinking about Cephas). I'm also surprised it's still this sharp at 1/30sec, but I guess the (huge) lens rests on something. - Benh (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Its a crop, and getting sharp images at 1/30 with such focal lengths is a challenge even with support, so there probably is some motion blur in there. Even if the tripod was perfect the bird is still moving around. The Cephas pictures are taken in the sun at 1/400, which is a different ballgame to a dark jungle. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes I was aware I must have been quite dark (f/4, ISO 400, 1/30) and that Cephas' pics are under better lighting. I was just a bit surprised a high end 500mm couldn't do better than a far cheaper 400mm f/5.6. Thanks for the explanations. Benh (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Yeah, it was a situation where lens sharpness wasn't really a limiting factor. On a few occasions it was even worse than this (like 1/10 F4 ISO 1600). If I did it again I'd have taken some flashes and wireless triggers for these situations (this was taken from a portable blind). JJ Harrison (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Sounds stupid, but I had to search for what a portable blind is (in case someone speaks english as "well" as I do). Must be a lot for you to carry by the way. - Benh (talk) 16:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
            • You are not alone. I did not know either. --Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
              • I'm not certain, but my guess is Cephas uses blinds to some degree too. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • No, but I'm thinking to buy one some days. --Cephas (talk) 14:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! Cephas (talk) 09:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral so-so quality because of difficult light conditions... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support (f/4, ISO 400, 1/30) !! W.S. 10:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Oh, a bird in FPC ! At least, something new !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Background is not perfect, but Symbol support vote.svg Support. Welcome new species to FP :) Przykuta[edit] 15:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful--Miguel Bugallo 19:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 08:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Heliconius-hecale.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2011 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tiger Longwing (Heliconius hecale) with cocoon.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's nice, but I'm not too keen on the very harsh flash lighting, with background appearing very dark. - Benh (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's got the wow factor I think, but I agree with Benh, the lighting is far too harsh. Try placing a thin fabric over the flash to diffuse the light some, though something like this should probably be taken with two-source lighting (I'm just guessing, I've only seen a few behind-the-scenes bug shots). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 19:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tightly cropped. W.S. 09:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thank you very much for the tips!H. Krisp (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ostriches Kuhnert.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 15:18:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
It's the whole image.--Citron (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop. W.S. 19:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, this is not a crop, as user:Citron pointed out.. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
FYI, a crop is also a way of presenting an image, not necessarily a cutting technique. Here the crop is not good, to put it gently. W.S. 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hendric Stattmann (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition/crop, and the eyes don't seem realistic. --Avenue (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Citron (talk) 08:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Physicsworks.ogg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 06:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MIT staff for Prof. Lewin, the lecturer it features. Via the MIT OCW project, which is starting to release video clips under a free content license. Uploaded by Sj - nominated by Sj -- --SJ+ 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- as nominator. This is a clip from a highly popular youtube and OCW series - a visual and visceral demonstration of air friction and conservation of energy, with a appreciative audience. --SJ+ 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't wait to see it, but it gets "stuck" (?) at the buffering stage and will just sit there for about a minute, before I give up on it. Other videos I found in a Google search started up immediately. So I'll try your video later. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't get the video to play. If one is supposed to wait several minutes, then maybe that's fine for them, but I'm an impatient web cruiser. If someone can say how long it took for the video to buff for them, that'd be swell. Otherwise, sorry, I can't vote one way or the other. :( – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A video I really like. A pity it is cut in the end, before he says "see you wendsday" :) Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A recored lecture, but I don't see anything to be featured in it. Just a plain, regular lecture with really nice experiment and explanations. Masur (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is there any sound? --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes. Why, can you not here it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I can hear the sound with some browser/OS combinations (e.g. Firefox 4.0.1 under Ubuntu 11.04), but not others (e.g. Firefox 4.0.1 under Windows XP). --Avenue (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I have problems with for instance WinXP and FF 4.01 - in contrast to youtube videos. Can you fix that, otherwise I have to oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • No sound, too. -- -donald- (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Masur --Llorenzi (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Same concern as Yikrazuul. Running Firefox Nightly 7.0a1 on Windows 7. -- King of ♠ 22:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Carpodacus purpureus CT4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 22:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Purple Finch, female
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Magnificent. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 05:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad lighting and posture --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bland --W.Rebel (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JJ Harrison (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Another bird ! On a tree branch ! Yeepeeh ! And some do make comments about shells nominations ? --Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Miguel Bugallo 22:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not quite up there with the very best of the best in terms of lighting and posture. --99of9 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting, posture, background colour too similar to bird's. --Avenue (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Lighting sorry. Good quality otherwise. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 05:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 06:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Panorama herscheid stottmert germany.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:32:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape Herscheid, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pro2 - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- pro2 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- pro2 13:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very pretty, but it's a typical sunset shot. The glare makes it hard to see what's going on, and the foreground is underexposed. But it's a road in the hills heading toward the setting sun. Very Chaplin-esque, but nothing extremely special for FA. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is very good but the lighting conditions kill it for me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you'd prefer this one.. -- pro2 22:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The sky is definitively improved, but you still have the problem that the landscape is underexposed. The main focus of your picture is the blown out sun, that's where the eyes immediately goes to (at least mine). So yes, it's an improvement, but still not FP IMO. But don't take what I say at face value, put it up as an alternative if you want and let people vote. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback ;-) -- pro2 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A panorama...--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this version, and don't consider the land too dark. --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2011 at 13:32:16 (UTC)

Landscape Herscheid, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pro2 - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- pro2 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- pro2 21:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - too much of an HDR look. I really like the clouds and crepuscular rays though, and I would prefer the first version but with the sun blown out (currently it's flat at ~230 RGB which looks really unnatural). Don't worry about blown highlights, it would be weird if the sun were not blown out for all but the last 30 minutes of sunset. -- King of ♠ 07:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hmm, I kind of like the HDR look here, though I'm not familiar with how HDR images are approached at FPC. Very pretty, much easier on the eyes than the original. Someone above said the sun attracts the eyes, but the opposite happens to me: it's so glaring on the computer screen, I can't help but stare at the foreground. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there's anything valuable about the image, but I think it's much better in terms of foreground exposure and glare/haze removal. I'd be proud to have taken a photo like that. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I find that the lighting and composition of this image in general are very nice, so I guess I'll Symbol support vote.svg Support some version of this. -- King of ♠ 09:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The HDR is overdone for me. --99of9 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 08:55:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dornach, Switzland: Goetheanum from northwest
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC) (new edit with correction sharpness and stitching error, first candidate: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suppose it is a stitch since the EXIF is gone. Would you mind detailing in the file page what camera settings were used, the software you have used for the stitch and the number of frames used? I suppose the faint white elongated dots in the sky are stars? --Slaunger (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
I have added the basic data. The dots are stars. Would be better to erase them?! --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the metadata. I did not know of the nice {{panorama}} beforehand, but now I do. I do not have strong opinion about the stars. I just asked because I was in doubt if it was birds in the far distance - that was when I still did not know the exposure times... --Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the blue hour, but I am inclined to think this was taken a little too late, when it was getting a little too dark. But very interesting architecture and light. Good technical quality and nice stitch. --Slaunger (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe try during daylight? Now all the attention is drawn to the uninteresting lit part. W.S. 10:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per W.S. Nicely fixed, but in the end, and as per my previous vote, most of the building is in the dark, with only a small part actually lit - Benh (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
your previous vote does not mentioned that you think it is too dark. Strange that the building is good visible although it's dark. Your vote indeed is not strange, it has already tradition and I would miss it if you wouldn´t vote blanket against my pictures :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • quote from myself from the previous nom : "Only a fractional part of the building is lit". And when someone mentions that something is there to an "only" extent, it means that he thinks that this something is missing a little. In that case, light. Hmmm. Next time please read the whole thing, before complaining. - Benh (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You know as good as I know that you are just push forward "arguments". No need for further conversation. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • U're kidding right ? u're always the one shifting the subject off from photo (as if you don't have argument otherwise, and the above about lighting issue is just evidence of that). Please leave bad faith aside just a few second. But it's true I always fall for that. Not anymore, hopefully ;) - Benh (talk) 10:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Canaletto - The Piazza San Marco in Venice - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2011 at 14:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Piazza San Marco in Venice by Canaletto.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hard to judge. First of all, there seems to be some remnant or orphaned HTML tag in the description of the image. Is the tower supposed to look "bent" like that? Was the image created by a high-end scanner or is the tower suffering from a wide-angle lens? I would imagine the painter to paint it straight, but some painters had some incredible powers at reproducing bizarre lens-like landscapes. But it doesn't seem like that would be the case here. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting, but who deserves credit: the painter or photographer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good art, good digitization. --99of9 (talk) 05:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hard to judge but presumably good for a 400-year-old painting. I say more credit goes to the painter as creator. The photographer gets credit as the uploader - or at least that's what I always do. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 15:06, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:HahnEcho GWM.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 15:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spin echo animation
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by GavinMorley - uploaded by GavinMorley - nominated by GavinMorley -- GavinMorley (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GavinMorley (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not saying this to be rude, but is there a way to have this image represented by a still image somehow? I keep swinging by the FPC page and then my browser will hang for 30 seconds while the gif is trying to load, and I keep forgetting it's here. If this isn't possible, then ignore me : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question 1) What is the meaning of the green arrows at the bottom? 2) If I understand correctly, the pi/2 (90) and pi (180) pulses are something that you apply to the system, while the echo is something that you measure. In this sense, having both in one "graph" is a bit counterintuitive and possibly confusing. Also don't see the reason for having the "graph" in 3D. bamse (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
    • 1) The green arrows at the bottom show that the time "t" between the 90 and 180 pulses is the same as the time "t" between the 180 pulse and the echo. 2) As you say there is a difference between the applied pulses and the echo. They are the same in the sense that they are all pulses of electromagnetic radiation with the same frequency (generally RF for NMR and microwave for EPR). I like to have them together to show that the two times "t" are the same. Many experiments produce data with the pulses and the echo together such as figure 3a from my recent Phys Rev Lett paper here: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.3431.pdf . I did the green graph in 3D because I thought it looked nicer. GavinMorley (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the reply and congratulations to the PRL. 1) So the arrows are pointing at the centers of the respective peak/plateaus (hard to see in 3D in my opinion)? I am not sure that these green arrows are the best way to illustrate that it is the same time interval. Initially I thought it was somehow related to the direction of the spins (which are also represented by arrows. Unfortunately I don't have a good idea of how to improve it: maybe some kind of bar instead of the arrows or adding a label "T" or something. 2) OK as for plotting them together. A problem of the 3D graph is that the p/2 pulse does not appear to be half as wide as the pi pulse due to the projection. Can you remind me what determines the shape (width and height) of the echo peak? Well done and very useful illustration btw! bamse (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
        • 1) yes. 2) The echo height depends on things like how many spins are in the sample, the relaxation times, the spin polarization etc. The echo width depends on the width of the pulses, the relaxation times, the inhomogeneities in the experiment etc. If people want I could render the animation with all of the green stuff rotated so that you are looking at it head-on. GavinMorley (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the explanation. I would support it with a rotated green stuff. bamse (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I always support animations, because they are best to describe things, that hard to be explained in words. But this animation is need additional explanation in words, so I can't support it. Technically: a) animation does not show, what we "did" and what we "get"; and b) the green arrow of time looks like it is assigned to X axis. -- ☭Acodered (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I uploaded a new version of the animation to solve the concerns raised above. GavinMorley (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Why does it need to be so dark and to have such strong colors? After all it looks a bit after "I didn't know how how to make it better". I would suggest to use a 2D-Graph and a brighter illustration of the angles/vectors on top of it. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 10:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I chose the black background because I thought it looked best but I can change it if people want other colours. Last week I put up this version http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GWM_HahnEcho_GreyBgd.gif which has a grey background. Why would it be better with a 2D graph? What do you mean by "a brighter illustration"? Red arrows on a blue background seems very bright and I thought that your complaint about "strong colours" meant you wanted less bright colours (closer to pastel shades) rather than the current primary colours. GavinMorley (talk) 13:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Spin echo animation

  • Click the image to see the animation. Another example for not working GIF thumbnails. ;-) -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 15:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks, but I much prefer the strong colours of the original. Also there are a couple of inaccuracies in your physics: the echo shape is not smooth enough and the accelarating and decelarating precession in the xy plane would require a changing magnetic field. These experiments are conducted with constant external magnetic field.
      • How smooth should the echo shape be? "the accelarating and decelarating precession" Currently it is non linear in this animation. Should i change it to linear instead? -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 16:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
        • The echo looks pointy at the top. The precession speed should be constant. GavinMorley (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Very good, as usual. And for not working GIF -- at 540x540 resolution it should be 42 frames length to fit 12.5 MP limit. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Then you will hardly get something usable (42 frames, 250 frames at 222x222...). The filesize itself is 1,3 MB. Compared to other images this is small. I can only assume that the limit is way too low. -- /人 ‿‿ 人\ 苦情処理係 08:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one. The other one is too dark. Yann (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it possible to remove dithering noise at background? ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

SpinEcho GWM4.gif

Here is a version without the dark background. GavinMorley (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good with the arrows' shadows. Yann (talk) 22:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not even completely sure what it is but these are so demonstrative it's easy to figure out what it's attempting to teach about echoes/reflections. I like the reflections shown here. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 15:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Racing at Arlington Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 03:15:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Three Thoroughbreds racing
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Paul Kehrer - uploaded by User:Froggerlaura - nominated by User:Froggerlaura -- Froggerlaura (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I thought this was an awesome shot. I do agree that the crop is too tight, but I think these are the edges of the frame. You can't really get the horses to back up:) Thought it was an amazing result given the time window. Froggerlaura (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Is it a photo finish or an oil painting? :D Great shot. However, it looks slightly overtweaked. A lot of noise in the background and expecially in the greens, and the legs of the horses look like they're suffering from a sort of sharpening effect. I also find the bulk of the image to be slightly underexposed. Lastly, the crop is way too tight, unfortunately. Great image otherwise. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the image quality fine. But the framing is really, really tight, with parts of the legs cut out at the bottom. - Benh (talk) 06:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Benh --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is tight, but I still think it's an awesome picture. Tomer T (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yup, I like it. -- King of ♠ 09:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh--Miguel Bugallo 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support can't really help the crop. Great pic. Good twins (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Sweetgum Seed closeup.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 13:11:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sweetgum Seed Capsule DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image quality is much below FP standards: out of focus subject, noise, artifacts, distracting bakground. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 10 June 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.

Image:Rügen Kreidefelsen Kaiserstuhl 2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2011 at 19:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White Cliffs of Rügen
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by pe-sa - uploaded by pe-sa - nominated by pe-sa -- Pe-sa (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pe-sa (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Unsharp. In general, for landscapes the best aperture to use is somewhere around f/8. If you use a larger aperture, you will get limited depth of field and corner degradation; if you use a smaller aperture, the overall quality will be limited by diffraction. -- King of ♠ 07:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although I really like the subject, the composition and the colors, I also recommend to use a smaller aperture like f/8, as the sharpness of your 18-55 zoom will greatly improve. Please make sure to hold your camera level, your picture tilts about 2° to the right, as you can see on the horizon line. I am looking forward to see a new version of this picture, which I would like to support, for sure! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 08:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your comment! I corrected the horizont line and uploaded a new version --Pe-sa (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I confirm the image is straight now. :-) I still think you will need to shoot the picture again, with the parameters I mentioned in my earlier comment. Also use ISO 100 with such a good light. And a tripod for maximum stability. And be sure to order such nice weather again... Good luck! Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks again for your friendly help on commons Pe-sa (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Image:SeebrückeGöhren2011.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 20:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pier, Göhren, Rügen
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by pe-sa - uploaded by pe-sa - nominated by pe-sa -- Pe-sa (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pe-sa (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I now feel guilty to spoil the party, again! But let's see the positives, nevertheless:
  • Great light and colors - you really caught the right moment to shoot the subject
  • Composition - I like the "no frills" approach
  • You got the horizon straight this time :-)
On the other hand, I have a number of possible improvements for this image:
  • Noise - why 800 ISO? There was plenty of light to work with 100 ISO.
  • Sharpness - The EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 II is simply soft wide open (the IS version is better). Stop it down to 5.6 or 8.0 whenever you can.
  • Composition - Let the handrail on the right side "fly in" from the corner. This diagonal leads the viewer's eye and improves the perspective impression.
I hope you understand that for the given reasons I cannot support the candidature. Finally, I also struggle to see the encyclopedic value/signification of this building. With kind regards, Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks a lot for your friendly help Pe-sa (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Pe-sa (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:GabelRum01 ST 07.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2011 at 23:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wadi Rum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ST - uploaded by ST - nominated by matanya -- matanya talk 23:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- matanya talk 23:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The focus seems really soft. Could be just me maybe? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's not misfocused, that's just the best you can get out of a Canon Powershot A710. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best possible composition in horizontal 3rds, great afternoon colors on a clear day. Could only be improved through a more advanced camera for better sharpness and resolution, and maybe some little white clouds here and there? Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Hypercube construction.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 00:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An animation of the construction of a 4-dimensional hypercube (tesseract) graph. In my opinion a good way to visualize the fourth dimension, as it starts from squares, goes to cubes, and finally a hypercube. I can upload a larger size if necessary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by InverseHypercube - uploaded by InverseHypercube - nominated by InverseHypercube -- InverseHypercube (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- InverseHypercube (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The EV, but this isn't really the best Commons has to offer; it doesn't make you sit back in your chair and say, "wow". A bit simplistic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing extremely valuable in comparison to the thousands of images of hypercubes out there. I do have a suggestion for improvement, though: the last frame should last longer than the frames preceding it. Hold the "pose", as it were. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for the comments. I have extended the last frame. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Igrexa parroquial de Doade - Lalín - Galicia-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 22:32:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Leptophis ahaetulla Snake Eating a Frog (Craugastor gollmeri).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2011 at 06:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Snake eats frog in Panama.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love action shots, and couldn't go past this from my friend Brian's current expedition to Panama. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 06:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stunningly beautiful snake. Unfortunately, the frog is impossible to see (I didn't even see despite the mouth consuming it) due to the somewhat camoflauge aspect of the background. If you'd be willing to do something about the background (lighten it/darken it, whatever), I think it could have my support. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Om nom nom. I'm all for it no matter what. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 02:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely snake, poor frog. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wauw --alex.vonbun (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The fact that there is little contrast between the frog and the background goes to show that it attempted to hide itself, and failed ... -- King of ♠ 05:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ankara (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Very nice photo, but the file description is very sparse. Is it a zoo or wild-life shot? Where was it taken? What camera, lens, exposure, aperture, ISO (unfortunately no useful EXIF on the original flickr upload). Except the retouch done by 99of9, has any further postprocessing been applied? --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have asked the creator to provide the missing details via his flickr profile. --Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hopefully Brian will give us full details, but usually his non-studio pics are from expeditions, often at night, to collect frogs. This trip was in Panama (the Darien I think). I don't know about the camera technicals, except that this was taken with a flash (hence my retouch removing the flash reflection from the eye). I don't think he does retouching in the field (this was uploaded while he was still in Panama). --99of9 (talk) 04:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, Toby. You are probably correct in everything you state here. I hope Brian drops by, such that he can confirm/fill in the blanks - perhaps also add a geotag. --Slaunger (talk) 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the nomination guys - it was taken in the Mamoni Valley near Chagres National Park Panama, Cannon D7, 100mm sigma lense, external flash, F 1/14, ISO 100, 1/250 Sec, 5/28/2011 _ have no idea how to add this to the image properties on wikipedia.
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks Brian. I've added it as text in the image description. I guess it could be put into the metadata, but having the info anywhere is what counts. --99of9 (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Abderitestatos (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Portrait of a monk-MGR Lyon-IMG 9873-black.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 10:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a monk. Japan, 16th century. Lacquered wood with rock crystal incrusts for eyes. On display at the Musée des Confluences exhibit of the Musée gallo-romain de Fourvière
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of a monk. Japan, 16th century. Lacquered wood with rock crystal incrusts for eyes. On display at the Musée des Confluences exhibit of the Musée gallo-romain de Fourvière. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 10:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a problem with focus - eyes... Przykuta[edit] 15:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Stairs at Du Loup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2011 at 20:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A stairway in a Belgium Castle.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Delay - uploaded by Delay - nominated by Delay -- Delay (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Delay (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but it's a strange composition. Perhaps it was meant to be a horizontal frame. There almost seems to be too much floor. Otherwise, I like it. I personally would go so far as to paint out the weird fire alarm thingy on the far back wall, I find it to be one of those modern blemishes that appear all too often in beautiful locations. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 05:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with painting out the fire alarm thing. I think photographs meant to be used in an encyclopedia should not be modified in this manner, because they lose documentary value. InverseHypercube (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm, that's a fair point. I suppose an image on an encyclopedia would have a different raison d'être than a picture hung on a wall of someone's living room (or whatever). Anyway, for the record, the fire alarm thingamabob would not affect my vote. My "neutral" is definitely for the beauty of the staircase, the flow of the wood, but the lack of a fitting composition. : ) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I greatly appreciate the composition and B&W generation. On the technical side, I would have recommended to use base ISO, as there is a fair amount of noise. Also, stopping down the lens to f/8 could have improved the sharpness. As you used a tripod, the resulting longer exposure time would not have been a problem, anyway. Therefore, if you have the possibility to shoot the scene again, I would support a new version. Alternatively, a PP for noise control and sharpness would do to get my support. Hendric Stattmann (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really like the composition and light - the way the light reflects on the floor is very nice. Noise seems a little excessive. The file description is insufficient IMO for an FP: Which castle in Belgium? I noticed the dirt on the floor, which gives the impression that it is a deserted castle, but is that right? --Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri (12).JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2011 at 11:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lampropeltis Mexicana Greeri snake in private collection of Jakub Seif. Feeding
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Chmee2 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Raghith 16:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose white balance is off; wrong focus; too shallow DOF; poor, disturbing and too busy foreground composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per kaʁstn --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Waldbrand-Bodenfeuer.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2011 at 17:44:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's a good picture, but I don't think it's up to current standards. There isn't such a wow effect, and the composition is mediocre and has some problems, such as too tight crop on the right. Just an oridnary fire shot. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Wouldn't pass now, but it's not so bad that we need to trash it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per