Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2009

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


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


Contents

File:Currier and Ives Liberty2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 02:58:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Currier & Ives - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from Currier and Ives Liberty.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Published one year before the statue was erected. Depicts it facing southward instead of eastward, with Manhattan and the Brooklyn Bridge in the background.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for this image!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral You did a wonderful job with stitching. But i don't like too tight crop. I would prefer and support original framing. --Lošmi (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Cropping tight on large borders makes the image display better in thumbnail at articles. Durova (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know, this one looks ok in Statue of Liberty article. The Commons isn't only a storage for pictures that will appear in Wikipedia articles. It's also an image archive. For example, if someone would print this he wouldn't have thumbnail restriction. --Lošmi (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
        • thumbnail support is broken. Consequently it needs to be fixed. The issues with MediaWiki is not an issue with pictures under consideration. GerardM (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very high quality. kallerna 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop and colours per Lošmi. Lycaon (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured.  --Karel (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Combestone tor edit1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 04:01:14
Combestone Tor, south west side of Dartmoor (Devon)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good mood --Muhammad 07:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose centered composition doesn't convince me. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose centered composition and unfortunate crop left. Lycaon (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The subject of the image is the mood of the place. Muhammad got it just right. The mood cannot be centered. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Anopheles albimanus mosquito.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 11:39:09
Anopheles albimanus mosquito feeding on a human arm

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Anopheles albimanus mosquito feeding on a human arm - created by James Gathany - uploaded by Fireice - nominated by Pruneau -- Pruneautalk 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pruneautalk 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened, noisy and focus not right. --Muhammad 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Muhammad, but it is an impressing image too. --S. Martín (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Technically rather poor; composition great. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition AND image quality should be "great" for FP... -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose like before --Doucus (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Great Egret strikes for a Fish c.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 17:05:24
Great egret strikes for a fish

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really do not like of this one, but for some reason, it's very hypnotizing. kallerna 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly composition. Moreover, there is one thing (that I believe to be a leaf) on the top right which is distracting. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above, mainly composition. I understand you may have waited a long period to capture this image, but the only clear thing from this image is the oval body of the bird. The rest of the bird is underwater, and the rest of the picture is feature-less water. The water splash is nice, but can't compensate for the rest. Sorry --S23678 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried to work on this one too? Any success? Just wonder.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose needs a good crop? Dcubillas (talk) 01:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Palo blanco 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2009 at 18:15:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is called a Palo Blanco, native to the coastal areas of the Sonora Desert, Mexico. If you can identify it by scientific name, feel free to do so... Nothing stops you... it would be appreciated. I take the picture, you identify it and everybody benefits... -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good colours but I find the cutoff branch disturbing. --Muhammad 04:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "This media file is uncategorized.", more info needed, crop (whole tree isn't in the picture), something wrong with quality... kallerna 19:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Un-interresting subject --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as others Dcubillas (talk) 01:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Beggar Saint Elisabeth Group.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2009 at 20:55:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:F-22 Raptor.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2009 at 10:57:22
An F-22 Raptor flies over Kadena Air Base, Japan

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Andy Dunaway - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- High Contrast (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Super! Could you remove vignetting? It also seems underexposed a bit... --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wow, really cool photo. If you remove vignetting as mentioned by Dmitry A. Mottl and the dust spots (I have counted three already), you get my approval. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great picture, but the vignetting and dust spots are a problem. I'd correct them myself, but my experience in that particular arena is limited. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to remove the vignetting but the result unfortunately did not convince me. Does anyone have any improvements for this image, please upload. Thanks and greets, High Contrast (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment COMPETITION! How about the competition? The best edit of this picture --85.140.175.143 17:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Edited version, featured[edit]

version 2 by Dmottl

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please separate nominations not to invalidate later vote count. Lycaon (talk) 12:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edited version --Karel (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support F-22 Raptor edit1.jpg --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support edited version --ianaré (talk) 07:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very plain (!) composition. Lycaon (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For edit version --Jagro (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Still quite boring. kallerna 18:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job editing this excellent photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Macro shots of insects are boring. Not this! --Phil13 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Cantharis livida 2.jpg, withdrawed[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2009 at 03:53:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Soldier Beetle (Cantharis livida) bottom view
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Richard, what is this thing at his head that looks like a dew?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Richard bought a Swarovski Crystal for his little friend ...that's how he convinces those little creatures to pose for him ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. Martín (talk) 08:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Have to think about it...I wish the Beetle would be a bit brighter. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another good one --Muhammad 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination In favour to the edit below. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Cantharis_livida_2_edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Edit 1

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lifted shadows to brighten the beetle.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad 20:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. kallerna 19:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better than the one above. Ps.: I think the yellow background is the weakest part of this photo. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportPictogram voting info.svg Info I have recovered the colors --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now it is perfect :) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:CRT color enhanced.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 11:35:04
Interior of a cathode-ray tube

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Grm wnr - uploaded by Grm wnr - nominated by Vaan -- 87.78.189.9 11:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Vaan No anonymous voting please. Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good image, but should be in SVG --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:House at Eaglemont1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 17:33:34
View of house from street.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ottre - uploaded by Ottre - nominated by Ottre. Ottre 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having photographed the area on a couple of occasions, in my opinion this image is paticularly striking. The sunlight hitting the building more than makes up for the slight lack of sharpness in the foliage/overgrowth. Ottre 17:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lack of quality is too important, and the composition/colors are rather ordinary. --S23678 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality, nothing outstanding. kallerna 18:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Unsatisfactory quality.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Oriental Pearl Tower Reflection.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 01:30:18
Reflection of Oriental Pearl Tower

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by ZHart -- ZHart (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ZHart (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC) De trop of elements round the building.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "This media file is uncategorized.", many distracting elements. kallerna 19:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Kallerna. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ruines-fort1 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ruins at the Salbert hill (near Belfort, France).

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Hokanji Kyoto01n4272.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 15:19:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by 663highland -- 663highland (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 663highland (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, bad quality. kallerna 19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and serious noise problems in the shadow areas of the building.--PieCam (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:NYPDNYCUnitedStatesofAmerica.jpg, withdrawed[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 23:01:19
A N.Y.P.D. Crown Victoria parked on Times Square in New York City, United States of America. Edit 1

Isn't it the purpose of FP's to have the quality and appearance of a poster, since posters are often regarded as great pictures? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would have loved to take that shot! --Phil13 (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Although neons probably were pink, I think, white balance should be in each case slightly colder. In combination with very hight contrast it's a little problematic. But nice composition and quality. --Martin Kozák (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I've created a new version with a different color balance. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful shot ZHart (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose EDIT: Per other opposers + composition (too much of that road). kallerna 13:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide a reason for opposing? --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I've nominated a new (hopefully) final version. This version deals with the white balance problem and it is sharper. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawed by author

File:JamesJoyce1904.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2009 at 10:28:07


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded and nominated Paris 16 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Face, stance, and context all interesting, for an important subject. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Freedom to share (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Improper licensing; no documentation that this is public domain in Ireland (hence may be an invalid Commons upload), and the source link returns a 404 error. Durova (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Before officially listing this as featured, can we be clear on the licensing? (otherwise I believe it needs to be deleted, sigh.) It seems to be PD in the US. As far as I can tell, the PD status in Ireland depends on whether the current 2000 law (70years after death of author) is retroactive in Ireland. I had a quick look, and it looks like "Constantine P. Curran" died in 1972. (oops, forgot to sign comment) --JalalV (talk)
see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#.7B.7Btl.7CPD-US.7D.7D
this voting will be closed if the discussion on COM:AN is done
--D-Kuru (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Kuvaly (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose JukoFF (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Constantine P. Curran (1880-1972) : not in the public domain yet... --Diligent (talk) 08:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
RESULT: => not featured. 
It is clear that the image received enough votes to be featured.
However, we cannot feature images that are not properly licensed.
There is significant doubt about the license here, and this concern 
has not been addressed in any satisfactory way, despite several weeks have passed. 
I decided, knowing that there was no editor willing to close it as "promote",
it is best now to close this nomination as "not featured". 
We can always vote again when we are sure about the license.

--- Crapload (talk) 18:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Golden Mantled Ground Squirrel Sulphur Mountain Banff.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 00:01:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Current featured picture
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A pair of golden mantled ground squirrels created by Cash4alex - uploaded by Cash4alex - nominated by Staka -- staka.talk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- staka.talk 00:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really great picture! they seems to be the cousin of Chip 'n Dale? Otourly (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Serbish (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a pretty ordinary picture of a squirrel. I like the current FP better.-- Crapload (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not that good of a composition or light. --Dori - Talk 00:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light. Lycaon (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Light. --S. Martín (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very well done, but the current featured picture is better. kallerna 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dori. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the current featured picture is better --Doucus (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not quite there... agree with others Dcubillas (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 supports, 8 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Early flight 02562u.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 04:56:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Romanet & cie., imp. edit.- uploaded by Trialsanderrors - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have to admit I was quite surprised this wasn't featured already - I would have sworn it was - but as it's not... Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S. Martín (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Unsharp; technical inaccuracies. See comments here.[1] Durova (talk) 03:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
The comment you link to is about a picture which is not part of this sheet as far as I can see. What is your point then? In any case I see the candidate picture rather as a piece of art than an exact depiction in all detail. It is sufficiently sharp in my opinion. bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Starscream (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What does the "02562u" in the filename stand for? bamse (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Library of Congress reference number. If you downloaded it from the Library of Congress, at http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.02562 the filename would be 02562u.tif. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I see. On the loc-site I get a "No records were found for the search." message though. Maybe a temporary problem. The candidate image could have a more descriptive filename. bamse (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
        • There's a lot of sections on the LoC site - it may be that the tag's linking to the wrong one. I'll poke into it later on. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
          • No need, it works now. bamse (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 2 opposes, 0 neutral => featured. Benh (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Hřib hnědý 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 10:55:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karel (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors, sharpness and depth. --Lošmi (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't like the flash and the stick in the foreground. Also composition is kind of boring. bamse (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is a bit confusing also the harsh light of the flash is problematic. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per bamse. kallerna 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other opposers. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as other opposers. --staka.talk 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC) insufficiently sharpnes of image.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because a bit confusing --Doucus (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 supports, 7 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:PragueFromPetrin.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2009 at 15:10:45
Prague, Czech Republic

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aqwis - uploaded by Aqwis - nominated by Aqwis -- Aqwis (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aqwis (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, might be enhanced by a slight recropping at the bottom. --JY REHBY (discuter) 18:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is not interesting enough. Crapload (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 05:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting enough. kallerna 19:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S23678 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Too much skies The light from the sky spoils the view of buildings.
Pretty difficult to crop away any of the sky without cutting the cathedral in half, hmm? --Aqwis (talk) 09:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not very interesting Dcubillas (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not spectacular like other panorama FPs. --Estrilda (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per previous --Pom² (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mt Misery cross & view.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 17:22:01
The cross at Mt Misery

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoThe cross at Mt Misery, w:Dartmoor probably marking the route for monks travelling between Buckfast & Tavistock. In the background the basin is Fox Tor mire, a peat bog. It may well have been the inspiration for Grimpen Mire in the "w:Hound of the Baskervilles"
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture looks underexposed to me, the focus is drawn to the background, rather than to the cross. Lycaon (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the cross and the landscape in the foreground appear underexposed to me --Cayambe (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

result: Withdrawn => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Scatophaga stercoraria 3 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 05:14:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Male elks in Yellowstone NP.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 05:14:50
Elks in Yellowstone NP

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good - Man On Mission (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, DoF and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite ordinary photo, bad quality. kallerna 19:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kallerna, very poor quality. Lycaon (talk) 09:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, technical quality not excellent --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality (looks oversharpened) --S23678 (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC) The very not sharpnes of image.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- ordinary -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ranch house in Canela.jpg[edit]

Original, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2009 at 20:59:55
Ranch house nearby Canela - Edited version

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice place.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not a member here, but just thought I would comment - This image has had some pretty wonky editing done to it, easily noticeable at full size. Probably shouldn't be featured. 76.11.35.34 23:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, you are right. I've done some editing... to remove the noise. I gotta say I'm tired of getting my photos declined cause of noise, that's why this photo was heavily edited. I may upload the original one in a couple of days for you to judge it. I appreciate your observation, though. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 12:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with 76.11.35.34. But it has a nice composition...maybe you try again with a less edited version. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise reduction ≠ detail reduction. Lycaon (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose –From the exif info: " Contrast : Hard - Saturation : High saturation - Sharpness : Hard ". That explains almost everything: bright halo around highly contrasted areas, over-saturated colors, unnatural colors, etc. Plus chromatic aberations. Sting (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposers. kallerna 19:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ranch house in Canela - Original version.jpg, not featured[edit]

Ranch house nearby Canela - Original version

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support as I like the composition but dislike i.e. the lack of focus at the right. Might be a camera issue, misadjusted optics. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Unfortunately, it is a camera issue :( I've got a Pentax K10D, which is known by having an image sharpness drawback when shooting at JPEG format.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks slightly too much out of focus --S23678 (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Pectoral Sandpiper3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2009 at 19:10:58
Pectoral Sandpiper

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Merops (talk) 19:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good DOF, nice background, excellent light, a tad over-sharpened. --Dori - Talk 19:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture. Please add the locality where the shot was taken. --Cayambe (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Geolocation would be nice. kallerna 19:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Geolocation is added Merops (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent shot, very sharp. Diti the penguin 21:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - great! -- Man On Mission (talk) 07:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Doucus (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villa16 (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Background is fake poorly processed --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The background is not a fake. Sorry I'am to tired to explain it again. You can read my german explanation here Merops (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Granville-Paris Express Replica.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 21:36:23
Replica of the Granville-Paris express accident

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tiago Fioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 08:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Admirable. Not trite.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A lovely example of a en:Folly. -- MartinD (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Clear (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Regardless of the technical quality, I find the topic to be in bad taste. It was an accident that made at least one casualty... --JY REHBY (discuter) 23:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With all the respect Sir/Madam, if that is a criterion to oppose my photo, then photos of the Roman Coliseum should be opposed as well, since thousands of people died in there. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the subject (I didn't even know a replica existed) but there's too much chromatic aberration to my taste (pink/blue contours everywhere). Diti the penguin 11:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well seen it! I've done some chromatic aberration reduction and uploaded a new version. I think it looks rather better than the original version. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm still not a fan of the result, but CA doesn't bother me a lot now. I'll just vote Symbol neutral vote.svg neutral. :) Diti the penguin 17:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the subject makes it look a little like a tourist photo to me, and it's got a weird sawtooth effect on it (see the red parts of the train) which might be do to the chromatic aberration removal. And the composition could be better with things being cut off on the top and sides of the image. --IG-64 (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per IG-64. --PieCam (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically not perfect, but somehow I like it. kallerna 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - really needs perspective correction (see the building verticals) - Peripitus (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think this replica has sense, without the correct context around (the train station should be Montparnasse train station in Paris, and that one doesn't look like it at all). Benh (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Agree with IG-64. Maedin\talk 12:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Hiroshige II - Kishu kumano iwatake tori - Shokoku meisho hyakkei.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 22:12:26
Iwatake gathering

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Category:Hiroshige II - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The streaky appearance is caused by paper texture, and is normal for ukiyo-e prints. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The date, 1860, is the year of the printing, the year of the (pre-woodblock) drawing or both? bamse (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The year of the printing, as far as I'm aware - I'd be extremely surprised if it referred to anything else, given the Ukiyo-e print is the "finished" work; most preliminary work, is, as far as I'm aware, done as a sketch directly on the uncarved woodblock. That said, the date is specifically the one given by the Library of Congress for the image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. Still a general question to "Featured picture candidates": the voting in such cases is for the scan, not the original piece of art, correct? In any case I vote with Symbol support vote.svg Support bamse (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, it's a mixture - if the scan and/or restoration was terrible, you should probably oppose, but the art itself should also be of historic, artistic, and/or encyclopedic merit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
          • In that case I'd like to give two support votes: great restoration/scan. BTW, the (png version restored) you linked to in the image description does not exist (yet?). 00:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
            • Drat! Thought I got all of them. I'll upload that now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually a very nice print (and scan), but unfortunately you've cropped the lutescent frame. It would be okay, when the corners weren't rounden, but in this picture the corners look very unaesthetic. --KaterBegemot 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Metal gear.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2009 at 23:38:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an exercise on rythm and contour -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Durova (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Starscream (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good quality picture but I question its value as FP. I think there should be a wow factor somewhere.--Phil13 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Phil13. kallerna 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background noise ZHart (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no noise and I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think what's missing here is context. It might be more interesting if you could see the rest of the gear, and what it was connected to. --IG-64 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Quality Image" perhaps? Dcubillas (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Agree with IG-64. Needs more context. Maedin\talk 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Juvenile red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 19:14:47
Juvenile red-tailed hawk

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something annoys me.. is it blur? --staka.talk 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition. (e.g. tail is cut) Lycaon (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. kallerna 13:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp in detail.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sonora sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:37:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nothing special, a lot of JPG noise, not sharp enough. --Yerpo (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per kallerna.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:The Journey2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 03:31:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 07:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sao Paulo Railway.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 06:05:23
Luz Station in B&W, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Silvio Tanaka - uploaded by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton - nominated by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 06:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Starscream (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) De trop of the light in the central part of the photograph.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superbe! --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice b/w picture --AngMoKio (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --StaraBlazkova (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Might be artistic, but too processed to me. kallerna 19:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  07:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support technically not perfect but great composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--João Felipe C.S (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just railway station photo... --Karel (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like unnecessary desaturated (and so not real) black and whites. It serves no purpose but to hide flaws in a colour version IMO. Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe not perfect and no special encyclopedic value, but great --Pom² (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: I think some of the effect would be lost if this weren't black and white. Maedin\talk 13:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Gaspra-AiPetri.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 15:41:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! kallerna 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kind of cool! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely a beautiful panoramic picture. --JY REHBY (discuter) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow indeed. --Yerpo (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty high technical quality, but not enough wow. -- Crapload (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -I agree with Crapload----- also... The side of the mountain is in shadow (50% of the image which is also the foreground), so most of what's interesting in this shot is poorly illuminated leaving it flat and boring. ... maybe If the light came from the opposite direction, or with the sun seen on the horizon and the light hitting the snow on the mountain at an angle... basically, a different light would be better. Im sure it is quite a breathtaking place... just not captured very well in this shot. It might make a good Quality Image candidate though. - Dcubillas (talk) 08:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Maedin\talk 13:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 07:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Canon MP-E65mm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2009 at 23:17:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The MP-E 65mm Macro f/2.8 is a 5x loupe lens manufactured by Canon for use on the EOS photographic system.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What's this white spot in the back? bamse (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
In the background ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, behind what I believe is the lens mount. Also if you look in the upper left corner of the picture there is some distracting pattern. Are those shadows or caused by the lighting? I checked that it is not dirt on my screen. In the picture of the Agfa Click, the background is uniform. bamse (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, my fault. Changing the bit depth from 16 to 32 bit on my computer, everything in the back looks smooth now. I never noticed such problems before with other pictures. bamse (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you make the foreground totally white as well? --Muhammad 03:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • As well ? Is there a rule for bright backgrounds ? I prefer this style / aesthetic --Richard Bartz (talk) 06:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The background seems flawlessly white. With the foreground white as well, it easier for designers who want to use the picture. I will support a white foreground version, Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on this one --Muhammad 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Support for "white" --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same thing as here (no wow). kallerna 14:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be nominated for "Quality Image"... not FP Dcubillas (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Dcubillas again. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 07:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lophophanes cristatus Luc Viatour 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 10:56:40
Lophophanes cristatus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have already presented a similar picture HERE, but I prefer the latter-- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 11:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it... Why? 1) Lighting is just about perfect, giving good texture and volume to elements. 2) Texture of branch. 3) The diagonal makes it dynamic visually and 4) The bird is just plain cool. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree ... The bird is just plain cool. --norro 21:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Durova (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot --Cayambe (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Doucus (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bird's forelock is just great :P Tiago Fioreze (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great -Theklan (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support difficult subject - good result. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. Diti the penguin 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mens' ballroom shoes, Eurodance CZ.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 03:17:28
Mens' ballroom shoes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 13:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support —Jagro (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A good picture but I do not see anything special that can make a pair of shoes featured, sorry :( --Muhammad 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see anything to convince me to vote for oppose. --Aktron (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Muhammad (no wow). kallerna 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shoes could be used to throw at important politicians I guess, but otherwise, lets leave this one out. Zul32 (talk) 22:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad, but nothing special. --Dezidor (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be nominated for "Quality Image"... not FP Dcubillas (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Dcubillas. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose badly arranged, I would say that laces should be arrange better. Even the left shoe is quite damaged--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I think an image of ballroom shoes could be featured, if they were being worn and on a dance floor and perhaps with the woman's shoes as well. The footwork involved in ballroom dances like the foxtrot or quickstep is quite complex at competition level and I imagine would make an interesting picture. As it is, there isn't enough interest here for a FP. Maedin\talk 13:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 20:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:La Defense - Stairway to Heaven.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 08:22:20
La Defense

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmitry A. Mottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really like the composition. But I think sth is not right with the white balance. Am I right? Maybe this should get fixed. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The composition is quite good, but is really flawed by that pole there. Just behind the escalator. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 13:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An interesting shot--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villa16 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rare shot, if you're not paying a model in a business suit! --Specious (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes! I have paid him fifty bucks, a beer and a hamburger --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Conan (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hey, thats cool. Next time I will support your nomination for a cheeseburger and beer too.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sorry, support only for coca-cola --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Parque nacional del Teide edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 13:30:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kallerna - uploaded by Richard Bartz (edited version) - nominated by kallerna kallerna 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 13:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent composition marred by artifacting. Is a better version available? Durova (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately no. I didn't have better camera with me there and one minute after this photo was shot, it became very foggy (and after that started snowing). kallerna 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ordinary, bad image quality Dcubillas (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I think it could be a great subject, but unfortunately this picture has caught it looking foggy and non-descript. Maedin\talk 13:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Porsche race car Verschuur amk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 16:25:13
Panning shot of a Porsche racing car

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panning shot of a Porsche racing car --AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you crop it? kallerna 14:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That would mess up the composition IMO --Muhammad 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with Muhammad. This picture actually is a crop already, it was my intention to also show the blurred surrounding of the car to get a better "motion experience" :) --AngMoKio (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --Muhammad 15:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only image of car race, nothing special. --Karel (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The difficult thing about such shots is that this car is maybe 200 km/h fast, which wouldnt be a problem if you chose a shutter speed 1/800 or shorter. But you want to capture the motion too so you chose a shutter speed of 1/100 or longer. This way it is not that easy anymore to get a clear shot of a car. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good dynamic & technical execution --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition. --Dori - Talk 22:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2009 at 16:26:08
Panning shot of motorcycle stunt

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I give it a try with another panning shot - this time of a motorcycle stunt show. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent use of panning on a well executed sport stunt. Durova (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  09:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Coles Phillips2 Life.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 00:45:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Refraction of GGB in rain droplets 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 02:07:39
The Golden Gate Bridge refracted in rain drops acting as lenses.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by and nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image is not downsampled. It is cropped.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great eye! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

* Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't know what to do. Its quality isn't that good, but it isn't the point in the photo. Confused about the whole purpose of the photo. kallerna 14:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the image was to show w:refraction of GGB in rain drops that act as lenses. The image has high EV and educational value. The similar image, but of a smaller resolution, is used in 4 Wikipedia articles, and is FP on English Wikipedia. Please take a look at discussion page for the image. I got many requests for a higher resolution image, so I tried to do my best. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, I see. kallerna 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cool idea, but I don't see the quality in it. The blur does not look cool here. It is high EV, so it may be a good VI candidate. If it's FP somewhere else, my $0.02 is it shouldn't be for quality. Not saying it's an easy shot. Thanks for taking it. --Specious (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It is not a blur, it calls distortion. In some of the droplets you could actually see the cables of the bridge. Just think about this such a huge structure as a bridge's tower and its cables fit in a rain droplet... Anyway thank you for the vote. I did enjoy reading your oppose reason.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can see the bridge in the drolets, and it's fine. But the droplets themselves are blurry everywhere by the centre. The image is particularly blurry towards the corners. I understand that achieving a deep enough DOF may be impossbile. Sometimes, it's impossible to make a quality image. So, I'm not bashing the execution. --Specious (talk) 04:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is a macro shot of windshield of my car. It is all, but impossible to have all droplets sharp. First of all because it is a macro and second of all because the windshield has some lean of course. It might be interesting to know that depennding on the angle of that lean, one might see droplets in some cars models, while in others there are no droplets seen. Please feel absolutely free critique the execution. I do not consider myself to be a good photographer, but sometimes I take rather interesting pictures IMO. Anyway thank you for your interest in my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, my Jeep Wrangler had a flat windshield. So did the Hummer I stumbled upon today. Not criticising your car, but perhaps it wasn't the best instrument to use here. A set-up could be constructed. We're talking about featured pictures here, the best of the best, cream of the crop. --Specious (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice idea, good execution :-). @User:Specious I will vote on that hypothetical better execution when it is submitted ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support. Your cleverness in composing this photo was extraordinary. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A photography that isn't really featured picture quality. --staka.talk 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's an interesting effect; beats another bug picture. I'll support until a better one comes along. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Tomás on the 'eye': the effect is cute, but unfortunately execution is poor. Lycaon (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Fioreze Conan (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It shines out --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Goosta (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol support vote.svg Support Great but not valuable --Pom² (talk) 12:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • May I please ask, if you read my explonation above that the lower resolution similar image is used in 4 wikipedia article and is FP on English Wikipedia. This image has a great Enciclopedic Value.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I didn't figure out this kind of usage --Pom² (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not too keen on abstract photos when I don't see any meaning to it (Do not take it personaly though, just a personal understanding of it). Benh (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
and I think there are better ways to show refraction phenomena. Benh (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Benh, your oppose is fine. If you opposed for quality or no wow, I would not have said a second word, but...I like to point out that the similar, but lower resolution image has been the top image in w:refraction for a year. Do you really believe, that if there was a better way to show refraction, the image would have been allowed to be there for such a long time? It is also used in three other articles. You know how much I like atmospheric optics. May I please ask you to share with me what are better ways to show refraction phenomena that it would be both beautiful and scientific? Please do not take it personaly, but I believe, if you said that there are better ways, you should have had something in mind? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the mood. --Lošmi (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry - not enough in focus. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 11:05:40
N.B. This is an old nomination, and the file has changed a bit since. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:George Romney - William Shakespeare - The Tempest Act I, Scene 1.jpg for the most recent nomination. The Tempest, Act I, Scene 1

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:KK Boat Drop-Off.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 11:38:12
Makeshift jetty in borneo

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem Oesterreichisches Hospiz.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 14:45:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Jerusalem, View from the roof of the Austrian Hospice towards the Dome of the Rock
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is the subject of this image? A single building or site? Jerusalem? Relationships between Austria and Israel? Samulili (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Samulili + that fence ruins the photo. kallerna 20:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with others Dcubillas (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicken February 2009-1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 18:46:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info After a long FPC pause, let's slowly re-start... with a joke. Created and nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- We sure can use a good joke ... GerardM (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment welcome back...and welcome to the "panning shot business". Panning shots of chicken is a whole new area of photography that has to get explored. Now I wonder why I only focused on cars. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really like the picture. I am just not sure if it needs a crop....have to think about it. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only about 2% of the photo is clear. kallerna 20:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good!!! --Karel (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely image!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture! I love chickens too. Zul32 (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Chicken McNuggets.jpg Run, baby run .. wifey is already waiting for you --85.181.41.89 00:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good one -- Dcubillas (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it! Is the chicken running away from the KFC guy? :P Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not too keen on poor quality war propaganda. --norro 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You gotta be kidding it! How does a chicken running identify with war propaganda? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm assuming it has soming to do with this nomination. That was Lyacon's oppose to my nomination, though I fail to see the relevance here. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Did the commons community lose its sense for humour? Hope not :) --AngMoKio (talk) 22:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - I don't think norro is kidding, otherwise he wouldn't have insisted on the oppose vote. Could you please explain? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Okay, I capitulate. Yes, of course I was kidding. But since even you as the one who initially started this nomination as a joke also didn't get this joke, I think I have to reset my sence of humour. *sigh* --norro 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, I don't usually intrude like a party pooper, but for me the picture has next to nothing regarding a wicked panning shot, sorry. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment its not a chicken but hen.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice. Well, light conditions are a little bit strange.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Please notice the time, the hen is running to the sunset... Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I don't like to oppose, because I couldn't do a panning shot if my life depended on it. But there just isn't enough bird in focus. I agree with Kallerna. Maedin\talk 13:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I guess I just like the picture.;) MartinD (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kicks ass! --Aktron (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive control --Dori - Talk 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Neutrophil with anthrax copy.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 20:29:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Volker Brinkmann - uploaded by Tim Vickers - nominated by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Neutrophil engulfing anthrax bacteria. Scanning electron micrograph. The bar represents 5 micrometers.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- WoW GerardM (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, thought it was a macrophage, but I'll take your word for it ;)--PieCam (talk) 02:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  11:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ummmm, could be featured.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Muhammad 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:NYC CentralStation amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:21:17
Busy central station

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View on the busy central station in New York City. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. kallerna 14:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has unsuitable composition, noise, wobbly perspective, lack of "wow" factor. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
unsuitable composition?! wobbly perspective?! Could you elaborate on those topics? I don't really know what you mean by this. You are aware that this picture was meant to be a longtime exposure (relative to the conditions) photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it seems that others think that I am wrong. Consider me in opposition, though. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Just to eliminate the FPX thing, which seems poorly applied. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I cannot help disliking the overexposed central window and the central bluish area in the hall. --Cayambe (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think I've seen a far better picture by Diliff, here, which could be nominated instead - Benh (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I like the motion effect in this picture. I do not know why, but I just do.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The long time exposure is the main positive here - good idea, and it solves the identifiable person problem as well as giving an impression of activity which creates a "story-line". But I think it should not have been taken on the centre-line, which is why I rejected a dead-centre version of Wrockwardine Church in favour of this off-centre version. Plus there are some lens colour fringes, which would be reduced with a smaller lens aperture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:ManhattanNYPDNewYorkCity.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:38:48
A N.Y.P.D. Crown Victoria parked on Times Square in New York City, United States of America. A N.Y.P.D. Crown Victoria parked on Times Square in New York City, United States of America.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Massimo Catarinella -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Massimo Catarinella (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice composition. Colour balance is better now. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've uploaded a final version in which I've improved the color balance even more. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think high size is unsuitable, makes the car look like a accessory. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Pitaya skeleton.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 22:50:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As I'm not familiar with Pitaya, I think I'd have liked to see a somewhat wider view. Is this possible? Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Adam, I posted other pictures of pitaya for FPC... this was inside one of the plants, and it is a nice abstraction... interesting texture, shape... all other parts were nice and healthy... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you add the geolocation? kallerna 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Geolocation for what purpose? It's not a building.. --staka.talk 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting subject! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit scary… that's why I like it. Diti the penguin 23:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 04:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp in detail, no wow effect, the date is not set, the location is not set, further description of morphological object missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Water Taxi Passenger.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 23:21:45
Water taxi in Bandar, Brunei.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral why was the head cropped off? So you can´t see the whole subject in the picture. --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, bad crop. kallerna 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great lines! I don't think the man is the main subject in the picture... bamse (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Andreas 06. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - the man is more like a prop, rather than THE subject... he's the "supporting actor"... have another look. can a picture "work" if the supporting actor's head is chopped off? at least in this case. also, the headless man makes this shot more "usable"... no personalty rights issues. so... is it FP material? or just Quality Image? ..or neither. does the crop really kill its harmony? I dont think so... but then again, it is my shot. what do you think? - Dcubillas (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tragic composition, person with head missing!!! --Karel (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good shot BUT the head is missing --Cayambe (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Rio de Janeiro 2016 Ferris wheel edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2009 at 23:36:14
Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic Ferris wheel

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rodrigo Soldon - uploaded and nominated by João Felipe C.S -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- João Felipe C.S (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot. Good graphic elements. Rythm, perspective, contour... good job. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, it isn't sharp, the whole wheel isn't in the photo. kallerna 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But this is the special thing, the harmony between the sky and the wheel. João Felipe C.S (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly composition. I would recommend you to retake this photo during nighttime (use a tripod, btw). I believe it may look better. The current sky as your photo background simply spoils it, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not the author of this picture, I just upload that. João Felipe C.S (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above, composition. --Karel (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Quality isn't the best but could be fixed (at least the CA) otherwise per Tomascastelazo. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition, but it's not sharp and there are chromatic abberation issues. --Yerpo (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Lomatium parryi.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 01:17:39

Flower of the Lomatium plant, which were consumed by early Native Americans in the west.

I was fortunate to find the backup file of the original. Here is one without the innercrop.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ZooFari - uploaded by ZooFari - nominated by ZooFari -- ZooFari (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ZooFari (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition. kallerna 14:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the flower(s) need more breathing space. --Estrilda (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I was considering cropping a bit less inward. However, it made the background more distracting with the unneeded extra materials (sticks, large rocks, etc.) ZooFari (talk) 05:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'v added detailed description in 3 languages. The composition, however, was the best I could do. ZooFari (talk) 23:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that it is too cropped and not in golden angle. Thanks for the further description. Could you offer also the description of w:Biotope? It means if it grew in the water, wood, grassland, desert and what were the plants around. thx.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you are right, and the reason it's cropped like that is because I removed the disturbing items (rocks, sticks, etc). Unforunatly, I don't have the original anymore. Also, the golden angle wasn't suitable for this flower, as it is an umbel flower. By the way, its a desert parsley and originally found in high altitudes of the deserts. I will get that added shortly.
Thank you very much for that editional information! Well, maybe you are right it could not be in the golden angle, but I think this couldnt be FP. But try to nominate it to Quality Picture.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. Regardless of the nomination, I would like to hear your opinion on whether I should keep the most cropped one or the alternative. After some consideration, I like it uncropped even though it can be a little more distracting. I might replace it, but I'd like to here from you. Also, for some reason the alt has better lighting (???) Maybe I made an editing misglance. Thanks ZooFari (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the new one is quite distracting, errr worse quality. What about to replays the bacground by black in the nominated one. I dont think so the first one nor the second one are good enough for FP at this time. Sorry.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Petronas Towers at Night - from the base upwards.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 02:30:56
Petronas Towers at Night

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A great shot. Nice technical execution, very, very graphic, dynamic, colorful.... just really nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but i think f/9 and iso 100 would be better --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good perspective for wow, though not much EV in this position --Muhammad 08:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, fortunately, this is not Wikipedia. --Aqwis (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I just wanted to note that the night sky looked a lot like that flag today. Very nice timing for the nomination. -- carol (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite lot of noise, but nice composition. kallerna 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - and I know I'm in the minority. I like the perspective, but, in spite of everyone else, I don't like the composition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I fully oppose the previous comment. I think the composition is fantastic and photo was well taken. Great job!!! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 03:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would doing the photographer a great disservice if I did not Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad! --Karel (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Karel. Lycaon (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support two thumbs up --Jeses (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture ! -- Neef - 2 (talk) 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Superb! Maedin\talk 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 17:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mango hanging.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 08:24:33
Mango

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 08:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose boring composition --Andreas 06 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. The long grass that extends from the soil passing behind the mango spoils even more your composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers; this "mango" looked like a grape at first. --staka.talk 03:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - agree with others - Dcubillas (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers --Cayambe (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad composition, confused with licensing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Licensing? --Muhammad 16:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well I have to tell you I am sorry. But you are right. It is not a file competition. It is image competition. So to say "license" here. It is irelvant. But yeah GFDL is a problem it is not the good license for the media, even I am not sure you are using it well.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • How am I not using it well (here it comes..) :) --Muhammad 07:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Firstly let me explain, why GFDL license is usuitable for media. GFDL calls that all people who want to redistribute it and/or modify it, they should mention original author(s), link to the source and attached the license itself. This is OK in electronic version, but it is not OK in printed version. Imagine someone will like your pictures and they would like to make a calendar, book, whatever. Than GFDL license conditions are quite complicating it. So I am wondering why you are obdurately licensing GFDL 1.2 only?!
      • And now anlaise your summary (which is quite confusing): "In using this image or any subsequent derivatives of it, you are required to release the image under the same license." - this is partly incorect and partly not necessary. The requirement to realease it also under GFDL 1.2 is done by the license itself, so there is no need to have here this phrase. More over "using this image" might be confusing. I can use this picture as a desctop of my personal computer and I dont need to credit you nor attached the license, because I am not redistributing it or its derivate. "As such, any reproduction of this image, in any medium, must appear with a copy of, or full URL of the license." - here I am not sure, if you can create your own conditions wich are colliding with the license itself. I can have a reproduction on my computer if I am not showing it to other people and I dont need any URL. That is something extra from you. According the license, if you distribute this work on electronic media, the GFDL license should stay on that server, where this work is placed. --Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Landscape of science fiction Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 09:43:44
Landscape of science fiction

(sorry for answer in french) C'est deux photographies faites au Nikon D300 le même jour. Une avec 45mm de focale pour les nuages et une avec 1000mm de focale pour la Lune, les deux sont assemblées avec le logiciel GIMP et transformées en noir et blanc. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC) • ⇔ Translation: Those are two photographs I took the same day with the Nikon D300. One for the clouds with a 45mm focal length, and another one for the Moon with a 1,000mm focal length, the two photos being merged with GIMP and transformed into black and white. Diti the penguin 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy, can't understand french. kallerna 14:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment very impressive work. But before I support you should add the retouched template to the description of the picture --Simonizer (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting post processing.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support merci beaucoup pour les informations :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 03:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We're probably going to see lots of these images now ;) --Muhammad 06:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and I don't see the value of this 'personal artwork' for any Wikimedia project. Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose since it's a composition that is done for achieving an artistical purpose. As said in the guidelines: Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive. Typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. ... Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable. Therefore I am against the nomination. But the picture is still amazing. --Henrik (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per the pertinent photography magazines, science fiction mashup's are the big trend for 2009. It's nice and would suit for Flickr .. but per Lycaon. --Richard Bartz (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What Henrik said. Samulili (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral it is a good work, which can find its use in project. Lyacom forget, that there is not just Wikipedie. But I agree with him, that is noisy.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon, but it's a really beautiful picture --Pom² (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Beautiful composition but poor image quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Land on the Moon 7 21 1969-repair.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 12:55:51
This is a picture of the uploaders mother holding the Washington News Paper on Monday, July 21st 1969 stating 'The Eagle Has Landed Two Men Walk on the Moon'.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Weir - uploaded by Rufus330Ci - repaired and nominated by carol. This is the year 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon. I would like for this image (or even perhaps a nicer restoration of the original to be considered for POTD for July 21 this year, the 30th anniversary of the day after. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support On the chance that there are people who are so old as to have been alive in 1969 who are involved on the internet and view the commons POTD, I suggest that there are very few images available here that will have the same impact and emotional "Wow" as this one. Heck, even the conspiracy people who think that the moon wasn't landed on should not have a problem with this image and also have the same set of memories of what was one of the coolest days shared by so many that year. -- carol (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - recognisable and considerable historical significance. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and agree with POTD idea.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality. It's old picture and I understand that, but it isn't that historical. kallerna 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this is not a hysterical image -- but is that a reason to disqualify it for FP? -- carol (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this photo perfectly fits as a Valued Image candidate rather than a featured one. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You might think so, but it fails at so much of the actual criteria to be a Valued Image. It is not the best in its category, for example. Familiar with all of the review mechanisms here, I nominated it here because there is no other photograph here at commons that provided this much WOW. I am also curious which photograph you would consider to be the best POTD for the day after the 30th anniversary of the first space walk? -- carol (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Tiago Fioreze -- Dcubillas (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because it is so rare. --Muhammad 06:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think we need to get away from promoting commons as just a place to find eye-candy (high quality eye-candy ;-). I regret that my comments (quite a while ago), that standards for FP images were not up to the standard of QIs has contibuted to an over emphasis on the technical merits of FP images rather than an emphasis on their content. What is the FP historic category for, if not for images like this! :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  09:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For the POTD idea. --Estrilda (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is entirely unclear to me why the uploader thought he has the right to release a photo taken by his grandfather to public domain. So, the image can be non-free, actually. What is the best way address this concern? Should I nominate it for deletion and see what happens? Is there a better way? Thanks. -- Crapload (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Quite conceivably because he owns the rights, who do you think owns the rights to this image? --Tony Wills (talk) 04:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not know who owns the rights. I would not ask the question if I knew. I do not want to guess. Where is proof that the grandchild owns the rights? He did not take the photograph, obviously. I am puzzled. Are there precedents or procedures for this kind of situation when one claims the rights on another's work? Crapload (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Per the nominator. I find absolutely ridiculous the arguments concerning the rights, given the circunstances. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to know why. Crapload (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
There is the appearance that you simply want the image to be deleted, I apologize for my lack of imagination to determine other reasons. You can change this by explaining who you consider to be the owner of the copyright of this image. -- carol (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really. I would like the image to stay, properly licensed beyond reasonable doubt. I already said above that I do not know who the owner of the copyright is. I already said that I do not want to guess. Don't you think if I wanted to delete the image, I would simply nominate it for deletion, instead of asking questions here? I know fully, that people raising copyright concerns are not popular here (save for blatant copyright violations). I also know, seeing several images with questionable status here, that Wikimedia Commons would be my last choice should I need images for my printed work, for instance. Precisely because issues like this one and the stance taken by the majority here. Please, do not misunderstand me. I like the project and I like the idea. The idea is brilliant. Still, I think use of Commons images outside outside of Wikipedia and personal blog is too much legal risk, generally speaking. I understand, there will always be people willing to take that risk. Now, this discussion here is so far fruitless in clarifying the copyright status in question, instead carol questions my motive, and no better alternative is offered, I will nominate the original and derivative for deletion and hope it will work out one way or another. You can see I was hesitant (and still am), but no better way has been offered. I wish there was a better way. Thank you. Crapload (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Also support the POTD idea --Goosta (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even not sharp, I can supported. Document value.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This restoration is really good. Support POTD also. Regarding all excitement and disbelief that that event cause, I think this one fits the best ;) --Lošmi (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Tintero (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice historic document, perfectly retouched. --AM (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow. I can even read some of the small newsprint. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Christ the Redeemer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 16:36:23
Christ the Redeemer at Corcovado mountain.

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days).  --Karel (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Christ the Redeemer edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 04:08:01
Christ the Redeemer at Corcovado mountain.

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Mauntain Chapel, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2009 at 22:38:41
Chapel of hl. Anna in Damüls

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't really like this photo, and think this one would be better. Diti the penguin 23:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a lot better than the other one. --Aqwis (talk) 13:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better than the other one, great composition. kallerna 13:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very bad composition (i.e. there are big white cells), not sharp in detail.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
White is the snow :-))) --Böhringer (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 10:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:67marlinFastback wet hood ornament.jpg, not featured, FXP[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 00:04:20
a wet hood ornament on a 1967 Marlin by American Motors

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by CZmarlin - nominated by Easyas12c -- Easyas12c (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Easyas12c (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does not even meet the guideline, starting with the size issue. --staka.talk 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because image is too small Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured, FXP. --Karel (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mesquite Sand Dunes in Death Valley.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 00:24:58
Sand Dunes in Death Valley National Park

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality (lack of details) and unnatural colours (oversaturated). Lycaon (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Lycaon. kallerna 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The colors are due to sunrise. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cosmic colors! Conan (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - For the composition and colours, and despite the downsampling (or crop?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strange colors. --Estrilda (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree, the color of the sky isn't consentaneous. It looks like the sky was colored afterwards . Otherwise a nice composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you offer the date, when it was taken?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your question. The image was taken on October 22, 2007. I added this information to the image description.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colors are consistent with the area. For some reason the sky comes out just plain cyan. I´ve had this happen throughout the California and Baja California desert. The mountains and sand are right on in color also. My opinion is that it is unfair to disqualify a great picture based on a color interpretation because really there is no "right" color for anything. Too many variables affect color, starting with time of day, camera, monitor, interpretation of color, etc., etc. What I see in this picture is texture, color, and an informative picture with regards to a particular location. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on this picture, I think that the color balance is an important point of evaluation. With an incorrect WB, the tone can be strange; the difference may be subtle but it will show colors that aren't real, so yes, there is a “right” color, at least if you want to show the reality. Imo the < Auto WB > on Canon cameras is pretty imprecise and it's better to select the WB corresponding to the light condition of the moment or, if possible, a gray card. Mbz1, what about trying to modify the WB for < Daylight > when developing the RAW file in Canon's Digital Photo Pro? Sting (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Sting. I am afraid you think about me too good. I rarely take raw imagws (too laizy I guess).--Mbz1 (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Debate on colours comes up from time to time, for example on snow pictures - "too blue", etc. When we are at the scene, our eyes compensate for colour balance so we always see snow as white even if it is not because of reflected light from coloured objects, or intensely blue sky. Assuming that colour balance on the camera at the time of the photo is correct, we need to remember that the camera sees what is really there, not what we think should be there. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
And that's the problem: with AutoWB you don't know if the camera doesn't choose a weird temperature. I played with mine in a standard sunny afternoon outdoor scene, and if most of the colors looked acceptable (understand: close to reality), there was one (a green wall in my case) completely unreal, while a setting on Daylight was able to show the correct colors in the whole picture. Maybe it's what happened in Mbz1's picture. Sting (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good, the sky is not a problem in this case.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support On reflection, and checking that there is, for example, natural gradation in the sky colouring, I rate this as useful for encyclopaedic content, and generally good enough for FP. Taking the picture at around sunrise avoids the flattening efect of overhead sun and shows the dunes as 3-d objects. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.  --Karel (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Golden Mosque.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 06:46:04
Omar Ali Saifuddien Mosque in Bandar, Brunei

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dcubillas - uploaded by Dcubillas - nominated by Dcubillas -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please rotate counter-clockwise --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - rotate counter-clockwise??? - Dcubillas (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Probably referring to a tilt --Muhammad 09:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks cool as a thumbnail, but unsharp and noisy at full-resolution. Diti the penguin 10:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CW tilted and a bit noisy. Lycaon (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree. Conan (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Nantes - Saint-Nicolas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 10:27:32
Church Saint-Nicolas in Nantes

result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Latvian sauna house.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 19:24:33
Latvian sauna house

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition: everything is dead centred. Needs also a bit more contrast. Lycaon (talk) 10:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no problems. Conan (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. kallerna 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Latvian sauna house II.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 16:09:08
Latvian sauna house II

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative photo for the nomination above.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp in detail (work more, to be able to buy a better camera, sorry), no wow effect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How about you to be less arrogant instead? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • yea, what a mindless comment! please do not pollute the world with stuff like that. thank you! Amada44 (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. kallerna 14:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --Tiago, imo you shouldn't use the sharpness setting at < hard > in the camera: put it at a softer level and improve the sharpness later on the computer using the software delivered with the camera or a third-party one because their processing will almost always be better than the one from the camera. In this picture you can see very well along the vertical posts in front of the house (and in other places too) the artifacts due to the over-sharpening setting. Sting (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I may say something that I'm not completely sure about it. I always thought (correct me if I'm mistaken) that camera settings for sharpness, saturation, and contrast are only relevant when you shoot at JPEG format, not for RAW format. In the case of the photo above, I took it in RAW format (.PNG .DNG) and I performed a post-processing using Aperture 2.1. The post-processing consisted of performing some edge sharpening and increasing contrast. Am I doing something wrong? Thanks in advance!
      • I don't know how it works with Pentax cameras and how far you processed the image, but if the exif says that the sharpness was set to < hard > I imagine that you didn't modify it when you developed the RAW file, so this setting from the camera was applied. Take a look at the original file: if the artifacts along the posts are present, it comes from the original settings in the camera. If not, it comes from the post-processing. In this case, try to hide the areas where the artifacts appear using a mask, for example in Photoshop or The Gimp, with the original image as background layer and the post-processed one as a layer above. Sting (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
        • The camera seems to export the settings into the EXIF data even though the photo is in RAW format. Maybe the artifacts you saw was due to my post-processing settings. I've uploaded a new version of this photo, in which I believe to have done a more "gentle" sharpening. Could you give me your 2 cents about this new version? Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
          • When shooting in RAW the settings of the camera are kept (sharpness, WB, saturation, etc.), like in JPG. The advantage of the RAW format is that these settings are only informations embedded in the file and you can cancel/modify them without loss of quality. When developing the RAW file with the dedicated software, make gentle corrections: for example with this image, a WB put on < Daylight > or < Mountain > might give an even better result than the < Auto > one (not really precise, at least on Canon); make the corrections of the lens, the vignetting, the chromatic aberrations if your software has these settings; adjust slightly the contrast, etc. For harsher post-processing I would recommend to use a specialized software like The Gimp or Photoshop because it will be much easier with their layers to control each area of the image and apply the modifications only where they are needed. I know this will take more time and work than using the RAW-developing software solely, but the results will be optimal and you should be able to rescue more problematic photographs. Well, this is only my POV, each one works the way he feels it better. About your image, yes I prefer much more this second version as the artifacts disappeared. Compare both versions side by side and you will see that the first over-processed upload didn't make you gain anything in sharpness (imo), only artifacts. Sting (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks for your time and explanations. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Patron Saint Feast.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2009 at 18:54:15
Serbian Patron Saint

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Goran Andjelic - uploaded by hrast - nominated by hrast -- Hrast (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hrast (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, waaaaaant:) --Aqwis (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lovely atmosphere, but too noisy. :) Diti the penguin 00:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Umnik (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad composition (i.e. too many things), bad light conditions (i.e. there is a light of candle mixed with the light of sun).--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Juan de Vojníkov + no wow, noisy. kallerna 14:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Pro2 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition. --Aktron (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Probably you like the taste. Not composition.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm I am quite sure what I like. The taste might be, but this is not Flavoured picture candidates but, Featured. This picture is about a feast. Such a feast has own icons, clearly can be seen here. Reducing the number of objects here would make this picture not accurate and useless. --Aktron (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - lighting, composition. Jonathunder (talk) 03:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Tony Wills (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Georges Bizet - Rosabel Morrison - Carmen poster.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 01:37:37
Carmen

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tony Wills (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Jeanne d'Arc Joan of Arc at San Francisco's Palace of the Legion of Honor and crepuscular rays.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 04:48:18
Joan of Arc

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsampling, nothing sharp and we have better FP's already of crepuscular rays. Lycaon (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With regards to downsampling - I think this is has been done the right way: full resolution version uploaded, then the 'improved' version over top. It is not as though the downsampled version was provided in an effort to retain a high res version for sale etc. People are then free to use the 'improved' version or the original. --Tony Wills (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Tony. The only purpose of the downsampling was to reduce vignetting of the sky (Diti got it right) and downsampling did achieve the intentend results with no loosing any information in the process. It is hard to impossible to avoid vignetting while taking an image of the fog, as well as it all, but impossible to get sharpness in the fog.The mystic of the low fog, where nothing is sharp, where the shapes are disappearing, slowly dissolving in the fog until nothing, but the fog is seen, it is what makes the images beautiful. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Downsampling was obviously done to achieve a sharper version (loosing information in the process), but failed miserably at that. Lycaon (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support concerning sharpness I agree with Lycaon. But this time the mood and also the composition convince me. Though I would even suggest a tighter crop without the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
The image is not about crepuscular rays, and the image is not about the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. When I was photographing the scene, it felt somehow symbolic.Jeanne d'Arc points her sword to the heavens, and the heavens respond to her with the rays. It was absolutely beautiful. It was a man made statue and the rays that the sun painted over the low fog. I guess next time I need to ask the sun to do a better job and make the rays sharper. :) That's why I cannot cut out the statue. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Atmosphere. --Lošmi (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A bit of vignetting, and I'm personally not a fan of the photo exposure (although I like the composition). Diti the penguin 00:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Conan (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you explain the composition? It looks like to be a little bit difficult. Maybe cropping the picture on the sun, getting Joan of Arc out, would be better.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thank you for your question. The image is not about crepuscular rays, and the image is not about the statue of Jeanne d'Arc. When I was photographing the scene, it felt somehow symbolic.Jeanne d'Arc points her sword to the heavens, and the heavens respond to her with the rays. It was absolutely beautiful. It was a man made statue and the rays that the sun painted over the low fog. You could see the fog onle, when it lit by the sun, but there was fog everywhere there. I was standing in fog, as well as the statue was. That's why the shapes of everything looked rather mystic then sharp. I hope this answered your question why I cannot cut the statue out. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    Thx, now its cleare to me. Maybe you could offer this explanation in the picture description.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very, very impressing, I'm just worried about the quality. kallerna 14:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now, when I understand its commposition, I can support it.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 02:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured.  --Karel (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 10:15:38
Amanita muscaria

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded & nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Our only featured picture of this archetypal poisonous mushroom has just been delisted, so I present to you a replacement, complete with raspberry topping with dobs of cream and dark chocolate crumbs for the fairy's to eat. -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very, very nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there is not license tag. I would recomend to release it under CC-BY-SA 3.0--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Argghhhh, the errors caused by cut and pasting from a previous upload! A bot usually screams very quickly at me when I do that :-(. Thanks :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background, composition. kallerna 14:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Karel (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support mycologicaly, the same as technicaly pefrect. Distracting bacground is not a problem - better to see, which species where around.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - per Juan de Vojníkov; I don't think the background is a problem here. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per kallerna. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good colours, quality and background is informative. --Muhammad 05:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow at all --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find one with a handsome prince disguised as a toad sitting on top, so I took this one with the invisible fairy on top instead :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like this tiny fellows. I'am not becoming very warm to the composition. I miss a bit more magic respectively design ([2],[3]) to make it outstanding, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the fashion on en.wikipedia FP of having the subject completely out context (might as well cut-out, or paint-in the background) makes for pretty pictures of less practical use - beauty beyond usefulness. This is not a photographic competition just to provide pretty pictures. I go to a lot of trouble to get maximum depth of field so that I can see all the details of the subject, in this case the texture of the stem (stape), the ragged edges of the ring (annulus), the sticky surface of the cap with the debris and 'scales' and finally a hint of the gills relating it back to its taxonomic family.
So of the images you submitted for critique ;-), both are beautiful, [1] only has a small amount of the subject in focus and the background draws your eyes from the subject, [2] is much more useful showing the stem and cap well, plus some of the context (pine needles) and there is a hint of the surrounding trees whose roots it grows on. But have you any examples of mature Amanita muscaria in which all features are all clearly portrayed? (A challenge :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 :-) Gee! there is no photographic competition --> but <-- a technical demand (dof, exposure, sharpness, colors, composition ... ) There are different views in how to make subjects important and different bars how to make people impressed by that execution. I showed you (or allways showing) the pictures in the hope that they maybe will inspire you, like they do for me and not for a competition or a challenge because that thought never crossed my mind. Quite the contrary I try to share the fascination of macro photography with you. For me a good still-life-macro fades out all the unnecessary things and focus on the subject with all the technical possibilities we have nowadays. Your picture shows plants and grove in the background which are hardly recognizable - so why showing disturbing and semiblurry plants when you can fade them away with a different aperture or a different point of view. Strategies for getting razor sharp images or good exposure exist for DOF, too as example Focus Stacking when you have a difficult environment where you could use a apperature of 3.5 --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That got you excited :-), you may have missed the ;-) and :-) in my comments above :-). Thanks for the photography 101. DOF stacking is probably the only way I could achieve the background blurring you prefer (apart from the obvious - simply blur it with a photo editor as some others do ;-). I think the colour and composition seperate the subject from the background very well :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Richard Bartz + others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support invisible fairy photos define FPC "wow" for me. -- carol (talk) 05:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When there are invisible fairies then it has magic enough --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured.

File:Lantana November 2008-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 12:44:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Flowers and leaves of a Lantana camara. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This photo got my support mainly due to its composition. It seems that the plant is opening its "arms" welcoming any admirer around it. It's a pity however that the two blooming flowers are not totally in focus. It's very nice photo in spite of that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful!--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a pity that the focus is on the leaves and the blossoms are OOF - and why are the leaves are not shown completely ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you offer, how big the leaves are? GEO or description of the biotop, where you found this species? What about to change its background using black?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per R. Bartz. kallerna 14:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - This is a garden shrub, found in Lisbon, Portugal. The flower has about 3cm in diameter -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard --Dori - Talk 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per others. -- Pro2 (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Image:Sunset dorum.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 14:47:13
Sunset in Dorum at the north sea with pharos "Obereversand".

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question It's a beautiful picture, but what is with the tilt on the right hand side? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I dont know. I think thats normal. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you reduce noise from the sky? kallerna 14:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe someone else can remove it please.-- Pro2 (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I tried it but it doesn't work. Further denoising caused posterization. Reason ? It should be done on uncompressed source - there was 2 many edits and recompressings IMO. Sorry, I gave my best --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, but i think your second Version was good. -- Pro2 (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC) (Ansonsten ist die 1. Version vom Bild eigentlich unbearbeitet, und meine letzte Version ist auch nicht viel dran. Das einzige was ich wirklich gemacht hab, ist die Vignettierung entfernt. Komisch, vielleicht kannst du es ja mal mit der 1. probieren. Danke trotzdem)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:El pensador-Rodin-Caixaforum-3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2009 at 16:20:04
Le Penseur

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The clock in your camera appears to be wrong, the photos EXIF data shows it was taken in the year 2067!. Is there a time of day when there is more light on this side of the sculpture so we can see details more clearly (that time traveling camera might help achieve this ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It's gone back this time; I'm seeing 1st January 1970 in the EXIF. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Tegenaria sp.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:20:28
House spider

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Medium Symbol support vote.svg Support. I would rather the whole spider on focus. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Tfioreze and needs species name (description says common, so must be doable). Also mention that this is a male in the description please. Lycaon (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. kallerna 13:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others -- Dcubillas (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info added description (male Tegenaria parietina). Note that I could've made a focus stacked image to get more parts of the animal in focus, but that would've been cheating. And the DOF makes for a more dramatic picture, I think. -- 84.198.249.162 16:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Nah, its not cheating. Its a common practice and if you can do it, I suggest you should --Muhammad 17:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Atmosphere just a teensy bit too abrasive for me here. Ta! :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yep... there are some people here who have forgotten to read the section "Above all, be polite". Just quoting it:
"Please don't forget that the image you are judging is somebody's work. Avoid using phrases like "it looks terrible" and "I hate it". If you must oppose, please do so with consideration. Also remember that your command of English might not be the same as someone elses. Choose your words with care." Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If I was the impolite one, my apologies. --Muhammad 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Midnight at the glassworks2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:07:14
Glassworks, child labour

Sorry, could you expand on that? Is the image restoration (original here) not to your taste? Or the image itself? The photo is over a hundred years old, it's bound not to be sharp as a tack everywhere. -- mvuijlst (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Rocket000(talk) 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sortie de l'opéra en l'an 2000-2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:05:17
Opera Y2K (c. 1882)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Sint-Niklaaskerk, Gent2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 02:02:34
Saint Nicholas' Church

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknown, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather a poor quality reproduction for an image of that date. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Oglala girl in front of a tipi2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2009 at 01:57:17
Oglala tipi, girls, puppy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by John C.H. Grabill, restored by mvuijlst - uploaded by mvuijlst - nominated by mvuijlst -- mvuijlst (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mvuijlst (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. Old ≠ automatically featurable. Lycaon (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Miusia (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:T-45A Goshawk 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 23:25:48
T-45A

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lt. j.g. John A. Ivancic - uploaded by User:tm - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --norro 08:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White clouds and white plane. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite lot of noise or something expecially on clouds, but I love airforce-pictures. kallerna 18:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good shot. Looks like a painting at first glance :) --KaterBegemot 18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive photo. The weakest point is the considerable amount of noise, but the composition and "wowness" compensate that. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ack ComputerHotline and Lycao --Dori - Talk 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 14:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support crop a bit tight, other than that great photo.. -- Dcubillas (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure if the Navy cropped it, or if that's just the way the photo was taken. Considering the resolution, I'm guessing the latter. 203.35.135.133 14:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good shot. --Specious (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidatesFile:Gephyrocapsa oceanica color.jpg

File:Graugans Detailaufnahme Kopf.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 01:46:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tree Canyonlands National Park edit.jpg

File:Tree Canyonlands National Park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 02:14:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Flicka - nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to much light, not sharp in detail, GEO missing.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question good job. Are we able to take a sharpe picture in detail?--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Should we add bit color to the photo? I think it needs it. kallerna 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I like it (but with more saturated colors like in the edited version below), but there's a weird thing at the fringe of the leaves of the whole tree where there is like a gray fog at the transition sky/leaves. This can also be seen in several places where there are holes in the leaves and where in some places the background is blue and other gray (and it's not the trunk). Any idea about that ? Sting (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Ask Flicka --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, blue sky appears to be artificial, and it's not very sharp. --Aqwis (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it's not very important and the photo it's not well balanced. -Theklan (talk) 01:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Picture is sharp enough. The colors are not missing or pale, but pictures in deserts like this one are naturally not such colorful as other ones - I suggest you should see some movie where such deserts are seen as well as normal countryside. And the composition looks also nice. --Aktron (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. Looks nice. --Lošmi (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 12:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC) natural bonzai.
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vista panorâmica CP.jpg

File:Montana state capitol 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2009 at 23:25:29
The Montana state capitol building

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Geo. R. Mann restored, uploaded & nominated by Jake WartenbergJake Wartenberg 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJake Wartenberg 23:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think its perfect.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky is cool and the composition is not bad also. --Aktron (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • It is a colored print.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I have seen the details. Yet a print can have bad colors or the position of the object might not be appropriate. --Aktron (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 07:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Smoke from wildfire on Angel Island blankets San Franciscon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2009 at 02:02:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for your question, Juan de Vojníkov and for calling my images usefull. The imageFile:Wildfire on Angel Island com.jpg was uploaded to Commons. Geotag is added.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Smoke (subject) is barely visible. Without description you wouldn't even find it. So the picture looks like an ordinary sunset, and sunsets are always nice. --Jeses (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info please notice the color of w:sun glitter. Thic colors are very unusual because of the smoke. BTW IMO sunglitter by itself is interesting enough for the picture to be considered for FP. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed the sun glitter is special. But I'm not totally convinced yet. But i change to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. --Jeses (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looking on the picture its strange, unnatural, but of course its a smoke. The picture is pefect then.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 07:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Miusia (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Reichstag building Berlin view from west before sunset.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2009 at 19:29:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nice shot of this important building in Berlin. FP in German and Turkish wikipedias. Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --AngMoKio (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Theklan (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • just Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive picture - the only thing is that I have the feeling the right side is slightly underexposed and in general there is too much black level. There is only little drawing/detail in the blacks - as example the pedestrians with dark clothes or some shadows. And I think I found a less than little-bitty stitching error - look at the cars roof :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Good eye, I missed that. Also, is it just me, or does the right tower look a little stretched? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 12:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Twin.priyanka (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Fantastic lighting, however this composition would be much nicer if both corners are in the same distance. They are not. Well it is maybe a small inacurracy, but it can be seen clearly :-( --Aktron (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Doucus (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --Lapost (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 02:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wirklich gute Details --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.  --Karel (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 01:13:13
Historical photo showin women voting for first time on the Autonomous Statute referendum in the Basque Country.

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is too small and needs restoration. MER-C 08:19, 4 March 2009 (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.
  • It´s not too small, but has more than two megapixels, so I removed FPX. And I don´t think, restoration is a constraint for featuring historical images. --norro 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Full of scratches. kallerna 12:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality and needs restoration… Diti the penguin 14:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add english description.   ■ MMXXtalk  20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset on Pines Island 1.jpg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Campanula-Barbata-su-Pietra.jpg

File:Natural Love.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 19:36:01
Heart shaped flower.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Calum.redhead - uploaded by Calum.redhead - nominated by Calum.redhead -- Calum.redhead (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Calum.redhead (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - You should indicate the species, otherwise the chances of success are almost nul -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Unaware of species becuase I simply took this photograph of a flower that was growing in my garden. Would love some help from anyone to find out what type of flower it is. --Calum.redhead (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For now. No identification, poor - respectively no image description. Geo location would be great. Here is a example of a good/ideal image description, regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Is Geo information really necessary for a shot like this? I mean it does not add that much value to a close up flower. Amada44 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Where's info? kallerna 15:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Info and license added. Yet to find species. Request FPX removal. --Calum.redhead (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the species is not identified and there is no licensing information. MER-C 08:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info it is Dicentra sp. I've got answer here [5]. It looks like Dicentra spectabilis
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Basik07 (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Ferry Instabul.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 20:33:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lapost -- Lapost (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite lot of noise. kallerna 15:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Blackcap in net.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 20:40:14
A male is caught in the net, before it get

Edit 1, cropped and a little darker
Edit 2, cropped
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Xenus - uploaded by Xenus - nominated by Xenus -- Xenus (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Xenus (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obelix (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Less than 2mp and needs a crop which would reduce the res even further. --Muhammad 03:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Muhammad --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per R. Bartz. kallerna 15:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The 2.0 Mpx is more a recommendation than an absolute limit. I wouldn't say 300×300 pixels less than this limit (1.9 Mpx < 2.0 Mpx) is bothering. :) Diti the penguin 22:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose photo has wow, but compression artifacts are too strong (especially in the cropped editions) Nillerdk (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Mérignac.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2009 at 21:08:01
a spherical panorama projected using the stereographic projection

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alexandre Duret-Lutz - uploaded by Zil - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as I am not sure what the purpose of this picture is. bamse (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very good example of stereographic projection, unfortunately the optical quality is really bad near the borders of the photo (chromatic aberration, unsharpness, and the like). Diti the penguin 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No usage, CA, unsharpness. kallerna 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:2007 FoC, Abelard Giza (Gęba).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 14:56:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Marcin Gierasimowicz - uploaded by odder - nominated by odder
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Overview. It is one of over 300 photos uploaded from the 2007 Festival of Cabaret in Zielona Góra, for which I have been given an official press accreditation as a Wikinews reporter. Marcin Gierasimowicz is a friend of mine, interested in photography, whom I have asked for help. He has been told about the whole licensing matter and agreed to accompany me as a photographer. This picture has been taken in a student's club Gęba (English literary translation would be Mug, I guess), near here, the place where almost all of Zielona Góra's cabarets were founded and have been performing in. The subject of the photo is Abelard Giza, a Polish actor, director, scriptwriter, but he's mostly famous as a cabaret artist, member of Kabaret Limo, a Gdańsk-based cabaret that took part in the 2007 Festival. This picture is really valuable for our projects, and I feel it also meets the technical side criteria. odder 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- odder 14:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you reduce noise? kallerna 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'll try to when I get home (around 19:30 UTC). odder 08:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, dunno, I'm not a good Gimpist, nothing I was doing actually helped. Should I nominate the picture to Commons:Graphic Lab School, then? odder 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dont see anything special about it... technical side ok... why not nominate it for QI instead? -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition good but not sharp in detail. --Aktron (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Glockenturm mit Glocken.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2009 at 16:47:40
Illustration of the bell tower from the Breisacher Stephansmünster

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Niabot - uploaded by Niabot - nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral since it is my own work -- Niabot (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --norro 20:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment English description for the Commons reviewers would be nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment English description added. Hope i got it right. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree it is a nice illustration, but not sophisticated enough to reach feature status. All we can see is four bells. What about the rest of the mechanism? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The mechanism changed from century to century, and may be changed in some years again. I think it isn't such important. --Niabot (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --staka.talk 02:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dcubillas (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If you are unable to show the mechanism, at least show where the bats "hang out". -- carol (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposers. kallerna 07:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured.  --Karel (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RailRunner loco SFSR loco and dome car.jpg

File:Florida topographic map-en.svg, featured[