Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 18:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support A picture of the Taj Mahal with not too many tourists. Compared to the other FP, I see 2 good points: 1, no clouds; 2, the pond is not cut. Yann (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Carschten. Thumb looked 100% featurable. At full size I was disappointed. Sky is noisy, CAs on trees, artifacts, not very sharp on some points. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like more the other sky, with white clouds. Also, this new one has magenta tint. The pond is better uncut, yes (even if the edge is still cut), but I would have bent a little lower to make it shorter - there's too much pond now imo. Can the pic be retaken from a lower angle? --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If taken from a lower angle, the trees will look too big, and hide the monument. There are many many tourists, and it is difficult to take a picture without them in the middle. Yann (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 17:57:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 14:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabanid July 2010-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tabanid July 2010-2.jpg
Info Tabanid fly in a mountaneous area of Portugal. The females are voraceous blood-suckers, attacking large mammals, including men. Notice the blade-like mouth parts, used to cut the skin and draw blood. Second nomination (see picture file to check the first one). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question If you explain under which conditions and circumstances the image was taken, focus and image size could have a secundary role in evaluating the picture as FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 14:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2012-03-16 22-02-35-startrails-4f-9min-1d.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012-03-16 22-02-35-startrails-4f-9min-1d.jpg
Absolutely useless? Why, I mean, there's data in it like the date, time, number of shots etc (It is confusing though, could definitely be improved). --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a star-trail picture to be FP, it needs a stronger composition. Either man-made or natural scenery + the star trails. Or a really amazing sky. This is city light pollution + short star trails. But unless we're looking at a fantastic star-trail sky it itself (which this is not - just Google), then this is just a pretty effect and hard to justify the educational value of it. Like sunsets. I also agree about the filename. The data belongs in the image description, not the filename. Colin (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 14:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthidium February 2008-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthidium February 2008-1.jpg
Info A potter bee (Anthidium florentimum), feeding on a Lantana camara flower. I hope that the "bug bar" has not raised too much since my last macro nominations! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful; but prefer the other version which is already a featured picture here. Do we feature different views of same subject? A newbie question. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is File:Anthidium September 2007-3.jpg which is QI and VI already, and has even a higher resolution. It is the same shot, just with some different edit process. Actually a scaled-down dupe (=> normally sth. for speedy deletion)... So, I wonder why that scaled-down 2008-1 version should get featured?? Also, the other version was FPC already; better nominate it a second time. - A.Savin10:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was scaled down, only cropped. And no other version of this image was featured; the wider version was nominated a long time ago and failed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK sorry, seems like the "2008" version is a some tighter crop of the "2007" one. However, I still find the tighter crop redundant, and believe that the QI/VI version much better qualifies for FP. (There was an unsuccessful candidature, but that's long ago and had few participation.) - A.Savin15:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 23:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beach near Årgab during sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beach near Årgab during sunset.jpg
Weak oppose I'm not sure, but too much photoshop for me; this work can be an artistic work, but I don't like it: Unnatural and too yellow --Miguel Bugallo23:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See the Value section under Guidelines for nominators. It's a nice photo, but there is nothing that makes it stand out from the rest to deserve FP status. --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know, another sunset picture, blown parts and stuff... But to me this is a gorgeous scene, rich in contrast, natural curves, reflections and beautiful colors. This is a beautiful shot. No HDR possible due to the moving sea. Yes, maybe f value could have been lower, or you could have waited for the sun to be a little less bright, but then the picture would have been very dark. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 22:58:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Brescia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Brescia.jpg
Neutral-- The composition in global aspect is ok. But 100% is blurry to me (reducing the definition could also help), and I perceive some distorsion in several aeras though it does not affect the principal subjects.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This image resolution is definitly too high; you do not necersaly loose information depending on what is your purpose. If you want to see blurry people at 100% with some distortion, I do not see the point. The picture aims at architectural features; resolution is good if definition follow. Actually resolution is not definition in this picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Telemaque! Thanks for reviewing my picture. Sincerely I don't catch your point. Wikimedia needs to have pictures in the highest resolution possible, since it is considered to be a repository for pictures for any use. Wikimedia itself allows you to download pictures at different resolutions according to your needs up to a size of 100MB. The issue of the picture is not so much people but the architectural details and i don't think it is correct to say that you do not have sufficient definition of those structures (i.e. capitals, columns etc. Btw, resolution describes the ability of an imaging system to resolve detail. Anyhow it's good to have a constructive discussion --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI miss a part of the whole building (old cathedral) complex at right. I think the crop is a bit tight here. Maybe a little rotation when taking the picture should have been better, as we have space enough at left, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 12:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Overview.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durdle Door Overview.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 19:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:First warm Sunday of the year - At the river Main in Frankfurt - Germany - March 25th 2012 - 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:First warm Sunday of the year - At the river Main in Frankfurt - Germany - March 25th 2012 - 01.jpg
Oppose The problem with the picture is summed up by you feeling the need to point out what it's about. Generally it does not have enough interesting bits (the people enjoying the first warm day of spring are very small) and too many uninteresting bits (buildings and blue sky). Kleuske (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
..but the photo is not taken in summer, the trees still have no leaves, photo was taken in March. The maximum temperature in Frankfurt in March is typically 10°C, so it was a really unusual warm Sunday. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 20:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marpesia zerynthia - Los Andes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marpesia zerynthia - Los Andes.jpg
Hi Richard, can you tell me where do you see the most disturbing artifacts (inner part of farthest wing)? I'm retouching the image to remove distracting parts of background and also fix the artifacts issue. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support original and alt; I've no problem with natural things like leaf burns, bird droppings, etc. but like the removal of the grass blade on right. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Well, I re-processed the whole image, hope artifacts are not a problem anymore. Also removed several disturbing elements and re-cropped it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I am sorry for the mess with the other file under, but I definitely think that the extreme left upward leaf is an abuse in the composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
StrongNeutral I also think the leaf is a problem here while otherwise it's quite a pleasant picture. If the leaf was cropped the picture starts to feel too tight. --Ximonic (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The out of focus leaf may make the image more appealing to some. I have seen depth of field used for similar effects, and hope to try 'focus stacking' to solve issues with it. I haven't voted much on these, but I may in the future. Thus I will stay neutral.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be useful - but keep in mind this is not a studio shot and stacking would be impossible, with the leaves moving with the slightest wind. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Telemaque, thank you for your interest. Unfortunately some modifications on your edit I found inappropriate, like the apparent use of the "PS magic wand" to soften the background (which finds it difficult to separate hair), or the crop which is very tight. It is better in the future to upload a new alternative instead of editing directly on the file unless asked by author, as Saffron says. No problem though, I reverted the changes and posted your alternative as alt 2 and moved your vote here. Regards. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC) *Comment Understood, sorry for the file up. I agree now that the crop at the bottom is too tight.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 16:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Misumena vatia qtl2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Misumena vatia qtl2.jpg
Oppose Unbalanced composition (lead view etc.), the entire left part should be cropped out; stripe behind spider is disturbing and should be edited out; the flowers on the left are in focus while the ones close to the spider aren't, which is disturbing - another reason for cropping out the left side. Gidip (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2012 at 16:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moth 03 (MK).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moth 03 (MK).jpg
Info A male Brindled Beauty (Lycia hirtaria). Good example for a natural camouflage. Image is stacked out of 21 pictures for the best possible dof. c/u/n by me, mathiasK16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sadly I could`nt fix it with a restack. The results were pretty decent. Now i`ve uploaded a croped version. See if you like it... Best regards mathiasK17:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm yes, this could be so, but in my understanding of FPC this should'nt matter. If you look at both images at 100% you should see the different quality. My pic shows much more details of the moths surface. Regards mathiasK15:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 17:22:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Old man, Bihar, India, 04-2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old man, Bihar, India, 04-2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2012 at 22:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question Hi Peter the first thing which attracts my eyes when reviewing this very nice picture was the expansive foreground. I'am pretty shure this is a part of your pictorial solution; can you please explain? Best regards • Richard • [®] • 08:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Richard Bartz. A lot of other users should have receive an opposition vote without any question... (with all due respect to the author, nothing personal here.)--Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 19:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beagle Channel - La Isla de Los Lobos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beagle Channel - La Isla de Los Lobos.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 12:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bombyliid on Bellevalia 1.jpg (new version)Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bombyliid on Bellevalia 1.jpg (new version)
Info Bombyliid fly (tribe Bombyliini) pollinating Bellevalia flexuosa. All by Gidip. Previously nominated and withdrawn; nominated again with a brighter version. Insect cannot be IDed to genus even by experts. --Gidip (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The insect is identified to the lowest possible level, which is tribe Bombyliini. I consulted experts (diptera.info) and they couldn't go beyond this. Gidip (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is mitigation, as per Gidip (who is a biologist). Probably you can't go further than this in the identification. Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 09:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jamides celeno DSF by Kadavoor.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jamides celeno DSF by Kadavoor.JPG
This is the limitation of my closeup glass (using for small butterflies); nothing to do now. :( Can replace when I buy a new toy. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I get when use the entire MP of my camera along with the closeup glass DCR250 while capturing very small subjects from a closer distance (just 4 inch). It is good but cause vignetting above 5MP because of the LA3 adapter that connects them. So I usually use(d) the extended zoom facility(5 MP) in the camera itself to get better focus and details than crop later. Further the 10+ MPs of these cameras are just a gimmick; they perform better in low res. Sorry for the delayed reply, I was away on yesterday. Regards, Jee Jkadavoor (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting as a species illustration. Insufficient quality for FP though. Too tightly cropped as well. It is difficult to have it all: the crop and noise do not impede the use as a species illustration, but FP requires a pretty composition as well as a technically good image. พ.s.07:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 22:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Onion on White.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Onion on White.JPG
Oppose QI but FP? The chance has been missed to give the picture maximum value (studioshot). Attached find a food reference which maybe inspires you to offer me more than only a lonely & centered plant. Best regards. • Richard • [®] • 07:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]food reference
Thank you for your review. I had planned to take several pictures at the weekend, including cut/sliced onions and perhaps combined group shots. I ran out of daylight/time. In defense of this picture, it is a picture of a single whole onion. A picture of a group of onions, some cut, is a different picture. Like saying "That's a nice picture of a person, but I prefer group photographs". A collection photograph would be great too, and some may prefer it. But I think the world, and Commons, still needs a great picture of a whole onion. Since an onion is a circular veg, I don't see a strong case for off-centring it on a rule-of-thirds boundary simply for artistic purposes. As the background is white, anyone using this image can, of course, place it where they like within a frame. Commons can have more than one FP of onions. I may take and nominate a group shot like you suggest, but I'd still like this one to be considered on its "singular" merits. Colin (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 15:37:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:President Barack Obama at the Grand Canyon 08-16-09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:President Barack Obama at the Grand Canyon 08-16-09.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2012 at 22:54:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Red Onion on White.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Red Onion on White.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 20:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs SF - Sergio Parisse 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs SF - Sergio Parisse 1.jpg
Support Great action shot. Unfortunately the ball is not shown and there's too much field. But still good. The position of the player and his look are great. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A pity we cannot see what he's looking at. Nothing wrong with the quality (even if 1/640s could have been enough, I don't know), but I'd prefer a crop at bottom. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 11:29:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xanthoria-parietina-gelbflechte.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xanthoria-parietina-gelbflechte.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 15:07:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MS Mariella February 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MS Mariella February 2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2012 at 08:32:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Phoeniconaias minor 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Phoeniconaias minor 01.jpg
Support - I agree with Miguel's points, but if you view this image at half full resolution or so, these aren't issues. The composition and colours are excellent. --Claritas (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 05:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 18:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Can the file name be cleaned up? Meaning is "01 Crisco edit" needed for any purpose. I don't know what the policies are in commons, but extra stuff in the file name may be too much. If it is the file name of the original image, is it customary to leave it as is?--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2012 at 20:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Templo dorado-Amritsar-India048.JPG
Comment Very nice and could be FP IMO. Some questions about this nominations: is it really better (or similar) than this one, already FP/QI/VI ? Second question: do we need another FP of the same place ? Third question: if we promote this one, should we delist the previous ? I have no definitive answers, but I tend to think the Poco a poco's one is a bit better (the previous has some slight sharpening halos, for instance...)--Jebulon (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and regarding Jebulon's questions: looking on Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture reveals 2 FPs of Louvre Museum, 2 of CN Tower in Toronto, 2 of Eiffel Tower ("two and a half" considering the most recent FP of the Eiffel Tower), 3 of the Reichstag, 4 of Frankfurt skyline (including the same landscape), 3 of Neuschwanstein Castle, etc. etc. So that shouldn't be a problem. Tomer T (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Telemaque and Tomer; we have no problem with different views of insects too, I assume (from my previous question). And, there is another FP; although the main topic is bit different. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh and Llorenzi. Slight perspective distortion, mainly a bad point of view and the crop on the right is a bit unappealing. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Llorenzi that the composition is unfortunate and the angle isn't that flattering to the building. Also the building isn't vertical. The other two FPs are remarkable pictures. This one not. Colin (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2012 at 17:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Саат-кула во Скопје.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Саат-кула во Скопје.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 08:00:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthophora on Asphodelus edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthophora on Asphodelus edit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 10:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Larnach-Dunedin-Nueva Zelanda09.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castillo de Larnach-Dunedin-Nueva Zelanda09.JPG
Oppose underexposed shadows, CA and low sharpness. Nice composition though (maybe it could be cropped a bit at the top). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat14:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 12:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Neuschwanstein Castle from Marienbrücke, 2011 May.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Neuschwanstein Castle from Marienbrücke, 2011 May.jpg
Info I know there are FPs of this castle already but I'd like to know how this does. This has been taken by my father when I borrowed him my camera equipment. I think it's not bad at all: a very nice morning light he had there. Created by Tauno Räsänen, post-processing, upload and nomination by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This clearly the best of the three. It is it considerably more detailed and is better exposed than the other two. Pic 1 is over-exposed resulting in loss of detail on the castle face and false colours in the clouds (which results from highlight recovery attempts). Pic 2 seems either over sharpened or the lighting is harsher. A great picture and possibly replacement for the others in the relevant articles on WP. Colin (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 15:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia Zebrano qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dahlia Zebrano qtl1.jpg
Oppose Some local exp. adjustment was applied to avoid overexposure on petals. The dark aura all around the flower is not nice imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 11:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill Symi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill Symi.jpg
Support I like the composition, perhaps too centered but very good for me in this case. The background color seems IMO natural. The man has a good detail. I like it --Miguel Bugallo21:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition detracts from the main subject of the image, I'm afraid (which is presumably the windmill, if it's the scene/landscape as a whole, then a better composition would have been more effective as well) Freedom to share (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting, but the composition isn't good enough for FP. The windmill acts a too small part in the picture, Telemaque MySon is right about the background IMHO and the composition is really too centered. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat14:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2012 at 15:49:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dasyscyphella nivea overview.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dasyscyphella nivea overview.jpg
Sorry, what I meant was not something that can be fixed after shooting. Simply, important parts of the subject seem to be in the shade. Somehow the flashlight didn't work so well here. Maybe the flash was on the right and therefore it was blocked by the wood. Gidip (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ideas ? --Citron (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)** Ok, let's say I would cut the lower right part, because the dark area of the cutted wood is way too large for me. For the rest it is featurable.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 12:57:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gorilla gorilla gorilla, London Zoo (1).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gorilla gorilla gorilla, London Zoo (1).jpg
Neutral zoo shot, not convinced the composition is FP given the location. too low in the image, looking away from camera Gnangarra13:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was striking enough for me to open full res. Wide open yields shallow DOF but also an attractive "bokeh" imo. It's also sharp where it matters, and I don't think we'll miss each hair being in focus. I don't find the zoo issue to affect the pic this much. Composition is trivial, but there's not a thousand way to take gorillas, and this serves encyclopedic purpose well (which may be main use of that picture). - Benh (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 09:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support By the famous Renaissance french sculptor Germain Pilon, two very contrasted remaining elements of the tomb of Valentina Balbiani (1518-1572). Louvre museum, Paris, France. More infos available in the file description page -- Jebulon (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 22:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Turritelas de San Juan Raya.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Turritelas de San Juan Raya.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 15:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 13 Alan Shepard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 13 Alan Shepard.jpg
Support Tomer, for your information 'noisy' refer generally to luminance noise, and therefore presence of color... Here you are saying you do not like the film grain better. It is a picture of 1970. I nominate for the featured content (not existing several pictures of this event)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it is more reasonable and acceptable for a 1970 picture to have film grain. But many pictures of that era and before, don't have this defect. So I don't think that's the best we can offer. Tomer T (talk) 00:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 11:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bettingen - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg
Support A documental image of a technical object. Because of the reflecting parts it is not easy to make a good image of this strange Television and Water tower. The high resolution shows a very unique and detailed view of many interesting parts. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A pity we don't have any idea of the total height of this tower, but this picture is flawless and remarkable IMO. Very useful too.--Jebulon (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information: The reservoir for water (two tanks, each 100 m³) is on the left side below the main pod, looking a bit like a backpack. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There is a slight red cast which I would be happy to see fixed, but it's a very clean and illustrative composition with rich clarity of fine detail. SteveStrummer (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support high detailed images of these types of towers are difficult to get, this one is fine example of what can be achieved Gnangarra05:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2012 at 23:07:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crab eating macaque mum and child.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crab eating macaque mum and child.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 17:35:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jovibarba globifera in natural monument Calvary in Motol in spring 2012 (1).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jovibarba globifera in natural monument Calvary in Motol in spring 2012 (1).JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 22:13:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stumpers Mike Farrell Allen Ludden Jamie Farr 1976.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stumpers Mike Farrell Allen Ludden Jamie Farr 1976.jpg
Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME. Promotional photograph taken in 1976 at the production set of the short-lived game show, Stumpers! Pictured are (from left to right) Mike Farrell, Allen Ludden, and Jamie Farr. Allen Ludden is a host, and other two were M*A*S*H stars. This is a JPEG version. PNG and TIFF versions are available, and I wonder if TIFF is qualified as a Featured Picture. -- George Ho (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture does not have contrast or brightness issues. Contrast and brigtness are adjusted very little; however, the photo itself was greyscale, and no substantial manipulations were involved. --George Ho (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 21:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Юрий Иванович Семёнов.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Юрий Иванович Семёнов.jpg
Question Please add a "short description" here, and a complete description in English on the image page. Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 02:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Main Dome of Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Main Dome of Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.jpg
Oppose I supported it the last time, but I've to revoke it now. Harsh light which is really bad here (lots of blown parts, there clearly overexposed; on the other a shady area on the tower), yellow cast and a lack of sharpness (not crisp enough for an architectural shot). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the sun is shining directly on the front facade, but I must correct you regarding the blown parts. I have checked the histogram, none of the R/G/B channels show any highlight clipping. Neither does the camera blink in highlight mode. As for the sharpness, I have fixed that in a new upload. --Jovian Eyestorm03:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 06:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone nemorosa LC0256.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone nemorosa LC0256.jpg
Info Wind flower (Anemone nemorosa); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 18:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Durga, Burdwan, 2011.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Durga, Burdwan, 2011.JPG
Question I think, you made a photograph from the Durga idol by an other artist in a temple. The Durga idol seems to be not old, therefore the artist of the Durga idol is the copyright-holder, not you. Is it like I think? In this case this image will be deleted, if you cannot send a copyright-renunciation by the copyright-holder to wikimedia. Please see the regulations by commons.wikimedia.org. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This idol is not from a temple. Every year the durga idols are made, worshiped in temporary temples known as "pandals". After 5days of the festival the idols are immersed in water of river, ponds etc. Next year new idols are made. This photograph was taken in 2011 and the idol was immersed in water. This idol does not exist now, only the photograph exists. Please see [1] -- Joydeep (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the copyright on your file is by the artist, who made the idol. You made only a copy of his work. You cannot give his copyright to wikimedia commons. Only the artist can do this with a copyright-renunciation. Please have a look to other images on your userpage with other copyright-violations. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there are many photos of durga idol on commons and wikipedia. What about them? They all should come under the same "copyright-violation". So all the images of durga idol should be deleted from commons and wikipedia if this image has to be deleted. This image is a valued image within a scope and there are many categories which contain so many images of durga idol. Many of the images of durga idol are there in commons for many years. I have seen those images before uploading and then decided to upload this image. Please see Category:Durga, Category:Durga Puja, Category:Durga Puja (West Bengal) and the sub-categories. I don't think this image violates any copyright but I don't have any problem if the image is deleted for copyright-violation. I just have to say that all the images of durga idol should be treated in a same way. If this file is deleted then all the file of durga idol should be deleted. -- Joydeep (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was invited to share my opinion on this issue, since I supported. I probably know less about coppyvios than Michael Gäbler, but his arguments seem rational. Even if there is Freedom of Panorama in India, I don't think temporal art can be photographed and published without premission and a licence grant. I have to admit that I didn't put thought about this aspect earlier, sorry for that. The best thing to do will be to open a deletion request, and it will be only fair, and of course reasonable, to open in the same time deletion requests about all other images of Durga idols in the same state as this one. Tomer T (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have always said that applying this copyright reasoning to images of Hindu religious art is meaningless. This leads to absurd conclusions. This art has been copied by millions of artists over centuries without any regard for previous ownership. At best, some acknowledgement of famous art are done. Yann (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 18:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faro di Augusta - Sicilia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro di Augusta - Sicilia.jpg
Info The lighthouse looks tilted, but I guess it is kinda leaning in real life, since all the other vertical lines and horizon seem to be ok. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 07:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Défense de nuit, Paris, France 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Défense de nuit, Paris, France 2.jpg
Info created by getfunky (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Comment Is the picture a crop of this one? If it is, I'd suggest putting it as alt. Maybe the other one is a bit titled, but I like the crop better, and I think it's hence better overall. Tomer T (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition, the long exposure is interesting here, the wide angle gives an impressive view, however I don't like the sky at all. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2012 at 08:36:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NASA spacecraft comparison.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NASA spacecraft comparison.jpg
I am not sure what happened to the note button on the nomination page but I had the image moved after the nomination, could that be it? -Soerfm (talk) 12:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried the templates from the above link, they didn't seem to work so I reverted this and the main page. Either I am reading them wrong, or you need to manually x,y for the pixel boxes and note text here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--I see that just 's' works as well as 'support' between the brackets. Is this a new thing that should be edited in at the top of the page?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 12:13:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:37 quai d'Orsay salon napoleon III 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:37 quai d'Orsay salon napoleon III 1.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too much artefacts. Tomer T (talk) 12:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 13:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice exposure (my guess is that this is an exposures blending), although contrast lacks a bit imo. Seats are also a bit too prominent and I'm sure that the basilica has better to show. Would benefit from a wider field of view. - Benh (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrating (or not!) my argument of "benefiting from a wider view" : [2]. Will upload to Commons soon anyways. - Benh (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right, I'm thinking about withdrawing this nomination. I've been working on trying to get a shot of the Tomb of Saturnin in the basilica. Thank you for your review, I'll try to do better next time. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 03:06:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diaethria marchalii.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diaethria marchalii.jpg
Support-- Great . I (but this is personnal) would have cut let's say 1/15th of the upper part cause of darky and also CAising bokeh. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. Some authors consider Diaethria marchalii as a sub-species of Diaethria clymena. The most recent books (refer for example to "Butterflies of Venezuela - part I", from british author Andrew Neild), clearly differentiate the two species, even if they are very similar. On english Wikipedia, marchalii is considered as a sub-species of clymena, which would not be 100% right - but to me those are just details of little importance, and very subjective descriptions (depending on the author). According to Neild, what is considered Diaethria clymena has only been found in southern Venezuela, and marchalii sp. on the north. This pic was shot at the northern Andes mountains. Last but not least, Diaethria gen. is considered "very complicated" by scientist themselves, it has lots and lots of subspecies, with very little differences among them. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2012 at 19:47:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gresgen12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gresgen12.jpg
Oppose Unsharp are the leaves of the tree if it is the featured content. Also some blur on each side. For a featured content it would be better to add a description lasting longer than a single word (e.g. location, what is particular for this tree, season...)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 06:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guadalupe valley.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guadalupe valley.jpg
Comment -- Is the valley really depicted in the picture ? It ould be great to giave more descritpion of the featured content of this picture.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2012 at 08:49:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lime Blue Chilades laius by kadavoor.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lime Blue Chilades laius by kadavoor.JPG
Info It was perched on a fallen leaf of Jackfruit to absorb the morning rays. As every ectotherms, they have to build up heat before takeoff. Please see the wet season form given as other version in the description. Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Jkadavoor (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are much better buttefly photos (in terms of composition etc.), I don't think it's to the bug bar. Tomer T (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me FP for composition essentially. I admit there are some artefacts due to the captor used. If we follow Tomer T point of view, only DSLR pictures should be featured, and I do not share this POV, no offense. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 22:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Let's suppose the author wants to show this specificHDR-extreme Look which is quite popular to illustrate an article etc. In that case this oppose vote could be a mistake. Just my 5 cents. Best regards • Richard • [®] • 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a HDR/tonemapping (exposure blending) fan, but here it is a bit too much for me. I also don't have a problem to change my vote if A.Savin can remake his image with a bit less saturation + HDRish view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2012 at 19:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bernache.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bernache.jpg
Question The camera is capable of a larger frame. Is it a cropped image or was the camera set to lower frame size? Also, I know how fast that type of bird can move, so I would like to comment in advance that although there is motion blur on the wing tip at 1/1600 sec. even at 1/4000 or better, either the blur would still be there, or the light would be too low for an image as fine as this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the photographer. Thanks Tomer T for the proposal. It's nice to see that my photos are appreciated.
It's cropped a little bit, and I resized the photograph. The sensor has 24 Mega pixels (4 032 × 6 048 resolution). This photograph is merely a squared format : 3 056 × 3 056 pixels. I wanted to have the subject in the center of the picture, hence I did that. Do you want me to upload the original ? Ludo (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are confusing which camera you used. The EXIF says this was an A550 which is only 14MP and corresponds exactly with a square crop of the 3:2 original. Colin (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I've an Alpha 900 and an Alpha 550. I'm confusing for this photograph. So. I don't crop the photo, only resize. The sensor of the 550 has 15 Mega pixels (4 592 × 3 056 resolution). Ludo (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 04:42:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A New View of the Tarantula Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A New View of the Tarantula Nebula.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 22:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bleu de Gex.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bleu de Gex.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2012 at 17:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose So last time I proposed a similar picture (in another church) I had the same flaws : Center overexposed, lots of blurry areas, some CAs; additionnally you also have some geometry complexity...--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 10:43:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:De gooyer amsterdam.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:De gooyer amsterdam.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 09:55:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grey Pansy Junonia atlites by kadavoor UW.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grey Pansy Junonia atlites by kadavoor UW.JPG
Info This is a moment of ‘perch’. With Perchant Behavior, male butterflies go to certain areas and wait. Usually resting on some object the males will dart out at passing animals and objects to determine whether they are females of their own species. If the passer by isn't, they will return to their vantage point. Female butterflies will fly to these places to seek a mate. These areas are usually fixed within each species and both sexes are drawn to them. All by me -- Jkadavoor (talk) 09:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those artifacts in the background were really disturbing. I denoised the background for you. I also lowered exposure and added fill light, to eliminate those (very little) overexposed parts that it had. Check out the outcome and feel free to revert changes if you don't like it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 04:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 14:55:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beekeeper keeping bees.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beekeeper keeping bees.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2012 at 17:58:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Spry and the East Temple.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mount Spry and the East Temple.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 10:14:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pylon in Guilers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pylon in Guilers.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 17:39:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel sv. Jana Křtitele a Panny Marie Karmelitské na Makové hoře (2).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kostel sv. Jana Křtitele a Panny Marie Karmelitské na Makové hoře (2).JPG
Oppose To me good composition with clear featured content, but color/ light management is clearly not featurable (and I know that from some of my proper nominations). CAs, white balance unbalanced, and the darky upper right area. Can you rework the color since the content is really featurable ? --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could this be a case of canvassing? I'm sorry, Chmee2, but four support votes come from Czech users (like the creator and nominator) who don't usually participate in FP candidates. At least a strange coincidence, isn't it? --Kadellar (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kadellar, I guess that the reason is a post on my Facebook profile, where I wrote that I am in nomination process with this image. However, without asking for voting. I wanted inform my friends outside a wiki-projects about something, what make me happy. I was also surprised, that many people add their votes later (and that they supported the image). But I was not asking people or recommended them support me (see for example my second nomination here, there is only one vote...). Regards --Chmee2 (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 23:43:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Athens (pixinn.net).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Athens (pixinn.net).jpg
Oppose Unfortunately, the light is not ideal, there is far too much of a difference between the light and shadow to show the full glory of the details of this image. Freedom to share (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 13:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier in eastern Greenland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier in eastern Greenland.jpg
Oppose Upper cloud breaks the composition to me, pulling down the moutains... Maybe you could digitally correct the sky. Concerning the mountains and glacier subject, it lacks sharpness, and light, or real white color. Maybe the sharpness issue won't change, but I suggest you could rework your image since the subject and the composition could be featurable.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 20:41:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grant DeVolson Wood - American Gothic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grant DeVolson Wood - American Gothic.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2012 at 16:20:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort lighthouse 2012b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Landsort lighthouse 2012b.jpg
InfoLandsort lighthouse (view from south) and Landsort 15,2 cm battery, Öja island (Landsort), Stockholm archipelago's most southern point. During the Cold War and World War II was Landsort a military base for the Swedish coastal artillery. The tower was built in 1689, with an upper conical iron section added in 1870. Created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2012 at 01:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons upright piano, model K-132, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png
Question – This is a nice-looking and useful image but it's embedded with an unnecessary color profile (ISO Coated v2 [ECI]). Shouldn't it be resaved as untagged RGB? Also, what color is the exterior wood? It reads as black. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to SteveStrummer – I have no knowledge about color profiles, ISO Coated v2 [ECI] and RGB, so I am not able to answer your question, sorry. But I can tell that the color of the exterior wood is black and high gloss polyester finish. --Hereiamfriends (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, some of the opposes here are strange. SVG??? Anyway, this is a fantastic picture, must have required a great deal of work, is aesthetically pleasing, and is technically excellent. I agree the downsampling is a negative (it means the number of pixels have been scaled down from the original photograph). PNG is a lossless format, and is sort of appropriate for pure white backgrounds, so I don't think that choice is necessarily bad. Overall, I think the reviewers need to be fair to an outside photographer - if one of us had taken this, it would be FP for sure. --99of9 (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no info on the equipment that was used to create this file. While downsampling might be possible, we have no evidence for it. Regards, PETER WEISTALK15:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 16:55:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tour Eiffel top.jpg
Info created and uploaded by Benh - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
The FOP issue is recurrent over here. To make it short: they dismantled the old -non copyrighted- lighting and made a new one (I need to see what it actually brought) and claimed copyright over it. I wonder how this would stand in court against a good lawyer. There's also a "citation right" which allows one to show part of a copyrighted material under fair use. Mostly vague concepts which infinite understanding IMO (of course I'm all but a lawyer...). I knew this when I upload this pic, and I added a warning notice, which has been removed since, so I thought it was settled. - Benh (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make it short, there is a copyright claim about patents and mark on the lightning i.e. BULLSHIT they intimidate people with industrial property and claims intellectual property about it. Only case in court was about a special lightning show with dynamic lightning. Of course to be sure it would need to be tested in court and backed up with jurisprudence but we don't have that so we don't need to invent something until a court say so. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 14:47:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Broken tree in the primeval forest Sababurg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Broken tree in the primeval forest Sababurg.jpg
Oppose No featurable content, except for the fail mechanics of trees maybe. Still if the last would applies, I am not fond of distracting branches, definition in color contrast.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 10:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caterpillar presso Guilers2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caterpillar presso Guilers2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 11:07:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:boomslang.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:boomslang.jpg
Oppose Very interesting shot. But main subject too small, overexposed sky at the lower left and chromatic aberration in the leaves. --Cayambe (talk) 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 06:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ensenada fish market 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ensenada fish market 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 11:12:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ghent April 2012-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ghent April 2012-2.jpg
Weak support Weak only because something in the light composition is not easy to follow, especially on the right center, where a 'guiding line' is coming. But let's admit it is in a country that does not see often sun .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2012 at 20:50:13
Info I argued against featuring this image, but got featured anyway. Now many seem to agree that we have a better replacement from the same angle and same time (May 2011 vs June 2011) with File:Neuschwanstein Castle from Marienbrücke, 2011 May.jpg. There is also a second FP taken in 2005 when the vegetation was much higher, so is at least somewhat different. (Original nomination)
Delist far inferior to current candidate (small, and that cast shadow on the right part which is unfortunate) - Benh (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep aber Hallo ?!? dieses Bild wurde in 3 Wikipedia Projekten ausgezeichnet:
Commons (Featured pictures)
Polnisch (Ilustracja na medal)
Vietnamesisch (Hình ảnh chọn lọc)
wo ist das Problem? Es können auch 2 Bilder exzellent sein, nicht wahr? --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wird haben schon zwei Varianten von selbem Aussichtspunkt die ausgezeichnet sind, und besser sind. --ELEKHHT23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sicher doch, wenn man auf starke Schlagschatten steht wie in der Version von 2005. Es ist schon ein ziemliche Respektlosigkeit, ein Bild, dass sehr deutlich vor nicht mal einem Jahr gewählt wurde, in einen Abwahlantrag zu schicken und nicht einmal die Traute zu besitzen, den Urheber des Bildes zu informieren. --Wladyslaw (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Elekhh: die Frage ist: "was ist besser?" ? @Taxi: hier wird und wurde praktisch noch nie jemand darüber unterrichtet, das sein Bild zur Abwahl gestellt wurde. Damit musst Du Dich abfinden. "Ziemliche Respektlosigkeit" ist wieder nur rein polemisch. Das schadet Dir mehr als es nutzt. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Es steht in den Richtlinen, dass man dies vor einer Abwahl zu tun hat. Und diese Aktion ist nicht nur mir gegenüber respektlos sondern auch den Abstimmenden, die vor einigen Monaten mit großer Mehrheit dafür gestimmt haben. Das hat nichts mit Polemik zu tun sondern ist meine Meinung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 00:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
featured on Commons, same angle featured on Commons, same angle
Keep See no reason for delisting - OK, the recently promoted picture has a few more resolution and a more warm WB, but also some backside shadows; all in all rather a matter of taste, and show me a rule which forbids two or more FP's on the same motive. - A.Savin22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think no one here used the duplicate reason as an argument to oppose. But when you have two very similar pictures, why bothering keeping anything but the best? Now which one is best is something else. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info The above keep votes area a follow up to the creator's messages in which he calls me a TROLL, also here, and here, and here. Also being accused of secrecy, although I did publicly notify this delist here. I already stopped contributing at Commons QI because of the same bullying, which has been tolerated by the community. Herewith I will stop contributing to Commons FP. --ELEKHHT00:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing of secrecy and "hiding the vote" isn't true. You could get here by two means: through the delising list, and through the recent vote of a picture of the castle. I'm sure Elekhh had no interest to "hide" anything. Maybe the delisting list isn't enough visible, that why I suggested merging it with the new FPs list (see Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Another suggestion). As for the naming, "Troll", I can't believe it was used without any response from administrators; in Hebrew Wikipedia someone calling a troll to another user would have been blocked on the spot for violating the rules of the community. Tomer T (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding the troll thing, I don't share that kind of behaviour either, but you should obviously not quit FPCs because of bullying and people calling you names. As we say in my country: "a palabras necias oídos sordos" (deaf ears to foolish words). Regarding the discussion, I've seen many delisting candidates and many replacements of old FPs with better images. I don't remember anyone complaining about it being a coward act. I think there was no bad intention from Elekhh: it's just a replacement of an old FP with a newer one with more resolution, and without the distracting shadow. It would be better if we put some water on the fire: it should not be about taking sides nor about pride, but deciding which image is better (I see no reason to keep two almost identical images on our galleries). Now, as Savin says, it may also be about personal taste. Let's let people decide if it should be kept or not, but on technical merits. I think I read somewhere that two pictures of the same subject should not be featured. Many times candidates were rejected because of an already existing FP, so I really don't see nothing wrong with this delisting process, even if the picture was selected with tons of votes (the new one has a lot of votes too, but that doesn't matter). Replacements and delistings have happened before. I think it does not matter if the old candidate was featured one or five years ago. Technology improves constantly: I've always been aware my FPs will possibly be delisted someday, and the world will not end. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. 1) May I ask please our german speaking friends to remember that we are here in another place than the german wp, and maybe using english language could help for general understanding of the debate (Obwohl ich persönlisch die deutsche Sprache verstehe...)? Danke :) !
2) Nothing was hidden in the delisting process, we as users have just to follow carefully the evolution of these pages. I've had some pictures of mine nominated as FP candidate by any of you without specific information, and I did not know that, and it is not a problem. Please notice that, almost at the same time I gave the information of the nomination to Myrabella about her piece of cheese, and the information of the beginning of the delisting process (see talk pages) to the photographer of this picture, who is not precisely my best friend.
3) I'm really shocked about the accusations of "Trolling" against ELEKHH. Obviously Elekhh is not a troll, but a very important, useful and friendly member of "Commons". OK, "Trolling" could be understand as a "funny" word in the real life, and sometimes even in the wiki community. "Les chiens aboient, la caravane passe" (@Paolo Costa ;). But the words "NACHT-UND-NEBEL-AKTION"I read in some messages are absolutely not funny and simply UNACCEPTABLE.
4) I don't want to make a Godwin's point, but the non-german speaking users have to know here that "Nacht-und-Nebel" means "Night and Fog", and has a very important historical and highly tragical significance as explained in the following article en:Nacht und Nebel, which cannot be unknown by any german speaking user. If I understand well (and there is not any other interpretation possible, even in Germany or other german speaking countries), Elekhh is, in this case, in the messages he noticed (please see the references he provided), clearly compared with the organizers and the responsibles of the Jewish holocaust ~ political mass deportations by the Third Reich, sorry ~ nothing else, nothing less, as he is accused of a "NACHT-UND-NEBEL-AKTION". It seems to me to be the higher and the most violent personal attack possible. If in some wikipedias, the accusation of "troll" is a rationale for a temporary ban, I don't know what deserves this kind of foul and disgusting comparison. So, as I don't know, I will ask the administrators (nothing hidden). --Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation Jebulon, I had understood almost nothing of the german parts. This changes things: I also agree with you that this is a very serious and unacceptable personal attack to user Elekhh and some actions should be taken. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Thanks. Your comparison with en:Nacht und Nebel is just stupid. In common German language this refers simply to an action that is done without letting others know about it (behind their back). You can find this figure of speech everywhere and not only related to fascism or holocaust. I would beg you to stop this idiotic "construction of arguments". If you need examples or definitions: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wenn man aus seiner eigenen "Geschichte" nichts gelernt hat, und dazu zählen gewisse Wörter und Redewendungen, dann sollte man lieber den Mund halten. Ich habe unsere Geschichte studiert. Jebulons Aussage trifft es genau! Im Deutschunterricht wurde mir dafür eine "5" im Aufsatz verpasst: falsch angewendete Kontext. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Das sieht selbst der Duden anders und du findest es einfach überall als Redewendung in einem ganz anderen Kontext. Dir geht es gut, oder? --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言22:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point. The report is called "Nacht und Nebel". A "Nacht-und-Nebel-Aktion" is a common term inside the german language, as used today, and it isn't related to this original meaning or not anymore. It is used to describe robbery, or in a more general way: An unexpected action done by someone. It was you who brought up this old and not fitting interpretation. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also see no need for delisting this picture. It's a great shot. Making the uploader aware of this process would have been nice. I don't like people calling someone else a troll, although. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't understand the part of discussion written in other languages but it smells something heat. :)
Regarding the delisting: I agree with Tomer, thinks the 2005 one should be delisted also.
Regarding the quarrel: I think we have to think all images are the property of Commons and not us. There is no meaning in contributing to Commons if we still think (and say) mine, me and I as a child.
My stand: I don't care any fancy badges; just nominating here to get more visibility and to hear your opinions. I respect them very much even an opposing one.
Exactly, I strongly agree with you. Wisest words I've read around here in a while. No sense in contributing for free to Commons if we then talk about me me me, mine mine mine. What's the whole point, shouldn't we be a little more selfless? If not, why did we join Commons in the first place? --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I asked this question about the recently nominated Amritsar Sikh Golden Temple, and the answer was that we had several FP of Eiffel Tower, Neuschwanstein castle and other famous places in the world, without any problem. So my logical following opinion in this case is: no reason for delist.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The trolling and stalking by Elekhh is disgusting from my point of view. Considering his other actions directed against a single user. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言10:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The doings by Elekhh isn't disgusting from my point of view, because the unnecessary harsh tone from Wladyslaw is it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Never been self-conflicted? :P Kidding aside, when you google translate the wording it doesn't come across as that harsh but its the cultural context that appears to make this unbecoming.Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I advocate two or more images of the same subject may be featured (here it's a bit problematic because it's three times almost the same angle, but still okay). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usual trolling considering the relation between the creator and the opposition. I fail to see any other reason why this request was made. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼署名の宣言10:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I prefer this image much more to the other 2011 photo, mainly because the shadows are much reduced in this image. Parsecboy (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral As the FP nominator and as ”the second owner of the picture” (the true one is my father) I kindly ask you to especially not judge the other Commons/Wikimedia contributors nor what there has happened in the background of nominations or delists... Please, focus on the pictures. From perspective of usefulness one should think about improving the community and Wikimedia project! Personally I think a good point of observation might be the weather in each picture and so the individual lighting condition in each picture. You should think about the best for the castle and for the Wikipedia, not the people you want to defend or be against. So calm down, this is not the place for judging people... Furthermore, It can't be that serious, come on! :D --Ximonic (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Ximonic; I'm sure that you too very unhappy with this controversy (no way made by you). It is sad if people (not only the contributor and the nominator) have other interests. Jkadavoor (talk) 07:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment By the way, this is a quite contradicting, inconsistent, precedent. You can see there that the nominator made a similar vote and argument, so you souldn't attach the current vote to any relationships between users. Tomer T (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you talk about the 3 Diliff's, one is not taken from the same point, and the two other not at the same time of the day, resulting in distinguishable skies and pictures. Also the dusk one trades off some resolution for a more aesthetic sky (you can't take too many pictures at dusk with the decreasing light). The three Neuchwanstein are taken from the same place and have same composition. - Benh (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These two are clearly not taken from same point (check alignment with background buildings, and perspective). And the smallest one has a more attractive sky which we be more difficult to achieve with a mosaic. Enough for me not to consider them duplicates. The other one is from same point at the H resolution one, but has a different sky because of timing. - Benh (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was already in London and I know the circumstances around Tower Bridge. The viewpoints are nearly the same; there is no additional value if the picture is shoot some meters left or right. And for sure there is a different sky/ timing. I only wanted to make clear that there are also other examples with same objects/ angles than this one. And that you don't to support this picture you already made clear. We need no novel to read from you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could have restrained from adding the last sentences which brings nothing to the debate. And come on, you mention 2 of the 3 at same point while there aren't and u miss the 2 which are at same point... Anyways that's not my point. Different timings yield different pictures, that's my point. The 3 Neuchwansteins have similar timing, conditions, and exactly same point of view and composition. No need to feature them all IMO. period. - Benh (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the need not to feature all of them? Are we under some bandwidth or storage constraint? Is there a moral imperative to feature only the one image where that image has been selected by such a small group of people? The three images all meeet the criteria and as such are featurable. Selecting amongst them implies an additional criteria that has not been made explicit in the project. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't noticeably affect storage ;) as I don't mean deleting the duplicates, but only removing the FP label on least good. I think FP should be unique in some way. Now let me ask the other way: what is the need in featuring identical pictures? I could go and shot the Eiffel tower dozens of times from the same place, at the same moment of the day, under same conditions, and try to have them all promoted. What would be the point of all this? If it's not in the criteria, and it's really needed, we could poll contributors for adding it. - Benh (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You present a false premise in that the imgaes aren't identical and numerous people have articulated a valid preference amongst the three. This is exactly why we can support a number of FP on the same subject so long as they meet the current guidelines. Furthermore, making an appeal on absurd consequence where someone submits essentially the same image can be dealt with on case-by-case basis. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok images are not really identical but, in good faith, are they not strikingly similar? Now among the keeps (that I can read and understand), I see only some who actually prefer Wladyslaw's -and mention it-, mainly for the soft lighting, which is a very good reason to me also. Other only argue that "oh well, still meets requirements regardless of whether there's a better alternative or not, or "why looking back at what's has been decided before?", which has its pros for sure. Some even only mention the pseudo relationship between Elekkh and Wladyslaw with no other arguments. And on the case by case basis... it's a good path to unfair treatment, because it seems so hard to me to reach consensus. As mentioned below, if we agree on having one FP per similar picture (not subject) maybe we should have a round with the three candidates and decide which one should keep the label. But I think we'll stuck to the current situation for a long time. - Benh (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. It is a function of balancing having value in the assignment of FP status and not becoming overly bureaucratic about it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If we like to have only "one" FP-image: how about to nominate all the three images in a new process and only "one" can win it? Perhaps as a new rule??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with that is all three images are quite good images. They each have their own merits. Moreover, I fail to see the need, yet, to force a distinction based on the small sample of votes we get here. The D&R process is really a blood sport to me, pitting images and people against each other. To me an image should be made FP on its own merits. The delist process should similarly be in reference to just the image in question. When an image really doesn't meet community standards anymore put it out to pasture but in a kind and gentle way. The current delist template effectively says the image was once featured but the community thinks its crap now. None of these images deserve that fate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; like MVR. More than one FP for EXACTLY ONE SAME SUBJECT degrade the value of FP itself; so we need a Super FP or something. :) Jkadavoor (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with the higher number of votes..." —kallerna™07:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 13:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Holzbrücke 2011-02-10 15-15-08.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Holzbrücke 2011-02-10 15-15-08.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 16:57:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Måbødalen, 2011 August.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Måbødalen, 2011 August.jpg
Support Stunning. In most photos the fencing on the left would be distracting, but in this one the eye is drawn to the valley making the fence less obvious. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I disagree with NJR ZA (+ the persons, distracting too, IMO), but I do not oppose, because a crop is possible, and the rest of this picture is just wonderful.--Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Because I think I might have been able to avoid the blurry foreground even if the view wasn't easy to capture this way either. --Ximonic (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNjaelkies Lea (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC) Unnatural and strange looking in places. The atmosphere is indeed nice, but I prefer photos like this of nature to remain natural and not too much fiddled with. Same goes for the alternative crop below.[reply]
Info Thanks for the nomination! Here is another crop without the fence, the path or the people. Though, I don't have much anything against these things as they add some extra information value to the scene. Another note: unlike the aspect ratio might look this is kind of a ”panorama” presenting quite a big broad view over the edge. It had to be taken hand held - there was no way I could have been able to mount a tripod on the edge. --Ximonic (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Is it better? I would have set a Wikipedia link to the description but it seems there is no article in the English Wikipedia. Which is weird because this is quite a popular visit place for tourists also. (I'm not sure but have the feeling that it was even more in the 90's.) --Ximonic (talk) 12:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want I can upload a version with only one exposure (which of course would be more natural than this). Then again another problem gets big and that means very notable over- and underexposed areas in the picture. I don't really know what else might be the ”unnatural” in this picture when the only processes were exposure stacking, slight WB correction and a little desaturation from the original pictures to prevent some little gamut warnings. Those were the fiddles. If the core problem is caused by high dynamic range capturing then it's a different story and I can understand the opinion better. --Ximonic (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 22:18:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2010 G-20 Seoul summit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2010 G-20 Seoul summit.jpg
Comment With all due respect, I believe the enhancements by Ezarate did not make this picture any better (cf. file history). Faces that used to be detailed, yet somewhat dim, are now blown and devoid of detail. --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 01:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak Support Nice pic, but noisy background (although it isn't a problem with the fish itself) - can you denoise it? Tomer T (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's big wow to me. On the downsides (I want the review to be thorough right? ;)), it's a bit soft, a bit dark and I'm missing texture on the skin in the darkest parts (I've brightened the pic at home to give it a try). But the shooting conditions were probably difficult. - Benh (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 19:11:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luxor Souq R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luxor Souq R01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 19:00:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala profile.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala profile.jpg
Yes it's a spider web but I find it adds to the image. I find the flies around its head and the spider web kinda nice --Muhammad (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are still some woods on the bottom ... I think the version with the web offers much a context than the version without.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 18:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cinemagraph de fleur de pommier.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cinemagraph de fleur de pommier.gif
Oppose I'd support if the background was a sky or something else, but not a grey wall with the shadow of the tree. Then I prefer more a foreground of the flower. --SteGrifo27(tell me)18:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. Now I understand. Very interesting. Perhaps you should not present it as "Fleur de pommier" but as "Cinemagraph of a fleur de pommier"... -- MJJR (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 13:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muster für Eheleute in der Pfarrkirche Mariä Himmelfahrt, Nesselwängle.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muster für Eheleute in der Pfarrkirche Mariä Himmelfahrt, Nesselwängle.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The church window „pattern for married couples“ (1885), part of the notably stuccoer art work in the Catholic Assumption of Mary Church in the village Nesselwängle (Tyrol, Austria). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 19:48:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Akha Smile for 16 Baht.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Akha Smile for 16 Baht.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 13:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Araschnia levana LC0264.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araschnia levana LC0264.jpg
Info This butterfly called Map got it's name from the markings on it's underwings. The genus name Araschnia (from greek Arachnia) meaning Spider also refers to these markings. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Oppose It seems like some background noise reduction was not done carefully but I'm not sure (some blurry halos visible, e.g. antennas and top of wings). Or maybe it's just the shallow DOF. I could support a version without all that blur, if possible: the image has good quality. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second wing and the second antenna right behind the foreground wing/antenna. They just peek slightly behind the foreground, but were further away and thats why are blurred. The background wasn't blurred artificially. --LC-de (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know whether lifting the camera to avoid that foreground object will help with a bigger F Number. The other view is also nice. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 13:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bubbles net.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bubbles net.jpg
Comment Yes, I think so too. Looking at the photographer's flickr page, I don't get the impression that he has difficulties with getting the WB right. --188.154.71.22814:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not just the bubbles and background, but also the light reflections are violet/reddish instead of white. WB is imo inaccurate. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Color is a choice for maybe raising details, and color altering is not a flaw. The featurable content is clearly the scientific display of the bubles architecture. So FP for me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 20:14:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calvi-écopage pélicans.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calvi-écopage pélicans.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2012 at 12:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fiori di ciliegio.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fiori di ciliegio.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 11:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glowing noble gases.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glowing noble gases.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 19:11:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hammersmith Bridge 1, London, UK - April 2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 18:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 18:46:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2012 at 05:12:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Torre Agbar - Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg
Weak support -- You have a mastery for definition and other technical qualities; we all know it. My support is weak because of the composition of course.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 08:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Variable Density Tunnel - GPN-2000-001311.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Variable Density Tunnel - GPN-2000-001311.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2012 at 09:29:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Forte Toulbroc'h 5.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forte Toulbroc'h 5.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 10:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I'm sorry, I don't see anything special here. Compostion could be improve (although I see the nominator is not the creator) --Cephas (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition (subject in the centre - boring). Seed under mushroom and pine needles (?) to the left are distracting. In pictures like this one needs to rearrange very carefully all the small objects around the main subject, just like Paul Cezanne did. Gidip (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2012 at 22:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Wow for me, the attitude is great, I like the composition and the light. The minus is luminance noise is visible, but I guess the fault is on your camera. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 11:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kvarnholmen 2012 BW.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kvarnholmen 2012 BW.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 18:39:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral I love the composition but the head of the seagull doesn't really stand out from the background. Maybe more background blur would be better? --TheHighFinSpermWhale01:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 09:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marina Bay Sands in the evening - 20101120.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marina Bay Sands in the evening - 20101120.jpg
Support I love this building. Watched how they built it on Disc channel. Besides that, the picture is good, with nice exposure control, sharp enough for me, and with lovely colors. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had not checked well on the water, but Carschten is right, there are very weird circles, therefore I remove my support vote. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, low detail level and especially too strong diffusing / HDR problem everywhere on the water (strange circles and lines visible). --kaʁstnDisk/Cat18:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request @Someformofhuman: can you upload please the 11x single images. I'd like to try to make my own HDR/tonemapping image version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 16:23:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ko Kai & Ko Tub 12.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ko Kai & Ko Tub 12.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2012 at 19:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Victor Bulla - Young Pioneers Defence.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Victor Bulla - Young Pioneers Defence.jpg
Comment OK, so this is my first FP nominee, and I guess it will be voted down because of the quality, but I have to say, it is one of the most fascinating photos I've seen on Commons. --Torstein (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why not, but needs a serious restoration work before. Very impressive and interesting picture, though.--Jebulon (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a fascinating image, with an eerie feel and is definitely of great value. There are unfortunately two problems. Resolution is far from optimal, not even reaching a megapixel. Likewise, it needs to be restored quite a bit. Is there any chance of finding a higher quality scan? Freedom to share (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2012 at 21:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Schloss Waldenburg (Sachsen).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schloss Waldenburg (Sachsen).jpg
Weak oppose im sorry, the technical quality is good but I dont really like the composition. There are too many trees in the way. Perhaps try a different angle, or earlier in the spring or winter?--ArildV (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 00:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dockworker in the harbour Ringkøbing, Jutland, Denmark.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dockworker in the harbour Ringkøbing, Jutland, Denmark.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 07:46:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clematis alpina 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clematis alpina 02.jpg
Oppose At the moment the composition has too many flaws to me (horizontal clear line in the bottom, subject is not really a FP, darky complex bokeh in the upper left).--Telemaque MySon (talk) 15:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 13:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dumbleton Hall Hotel Cotswolds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dumbleton Hall Hotel Cotswolds.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 19:13:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-Stetten - Hotel-Bijou-Hochhaus4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lörrach-Stetten - Hotel-Bijou-Hochhaus4.jpg
Oppose oversaturated? Anyhow, the good point is the nice level of detail, but the bad is a quite messy composition. Tomer T (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't increase the colour channel. why should the composition be messy? are the leaves on the top right disturbing? they could easily be retouched if so. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The leaves on top right are a problem. But also the cut off tree on the left and the street lamp seems to me kind of "stuck there". Maybe removing the leaves would make it better. Tomer T (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will look if this makes the pictures better. If so I will upload a new version. My first intention was to let the leaves consciously to have a kind of framing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionOppose Is there anything special about this otherwise quite ordinary and unaesthetic building? Otherwise I don't see, how it could have any relevance or unique value for WP or other wiki projects?!
Your contra argumentation ("the building is ugly") doesn't fit to the FP guidelines. Maybe you make first familiar with it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't oppose, because the building is that ugly (although it is), I did so, because I can't detect any use for or value of a subject like this.
The Quideline says: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." And this image is the later. So if there is not something special about this building (could be an historical event, unique building features, important role in urban history...) its IMHO just not relevant enough for FP, sorry --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this image captures quite nicely the concept that utilitarian values in architecture often led to brutally ugly buildings. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 13:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shodoshima Olive Park Shodo Island Japan21bs3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shodoshima Olive Park Shodo Island Japan21bs3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 20:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 12:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthophora on Lamium 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthophora on Lamium 1.jpg
Oppose 50% of the image could be cropped without losing context. The dark background interferes with the contour of the insect... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many insects can not be identified to species level from a photograph, we have been through this before. I hope you do appreciate how much luck is needed to get a (relatively) sharp shot of a bee in flight. I don't know of any other such picture in commons, except honeybees, which are so common, and don't extend their tongues whilst in flight. Gidip (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody stops you from uploading unidentified critters to commons. The EV of those images is however greatly reduced. But why you have to force feed them to FP is beyond me. Is it a must that all your picture have to pass this channel? พ.s.07:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One can assume from your comment that a creature can be either "identified" or "unidentified", black or white. The organisms are indeed identified, but not to species level. Since species grouped together into higher taxa have many features in common (which is why they are grouped together), images identified to a higher taxon have much EV in many cases, and it is not necessarily reduced. Open books about ecology of flies or bees and see how many photographed creatures are not IDed to species. Absence of a species ID does not and should not in itself disqualify images from FP status. There is no rule which demands such an ID. Am I force feeding all my images to FPC? I take that as an insult. Gidip (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny as I don't feel insulted when you try to teach me my profession in a condescending manner :-). พ.s.21:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying to someone he's trying to "force feed" his pictures to FP is far more out of place than giving someone explanation about something related to his profession, without knowing what his profession is. Tomer T (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all due to a phenomenon called perception. And BTW, Tomer, my comments were not nearly an insult nor meant to be. One unfortunately needs a rather thick skin when lingering over here. พ.s.07:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Gidip: most papers and ecology books have lots of unidentified species! This is a very difficult shot and I would have supported it. Unfortunately the dark background is very disturbing to the eye when trying to see the bee contour. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I forgot to mention is, the picture is not about the bee in isolation, but about the interaction between the bee and the flower, and the flower is fully identified. Same goes to the other pictures I nominated here. Gidip (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 05:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clanculus ormophorus 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clanculus ormophorus 01.JPG
Support Superb. In my opinion we need at least one FP of every animal, etc on the planet... I know, it's a long way to go. --Cayambe (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 08:31:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dark Blue Tiger tirumala septentrionis by kadavoor.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dark Blue Tiger tirumala septentrionis by kadavoor.JPG
Neutral On the technical side, one of the best images you've nominated imo. There is wow too, but unfortunately you had some random shadows all over the BF and flowers. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be. This moment lasted only one or two seconds. So I only got the time to place the camera and to take the photo. In the other view I got a bit more time (basking) but the light was not favourable. Jkadavoor (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 00:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dryocopus pileatus MP2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dryocopus pileatus MP2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2012 at 19:12:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support Could you sligthly lighten the dark trees and drop shadows? Is there any space left on the right, to show the full tree instead of cutting it in half? --Martin Kraft (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2012 at 12:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tower of the Menoir de Keroual.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tower of the Menoir de Keroual.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 11:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:pitbikesCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:pitbikes
Oppose -- Subject on the right is covered by obstacle, and the pitbikes which is the featured content is not really put in focus in this composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 07:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Indeed, this shot is not very attractive, and background could have been better. Does this fungus always look this bad or is it this one because it is old, as description says? --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 15:23:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coulommiers lait cru.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coulommiers lait cru.jpg
Support This shouldn't work, partly due to the subdued color and partly due to the poor focus on some of the background above the cheese ... but nevertheless my first reaction was to look around for a knife. Mmm ... Daniel Case (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 19:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 13:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Detail of a stained glass window in the Montparnasse cemetery in Paris.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Detail of a stained glass window in the Montparnasse cemetery in Paris.jpg
Comment Great work, but the white line on the left spoiled it. Could it be removed? Could you add a description above too? Yann (talk) 11:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2012 at 12:11:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Philaethria pygmalion MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Philaethria pygmalion MHNT.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 14:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Car moving.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Car moving.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2012 at 14:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info FCAB (Ferrocarril de Antofagasta a Bolivia) transports large quantities of sulfuric acid from the port of Mejillones to Chile's copper industries in the back country, as well as copper plates back to the port of Antofagasta. On their way the trains have to cross the stunning scenery of Cumbre Pass, which links a junction near Prat with Mejillones.
Comment This is an outstanding photo, but I think the colour balance is off (perhaps too magenta?) Fix that and I think this will get very wide support. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your response, but the environment there has a strong reddish tint (see e.g. 1234, none of these pictures are by me). Also, the "black" parts of the locomotive don't show a red tint. Thus, I think the colors are more or less accurate. --Kabelleger (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 15:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schachblumenblüte, 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schachblumenblüte, 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 22:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ambulatory ceiling - Cathedral Saint-Etienne in Toulouse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ambulatory ceiling - Cathedral Saint-Etienne in Toulouse.jpg
thanks for the note it's helpful to find the problem. I've tried to fix it and I've uploaded a new version, it should be better. --PierreSelim (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I must admit I don't like this framing. But at full size the image is quite striking, even having some purple fringing. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2012 at 21:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ellis Island - Great Hall.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ellis Island - Great Hall.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 23:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry, but the image lacks sharpness, and the sky looks pixelated to me as if digital zoom was used. A pity for this otherwise great view, - A.Savin09:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Downscaling is not an improvement... ;) As there were that pixels in larger resolution, then something's wrong with the technical side (just my imho). - A.Savin11:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 22:51:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg
Info The Peppery bolete (Chalciporus piperatus) is named after its hot and peppery taste why this mushroom is also used for flavouring meals. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2012 at 06:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas Cataract.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Christmas Cataract.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 15:41:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praha kostel sv Jilji z Uh trhu.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praha kostel sv Jilji z Uh trhu.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 09:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wat Tham Sua 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wat Tham Sua 2.jpg
Comment definitely it had a green cast, I uploaded a version with adjusted levels. But I have problem with the light – direct sun light and golden objects mismatch, you always have lots of blown areas apart from several shadows... The crop is also a bit. Otherwise, very interesting and technical good. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yea, it's the optimal version, but I don't have the skills to make the stitch perfect (no stands were used, as you can guess with 1237 steps). —kallerna™19:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 05:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kumquat Photograph.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kumquat Photograph.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 11:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 June 2012 at 06:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Berghof.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruine Berghof.JPG
Oppose Nice foggy mood, but far too foggy to be interesting. Unless you already know what you're looking at, it's terribly unclear what the picture is about. Kleuske (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: less than 2MPX. Tomer T (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, normal
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 09:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment -- Here the forewing on the right side is sharp but on the left is blurry and in the image below they are in the other way. And overall sharpness is better in the image below. The hairline DOF may be an issue of your lens (I assume it is Nikon 85mm f/3.5 DX VR); the only suggestion is to keep your subjects flat and parallel to the image sensor. (Longer macro lens (150-200 mm) are best for these type of subjects; otherwise a normal tele lens. Just my thoughts.) -- Jkadavoor (talk) 06:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if I liked the composition, I agree with Jkadavoor about the blur. Almost all FPs of animals are quite sharp all along the subject, in order to offer more detail. If you want some more feedback: I also think the image is not 100% striking because of some distractions. For example, the shadows below the animal, and the uneven background. If you shoot BFs with their wings wide open it could be helpful to shoot against a big leaf or the ground, in order to have a smoother background (I know it's not always possible). But the easiest and most effective way to shoot BFs remains the side view (as Jkadavoor's current nominate). That way is easier to get a good flat surface on the wing, which is very helpful for macro shots (reduces blur on subject and gives you a softer background). Sometimes you also need some luck to get a nice colorful subject that matches the environment colors. Brown or blackish BFs are usually not so interesting. Regards, Paolo Costa (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 08:53:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kockelscheuer allée peupliers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kockelscheuer allée peupliers.jpg
Weak oppose Passed the good technics exposed in the picture, the featured content is not really featurable to me, or not taken in a way it would be featurable (taking whole tree lengths or remarkable feature)--Telemaque MySon (talk) 15:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 03:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Frankfurter Altstadt mit Skyline 2012-04.jpg
Support One would wish for a more vibrant sky, but in its absence the stated contrast between the old and new cities comes through that much more. I like that you can see quite a bit in those streets. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 19:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inle Lake (Myanmar).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inle Lake (Myanmar).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 22:01:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King's Cross Western Concourse - central position - 2012-05-02.75.jpg
Support This view of King's Cross station in London was taken from a central position on the mezzanine floor on the departures concourse. It has a 180° horizontal field-of-view, which necessitates a cylindrical projection rather than the typical rectilinear. The stitched panorama has 100 MP of detail to explore. -- Colin (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Grudgingly. ;-) I was/am still intending to head back and take a similar photo. I'm convinced that we can find more atmospheric lighting conditions, but clearly this is an excellent panorama and I'd like to think the direct result of a bit of friendly competition! Everyone wins in the end, after all. Diliff (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff is both an inspiration and a threat ;-), and I'm greatful for both of these pressures to improve. I must remember, on my way home tonight, to tip off the station security about a bloke with a large Canon camera and a tripod.... Colin (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support This pano must have been tough, that is for sure, with all those lines in the top part. This is good stuff. What a nice station I'd love to go some day. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 11:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogvCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:¿Qué es Wikipedia?.ogv
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 15:05:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belgique Butte du Lion dit de Waterloo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belgique Butte du Lion dit de Waterloo.jpg
Oppose Sorry... Call me a buzzkill, but what's that outstanding here?? OK, it's a quite nice view on a cloudy sunny day, but not much more - could even bear more contrast and sharpness, and have the hill in focus instead of the beet. All in all that's really amazing about so much support votes within just one day for this shot. - A.Savin15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's so amazing? That's your personal opinion that it's not FP worthy. That shouldn't mean everybody thinks so. Tomer T (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1, can only totally agree with A.Savin. The colours urgently need an adjustment; I don't understand why the first row of the plants, which are slain (dt. erschlagen...) the viewer [it fells that they occupy over 80% of the image], is in focus; the more interesting parts in the background are far away and out of fcous, unsharp, no details visible. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:54, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I give some answers? About the colors: this shot was taken at the end of the day, at about 8 pm, while the sun was beginning to set; the colors are faithful. About the composition: the subject is not only the momunment, but the battlefield as a whole. To me, this view can illustrate the famous line by Victor Hugo "Waterloo ! Waterloo ! Waterloo ! morne plaine !" ("Waterloo ! ... Gloomy plain!") and I was interested to swhow that this former battlefield, with its memorial, has become an agricultural field nowadays. By the way this picture is used in WP articles about Waterloo, but also about beet or the economy of Belgium.--Myrabella (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contrast is missing and the colours are too flat and yellowish, even for an evening shot. I already thought you want to show the battlefield as a whole, but still the two-thirds greens are too much, too dominant and too boring to me... However thank you for the explanation – it's just your composition doesn't work in my view, it may be a matter of taste. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too keen on the compositional choice, with the beets in the foreground taking up far too much space, and the eye of the viewer does not focus at a specific point at all at first. Perhaps a crop in which the bottom 33-40% of the image would be cut would be better? Freedom to share (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Almost - the one thing I feel it is really missing is the small tree at the right in the original. For some reason, a sweeping horizontal composition would be much more effective :) This one is definitely better though! Freedom to share (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 20:28:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Melospiza georgiana MN1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Melospiza georgiana MN1.jpg
Support I took the liberty to remove chromatic noise, improve background NR and lower the belly exposure a bit, since all was still very noisy. Feel free to revert, but I think it's pretty good now. You have a nice lens bro. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 16:54:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schomburgk Map of Guiana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schomburgk Map of Guiana.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 16:15:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Primule (primulas).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Primule (primulas).jpg
Comment Martino, per questa volta ti ho aiutato ad aggiustare l'immagine. Comunque se hai problemi la prossima volta basta che apri un altra nominazione e compili la tua secondo lo stesso formato. Avevi cancellato ":File" in due posti, che non dev'essere tolto. Saluti --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 05:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
(weak) Oppose Great shot, esp. the background is well-chosen. But the parrot looks/is plucked and there are several quality issues (head out of focus, (colour) noise, IMHO some (motion) blur). Difficult to take, however the result is not good enough to be featured. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose As Carschten. The eye has motion blur. The wings are worse. I think t=1/640 is not fast enough for birds in flight (doesn't matter if the lens has OS). Awesome image of course, excellent composition and background, nice colors and wow factor, but not featured picture imo, due to the many technical issues. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Com'on guys, this is an excellent picture under outdoor conditions. If the Ara's wingtips were slow enougth for an perfectly sharp exposure it might porpably just have dropped like a stone. You can't compare this to studio condition! For me the slight motion blur even supports the image's effect. --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but keep in mind there're dozens of FPs of birds to compare with: we are not comparing to studio shots but to already featured pictures of birds on Commons, check the gallery out and you'll see the bar is quite high. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 12:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 22:12:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bunnerong power station tunnel.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bunnerong power station tunnel.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2012 at 03:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delonix regia leon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delonix regia leon.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2012 at 16:29:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quinten Metsys - Triptyque de la confrérie de Sainte-Anne à Louvain.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quinten Metsys - Triptyque de la confrérie de Sainte-Anne à Louvain.jpg
Neutral (tending to oppose) low quality (esp. low details) due to ISO 400 and f/4,5 and maybe a too strong denoising; but I can assume that tripods were forbidden so not really the photographer fault... But when I think about Jebulon's museum images, the sharpness at his photos is really better. Hmm --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 09:33:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Setophaga coronata MP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Setophaga coronata MP.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 13:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Speicherstadt abends.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Speicherstadt abends.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 17:38:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tigrisoma lineatum portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tigrisoma lineatum portrait.jpg
Comment Ok you are right, but that version is not too accurate either, because the beak is green/blue. In my book description of the bird, the beak is different. I uploaded a new version which is an intermediate between the first and the second, and imo pretty faithful to the bird's real colors.--Paolo Costa (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support not sure about the colours, in my view still a bit brownish, but better (I can't read histograms and don't know how the bird look in real life). Otherwise nice bokeh, technically without flaws, good portrait and composition. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat18:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 04:02:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Bucket of a well.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wooden Bucket of a well.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2012 at 22:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bruxels April 2012-11.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bruxels April 2012-11.jpg
Info Three scenes of the legend of the Miraculous Sacrement. Stained glass windows in the Cathédrale of Saints-Michel-et-Gudule, Brussels, by Jean-Baptiste Capronnier (c. 1870). In 1370, according to the legend, holy communion wafers began to bleed after being stabbed with daggers by the Jews of Brabant at the synagogue in Brussels. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right. Conditions were not easy and this old sensor is not the best with noise. I have nominated a denoised version below (they look the same on print though). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the result of the opened aperture and not of the denoising which was selective and concerned only the dark areas around the windows. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat15:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 01:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oncometopia orbona Kaldari.jpg
Comment I just now saw that the image has a size of 1200x1600 pixels (not 1224x1632 pixels), but excellent quality--Miguel Bugallo01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Below 2 MPixel. I am surprised that six reviewers prior to this has supported the image given the too low resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Miguel mentioned it in the start of the vote. But I was willing to compromise on size (anyway it's nearly 2MPX) because of the quality and impressiveness. Tomer T (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the question for this reviewers is not the resolution, it's the crop: The insect is big and to me can be QI and FP with a little bit of megapixels less. But I understand you and I don't know what to do--Miguel Bugallo23:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. It is not a catastrophe. Of, course as nominator, you always have the option to withdraw the nomination if you feel the nomination was a mistake...--Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I the only one having problems with just seeing the 1200x1600 full resolution image? When I click the full resolution link of the image in the file page, I get directed to a image with even lower resolution than the the file page preview? --Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my case, I calculated the megapixels as given by Miguel: 1200x1600 equals 1.92 Mpx. I thought 4% less was still acceptable. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usually, the interpretation of the resolution guideline is considered a rather hard wall, to quote
Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'. Note that a 1600 × 1200 image has 1.92 Mpx, just less than the 2 million level. A 1920 × 1080 image, commonly known as Full HD, has 2.07 Mpx, just more than the 2 million level.
In my interpretation that implies that unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons' (and I do not think there are in this case, pretty ordinary macro circumstances) it is a no go. --Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 16:31:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:MC KleinerPanda.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:MC KleinerPanda.jpg
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 18:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-1a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caparica December 2011-1a.jpg
Weak support Good quality overall, however the lightning is not the best: contre-jour or back lit). Also I think the position is not that stunning: I'd rather see the sufer standing and being in/on a wave. In the end we do not have so many feature pictures of sport, this picture can be a good addition to our pool. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 11:12:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GericaultHorseman.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GericaultHorseman.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 03:09:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jean Thurel 1788 (1804), par Antoine Vestier.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jean Thurel 1788 (1804), par Antoine Vestier.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 18:13:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Milano - San Marco - Portale.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Milano - San Marco - Portale.JPG
Oppose Lacking sharpness, asymmetrical composition, extreme tilt. Interesting portal though, looks worthy for a retry with a tripod. Regards, PETER WEISTALK07:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 19:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rice Field - Indonesia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rice Field - Indonesia.jpg
This has the same problems as the one above (1.5 MP) but is worse as it is saved as a PNG rather than a JPG (causing it to be 3x the size for no benefit) and has been horribly over-sharpened, etc. Please upload the photo from the camera. Colin (talk) 10:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 10:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 13:46:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin - model of ship.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Deutsches Technikmuseum Berlin - model of ship.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2012 at 13:06:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jemaa el-Fnaa at night - Maroco - Marrakesh.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jemaa el-Fnaa at night - Maroco - Marrakesh.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 16:29:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support The scale isn't very useful as the subject is not in the same axis as the scale. To some extent, a slanted scale may be beneficial.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has been very cooperative. It was released in his environment a few hours after this photo shoot.
In most cases, the scale is part of the photo (Butterfly, egg ...) but the background and the scale are reworked in the case of image to Commons. For publications, the inital scale remains in place. In the case of the salamander, it is the true background. A quick measure with a compass at the head of the animal can make, there after, the scale on the photo.
Support Everything looks so nice to me in this picture. Setting, lighting, subject... and all tack sharp. huge wow. - Benh (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2012 at 12:23:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aurora Australis (icebreaker) berthed in Hobart under a rainbow.jpg
Oppose Could remove my oppose but you should correct these things: curved horizon, vertical distorion, tilt, and reduce a bit the CAs. Sky is very noisy too. But it is a very stunning image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the feedback; it can be difficult to see flaws in one's own work. I've straightened the horizon, adjusted the tilt and applied noise reduction to the sky. Unfortunately, I can't find the chromatic aberration you describe; where is it? Edoddridge (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can see them on the poles (don't know the correct name of it) of the yachts on the right side. Also some minor unimportant CAs on other places. Being a stitched panorama, I think you forgot to remove CAs on the last image on the right. Or maybe your camera only showed CAs on that image. It's gonna be tough to remove; maybe you should leave it this way. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with JJ, leave the CAs. One last thing: the ship looks very saturated. If you are going to retouch the image once more, then you could reduce saturation a bit on some areas. Then I will support. --Paolo Costa (talk) 06:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JJ and Paolo. I've bumped the exposure up 0.3EV for the sky and 0.5EV for the rest and desaturated the non-sky sections a bit. I think they were excellent suggestions! Cheers. Edoddridge (talk) 12:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was thinking only last week, riding my bike past, that I needed to take a shot somewhat like this. I think you got lucky with the rainbow though. :) JJ Harrison (talk) 12:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did. The only downside was getting a drop of rain on my lens that I had to photoshop out four times; luckily it was in the sky and dead simple to remove. Edoddridge (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 18:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Artwork by North American Rockwell.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Artwork by North American Rockwell.jpg
Oppose The artwork is great, but something went wrong with JPEG compression or similar - Just look at it 1:1 and you can see a lot of blocks all over the picture :( --Kabelleger (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the PNG version. But is there a way to get the full res as a PNG? I think Mediawiki is not able to preview PNGs beyond a certain size, but maybe you could add a second file without working preview with the full res. Or alternatively a JPEG with sufficiently low compression (although looking at the picture I'm not sure the JPEG algorithm will do anything useful with it) --Kabelleger (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 06:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dactylorhiza majalis LC0269.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dactylorhiza majalis LC0269.jpg
Info Western marsh orchid (Dactylorhiza majalis); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2012 at 14:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Falling rain in mexico.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falling rain in mexico.jpg
Saffron, it's me. And, really, I can support images :-) The atmosphere is caught here in an unique way, it makes me smiling and black and white fits. It's exceptional and featured IMHO. I want to be able to take photographs like these, too. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 19:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lanzarote Castillo de las Coloradas R07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lanzarote Castillo de las Coloradas R07.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2012 at 07:25:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Layers of titan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Layers of titan.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2012 at 14:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Luxor R07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Luxor R07.jpg
Neutral sharpness and general quality should be better for a FP IMHO; otherwise there's really nothing to fault, nice image. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 11:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panthera leo (male) Colchester Zoo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panthera leo (male) Colchester Zoo.jpg
Comment. Camera will do 3648 × 2736, but image came from flickr. Someone with an account there may be able to contact the creator and see if he has an un-cropped version.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 11:13:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Composition, the somewhat darker background near the tip of its beak, looks like the dark spot at the tip of its beak has bled into the background.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 20:41:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Erik Zabel Tour 2006.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Erik Zabel Tour 2006.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 20:23:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Perdrix rouge MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Perdrix rouge MHNT.jpg
Support In oologie, the ornithologist like to present the eggs together with the feathers that were in the nest. There is an information that is valuable. I only realized that later. In the future I will try to present the eggs. Thank you to Tomer T. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd also experiment with more side lighting to avoid less specular reflections (not sure it would be successful with the shape of the eggs) or softer and more diffuse lighting. But earns my support as it already. - Benh (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 16:02:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 10:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flying Crow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flying Crow.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 14:01:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose (removable) Question Are we really to promote as featured a picture with a noticed stitching error ? Is it the best "Commons" has to offer etc...--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2012 at 21:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls - ON - Niagarafälle3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls - ON - Niagarafälle3.jpg
This image shows the tourist staircases at the American Falls (part of the Niagara Falls). The tourists are equipped with rain capes to be protected against the spindrift of the Falls. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 18:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pyramids of Giza and boat pit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyramids of Giza and boat pit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 11:57:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Minor CA and overexposure (white parts), nevertheless nice and impressive. But please, save the planet !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 19:42:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Advanced Test Reactor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Advanced Test Reactor.jpg/2
Getting a clear picture of this situation is nigh impossible, given the amount of water and the cherenkov radiation. Is this proper use of FPX? Those reasons suffice for an objection, but an FPX? Kleuske (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason is good for FPX. It shortens the death struggle of an image. FPX is easily overridden by supporters anyway. พ.s.12:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 14:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 03:21:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Detaille 4th French hussar at Friedland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Detaille 4th French hussar at Friedland.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 06:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Hôtel de Gournay - 1 rue Saint-Dominique - 003.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris - Hôtel de Gournay - 1 rue Saint-Dominique - 003.jpg
Oppose Sorry but the crop is very tight on the bottom, subject not very well identified on the file name, and the composition does not look good to me. It is very dark too in some areas. Also I don't see any big wow to mitigate those details, but could be valued image though. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 02:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruswarp railway station MMB 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruswarp railway station MMB 06.jpg
Oppose. Nice atmosphere, but unfortunately there are technical deficiencies like the halos mentioned above as well as motion blur in the trees. HDR simply cannot be done when there are trees in the picture and any amount of wind. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the composition is great (at least I like it), however I think there is a lack of DOF f6.3 is a bit small when you have the focus on. The HDR (exposition blending?) can be a very good idea for this kind of light condition however the halo is not really beautiful. In the end I'm puzzled because I really like the composition. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 10:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Galaxy Next Door.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Galaxy Next Door.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 05:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose because of the shadows on the cactus and the shadow on the top, and somewhat unfortunate composition, making you want to see more of the plant. Tomer T (talk) 11:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 21:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Saint Saturnin - Basilique Saint-Sernin - Exposures blending.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tomb of Saint Saturnin - Basilique Saint-Sernin - Exposures blending.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 07:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The Moorish Villa in the Wilhelma zoo and botanical gardens, Stuttgart, Germany. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 19:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2012 at 19:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PR-2012-05-15 IMG 1631.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PR-2012-05-15 IMG 1631.jpg
Info 2012 inauguration ceremony of the President of France, Élysée Palace, Paris Nicolas Sarkozy and François Hollande shaking hands at the entrance of Élysée Palace. Created by Cyclotron - uploaded by Cyclotron - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has a code, yes, but "PR" and "IMG 1631" aren't meaningful and camera filenames are discouraged as the only person who cares is the camera. Something about "inauguration" and "Président de la République" with your existing date would be better IMO. Colin (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Historical image, good quality. @Colin You might want to take into consideration that using the image ID is useful, when people are asking for additional information on images. This way one own's image archive becomes consistent with the pictures on the Commons and people can easily refer to it. Regards, PETER WEISTALK07:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Petite réserve : les attitudes de l'un et de l'autre laissent un doute sur qui accueille qui...Attitudes of one another leave a doubt about who is hosting who...--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but Im opposing this on technical grounds. f/2.8 at 1/3200s under such sunny conditions is not acceptable. This should have definitely been shot at a much higher f-number. --Jovian Eyestorm15:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While this does seem an odd choice of setting, opposing purely on the EXIF data (which could have been absent) seems a valid as opposing because the photographer used a Canon or edited it on a Mac. This 15MP photograph seems acceptably sharp and we don't want the men behind to be in focus. If I downsample to 7MP, for example, the statesmen are as sharp as could possibly be. Please judge the photograph. Please strike this oppose. Colin (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I was bit hasty on writing the grounds for oppose. After looking at this image for a while, I feel this image should have a different composition. Currently, both statesmen are in the center of the image with Hollande stretching his hands outwards towards the stairs. A better composition would have been with the camera placing the statesmen in the upper 1/3rd of the image and the rest 2/3rd with the stairs. This would give more negative space in the image. See image notes for more details. @Jebulon I am surprised you mentioned the word dogmatic. Is it not true that FPC reviews on Commons are often filled with dogma? Some users oppose just because of a tiny amount of CA. Some expect white snow and white clouds to be under-exposed. Some refuse to put the rulebook away even when the image is historical and compelling. Havent we used even more weirder reasons for opposing images. You did oppose this intially. I too, did oppose a couple of Quartl's images for reasons not mentioned in the rulebook. Although this image became FP on the 2nd nomination. The second oppose in the first nom was absurd and invalid IMO. And even more suprisingly, that oppose came from an admin which was concurred by another admin.
yes I know, but I'm not sure I understand you. Do you think I'm an admin ? i'm not.--Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] @Colin Opposing on grounds of EXIF is not new at Commons. I remember one of Hzell's shell image being opposed because it was shot at the smallest apertures something like f/29 or f/32. Users were complaining of diffraction at full size. Subsequently, Hzell reshot the whole shell and it did get featured. --Jovian Eyestorm14:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be new but it shouldn't be accepted as a reason for oppose. Ever. If diffraction caused the shells to lack sharpness then the lack of sharpness should be the reason to oppose, not the laws of physics based on some computer data uploaded along with the image. I have absolutely no problem with folk commenting on how the image might be improved had it been shot differently (composition, lens choice, aperture choice, etc). But the voting criteria must remain on the image itself. I'm not particularly interested in previous voting patterns or defending ones position by attacking another's, or by exposing inconsistencies in voting or even hypocritical remarks. Please guys, let's vote on the actual image before us. And if we disagree with another vote/comment, then we should be free to say so without such comments or their response ever getting personal. Your list of dogmatic is interesting and don't you think we all fall into traps sometimes. We are all at different stages of maturity wrt photography and photographic criticism. We learn off each other. Which is why it is important to respond to a mistaken reason for opposing. And next time, if someone expects eye-hurtingly-bright white clouds to be within the dynamic range of a 8-bit jpg, and opposes for that reason, then perhaps it would be valid to point this out too. Colin (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Jovian Eye: I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion.
This being said, the sunny conditions that apply on this image are not the same than those you'll find on the shadow on the porch, in the same series. This, and the wish to have sharp images when people or vehicles move, make the choice quite acceptable in my view. I think that you might not be grasping the urgency and uniqueness of the moment. Rama (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The background is very dark and people may not wait for a long time; so a faster (1/3200s) exposure may be needed. @Jebulon: Please avoid words like dogmatic; a lot of people (like User:Saffron Blaze, I afraid) are leaving this place due to these type of heated arguments. Jkadavoor (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)answered by private message--Jebulon (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Jebulon did anything wrong, and his challenge of that oppose reason is pefectly acceptable and to be encouraged (otherwise the poor nominator has to suffer wrongful opposes with nobody standing up). What was wrong was the resulting personalisation of the issue as a defensive response. What we need to be better at is discussing the picture, and issues raised regarding the the picutre, without anyone needing to respond with a "but you said ... " or "but your photos are just as...", sort of response. If we don't discuss these things, then there's really no community, and that would be the biggest reason to leave. Colin (talk) 07:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2012 at 21:29:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 9 Schweickart during training.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apollo 9 Schweickart during training.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 20:52:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
That would be me. You see, generally it's the person who votes for delist first. And since one can always check the revision history of the delist request page(and see who created it), it isn't so anonymous--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it was just a question, because it was not clear to me. Maybe the nominator for deletion should sign his/her nomination, then vote, and sign his/her vote, again. But no problem, thanks for answering.--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is just a question, because it is not clear to me. Maybe the nominator for deletion should sign his/her nomination, then vote, and sign his/her vote, again. But no problem.--Jebulon (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 09:57:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drachenfels View North.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drachenfels View North.jpg
"The stuff in the front" is the Drachenfels and it's castle-crag. One Byron, an English tourist once went nutty about it and it's been famous ever since. As for the lighting... This is Germany on a cloudy day, not east Syracuse in August. Kleuske (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 21:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 16:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I agree with the second part of your review and improved the crop, the overexposure is to me in this picture rather a plus, Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good crop, but reducing it further by approx 40 px from the right would be better because there's still some bluish region there. Sorry, but the overexposure is kind of jarring in such a predominantly grey image.--Gauravjuvekar (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 12:17:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Servers in a Rack.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Servers in a Rack.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2012 at 09:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Annonciation de Nancy - Dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathédrale Notre-Dame-de-l'Annonciation de Nancy - Dome.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2012 at 12:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Soldering a 0805.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Soldering a 0805.jpg
Support Good and useful. I guess a larger DoF would be difficult with that short distance. Not sure what does the above oppose voter want to say. - A.Savin14:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 16:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Casmerodius albus portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Casmerodius albus portrait.jpg
Comment I agree that a wider crop may be a better image. There seem to many candidates that have cropped versions nominated and no copies of the originals uploaded. It would be nice if we could see the originals and thus give opinions on cropping. I also started a thread on cropped images from flickr. We may be able to contact the flickr users and get better images from them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2012 at 23:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Hf-crystal bar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Hf-crystal bar.jpg
Question Looks like it was heavily denoised but I'm not sure, maybe it's the reflections of the metal. But it looks kinda plasticky to me. Do you have a slightly less-denoised version? --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I appreciate the reflections are difficult to deal with but the colours are not inerrant in the metal so misleading. How are we to compare the silver shade of this metal with another, given that so much of the room's colours are reflected? The image has clearly been cut out from its background, placed on pure white, and a false shadow applied. The scissor-sharp edges are a give-away. If this shadow were real, the metal would be darker towards the bottom. The lighting is equal from all sides, so the object has no depth. I think this is a useful image, but not at FA. Colin (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bar itself is very good and impressive to me, but I'd prefer another shadow with a smoother masking job, I find definitely better (private message)--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2012 at 17:03:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander III monument (Irkutsk).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alexander III monument (Irkutsk).jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Random composition, poor sharpness. Merely a snapshot, no chance of getting featured. --MAURILBERT(discuter)10:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2012 at 12:59:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:DentrodelSubte-EstaciónCatedral.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:DentrodelSubte-EstaciónCatedral.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the technical quality is bad: blurred, compression artefacts. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2012 at 19:37:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Macaca fascicularis Ao Nang 5.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Macaca fascicularis Ao Nang 5.jpg
Support. The crop looks very well done. The camera specs indicate that the original image is larger. Is it common practice to upload the original image and link it to this version?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't oppose because it is great for all except one thing I cannot remove my eyes from : that oblique shadow too pronounced. Maybe you could temper it digitally --Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just my opinion but... I think the shadow actually adds to the composition. Without it, it would just be a yellowish monkey on yellowish sand. It creates a break in the colours to a very nice effect. --Canoe1967 (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 12:43:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question How would adding this template be beneficial? In the case that consent is available it still remains a self-assessment by the uploader - a soft tool of proofing the legitimacy of possible consent. An OTRS-Ticket signed by the depicted person is a way more powerful and reliable tool to proof actual consent. Using this template will only work if we assume that poeple don't lie, which I do not. Regards, PETER WEISTALK06:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's not foolproof, but it's somewhat like the copyright declaration {{Own}} where we accept it in good faith (until we find out if it's dubious). Of course OTRS would be even better still, but the WMF resolution stopped short of demanding that: The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media.... Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's a whole lot better than nothing. (Although for this photo in particular, I have little doubt that the subject approves of publication. I just want featured pictures to lead the way in following best practice.) --99of9 (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the resolution, I was not aware of that. My critique for {{Own}} is basically the same. And here comes the part you didn't quote: "[...]and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place." The logic consequence of this resolution is that all images requiring consent for their publication must come along with consent of the individual, the owner, etc. Of course demanding this as a requirement for uploading content to the Commons would lead to a tremendous decrease in uploaded media files (at least if properly done through OTRS-Tickets), hence this half-assed template. Once again re-users remain fooled and without reliable information. As for this image: looking as directly into the camera under what seem to be studio conditions is to be considered as an implied-in-fact contract. Regards, PETER WEISTALK10:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this applies to all pictures of identifiable people in non-obviously-public situations, hence my request on even this image. If you want to argue for requiring more (signatures??), feel free, but can we at least agree that halfway is better than nowhere? Finally, looking at the camera implies you're happy to have your photo taken, but not necessarily published (a clear counterexample is the distribution of ex-girlfriend pictures). --99of9 (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this requires some additional explanation: first of all, let me assure you that I strongly disagree on encouraging people to use or promote this half-assed solution. Second, but more importantly, the subject of this image is considered to be a Person der Zeitgeschichte in German Law (this corresponds the public figure). Various judgements and scientific consensus have confirmed that public figures can be photographed in most cases (decisions are based on a balance between freedom of speech and personality rights). However, in this case the subject obviously agreed to being photographed. Your ex-girlfriend example fails to address this particular issue. Closing thoughts: it might be more efficient to "assume good faith" when people upload material to the Commons, by making this the default option. Whenever you don't have consent or got the image from another website, etc. you could add a template that informs people that consent is not assured. On another note: this template in general won't work in this case, because it seems like User:Chester100 does not speak English. Your turn. Regards, PETER WEISTALK18:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points of view, but I prefer the WMF resolution's approach. By the way, what I mean by ex-girlfriend pictures is ones that were also looking at the camera, also agreeing to be photographed, but always intended to be private - that get released after the relationship is over. --99of9 (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 22:38:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2012 at 11:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorociboria-aeruginascens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorociboria-aeruginascens.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2012 at 11:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dryadula phaetusa MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dryadula phaetusa MHNT.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2012 at 19:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Larus-delawarensis-021.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Larus-delawarensis-021.jpg
Oppose I think we have enough good bird-FP candidates to expect natural environments unless there's a good reason not to. --99of9 (talk) 03:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture is a good picture. A natural environment is not always the best solution, it can also be a "distracting background". It depends on. --Llez (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2012 at 11:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palastinboy.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palastinboy.JPG
Question What about composition? What about sharpness? What about the blurry? What about overexposed areas? What about the blue canal? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: No composition at all, bad crops, blurry and unsharp, sky overexposed, wrong white balance (the blue shirt should be white), lack of quality. Sorry. Don't discourage ! --Jebulon (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 09:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Asilidae by kadavoor.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Asilidae by kadavoor.jpg
Thanks for the compliment. I would like to make this place a little bit less serious. Tired by reading counter arguments and personal attacks. -- Jkadavoor (talk) 05:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've returned and this is my first FPC vote after so many days (though I'm experienced in FPC) Lucky buggy going all the way! Dipankan001 (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Niagara Falls - ON - Niagarafälle3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:炫彩津门0天津西站全景Panorama of Tianjin West Railway Station.jpg
Oppose That's an impressive railway station. A quick Google Images search shows that it should look great from the inside too. But this picture has been spoiled IMO. Firstly it has been greatly reduced in size to only 2.5MP and appears over-sharpened too resulting in an image that looks computer-generated rather than photographed. Secondly, the colours don't look realistic and have probably been enhanced. Lastly, the horizontals and verticals aren't straight. If the angle-of-view horizontally is too wide to allow a rectilinear projection, then a cylindrical projection should enable at least the verticals to be straight. Colin (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though it look as a good panorama in reduced picture, the sky changing color (right and left) is difficult for the eye. There are ghost nights CAs coming from the blue lights at the center at the picture. Most of all, the picture is not really eqully, carefully cleaned up for the blur of passing people and when zooming in we find several artefacts.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 07:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A stunning capture, the color change in the sky (notice it is purple in the far west, then deep blue in the centre, and then totally dark in the top right corner) makes me oppose this nomination. Sorry, but no. Dipankan001 (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 09:36:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Allébron maj 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Allébron maj 2012.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2012 at 01:01:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes - Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Francisco de Goya y Lucientes - Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos.jpg
Oppose – I'm sorry, but I don't believe this file is faithful enough to the original painting to be Featured. Overall the shadows look too weak and it seems like the background was opened: compare the shadows on the rear wall to the black breeches. Jovellanos' flesh seems much too pale, and the background hues are heavily casted green, to an extent that is certainly unsuited to the golden statue of Minerva. This plate was prepared by Taschen: although the GoogleBooks image is lo-res, it can give a good idea of the range of variation between this nomination and the original art. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question have you seen the original painting to compare? It may have changed colour over time What makes us sure Taschen didn't retouch the image? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been to the Prado in over 20 years and my personal recollections are not helpful for this, but Taschen is regarded as the world's foremost publisher of art books and is famously exacting in its reproductions. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2012 at 14:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpg
Oppose I love the colourful brickwork and the picture is detailed and well exposed. But it is distorted. Compare to File:BDP2006.jpg, a similar picture taken just a bit further to the right. The conical turret on the left is warped. The weather vane on the roof with the N/S/E/W compass ring is angled such that it doesn't appear to be parallel to the ground. I suspect that unless this can be photographed from further away, you might have to put up with some degree of perspective distortion because one can't fully correct for the fact that much of the building is shot from close-to and from-below. Colin (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First: I wonder why you compare this picture to File:BDP2006.jpg which is obviously not perpendicular. Second: the weather vane will never be parallel to the ground except for you make a picture directly from the sky over the vane. Third: this building is not photograph-able from further away without distortion lamps and other stuff. You can check it all in maps.google. All in all I can not see a distracting distortion. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I understand about the issue: I'm still learning... Perspective causes points further from the camera to be smaller and converge. This happens in three dimensions. With a rectilinear lens held perpendicular to the subject, the lens will correct for the fact that objects towards the edges really are further away, by stretching them. When all objects are far away (like the horizon in a landscape) this difference in stretching is zero. But for a nearby building, the difference is clear. This is typically not a problem for a normal angle-of-view lens but the stretching becomes obvious as one approaches the limit of about 110°. If one uses stitching software to compose an image from several frames, some of which are shot at an angle, then the software is able to correct the foreshortening to give the impression that the camera really was perpendicular to the object. Regardless of whether it is done in software or lens, it cannot correct for the shrinkage in the z-axis (depth) (without generating a 3D model). And it cannot correct for the change in viewing angle towards the edge (being below the weather vane rather than perpendicular to it). This isn't usually a problem for the flat face of a building if the camera central and facing the building. But if one can see the sides of towers, turrets or through a circular weather vane, then the fact that the depth and angle aren't corrected becomes very obvious. The turret is warped and no longer looks like it has a horizontal base. The weather vane no longer has an elliptical shape one would accept but has been stretched vertically to a circle. The eye no longer accepts that the loop is parallel to the ground. There is no solution to this problem other than to get further away from the building and/or higher up -- in other words, to reduce the overall angle of view. A compromise is to accept some degree of converging verticals. Perspective is natural. An "architecturally correct" view is only "correct" if the viewpoint is far enough from the subject that top, bottom, left, right and centre are all nearly the same distance from the lens. Attempts to simulate this view with a camera close to the subject will generally only be completely successful for flat objects. If you are using a program like Hugin, you can move the rectilinear projection vertically, and hopefully achieve a natural (rather than architecturally correct) degree of converging verticals, while at the same time minimising the stretching distortions. If your horizontal angle of view is also large, then it may be difficult to achieve any image with minimal distortions or some kind. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose At the moment I think something is not ok with geometry of the picture. Even if I could accept a bit of distorsion on the far right, you have to correct some perspective.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2012 at 22:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Treskavec Monastery 02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Treskavec Monastery 02.jpg
Support I like the lighting too, so much that I support despite the blurriness of the photo (but that's borderline) - Benh (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the lighting, and the composition too, but I have to oppose to this picture, because of unsharpness and blurriness. A "good" light (i.e. not harsh flat lighting) is not enough by itself in this case, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
featured on Commons, same angle
JPEG
![Königswinter]] and Bonn.](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/Drachenfels_View_North.jpg/907px-Drachenfels_View_North.jpg)
Info all by Yann (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Support A picture of the Taj Mahal with not too many tourists. Compared to the other FP, I see 2 good points: 1, no clouds; 2, the pond is not cut. Yann (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose this isn't an outstanding photo of the Taj Mahal. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment At least composition is much better than the current FP • Richard • [®] • 16:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Yann (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
Question If you explain under which conditions and circumstances the image was taken, focus and image size could have a secundary role in evaluating the picture as FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Neutral-- The composition in global aspect is ok. But 100% is blurry to me (reducing the definition could also help), and I perceive some distorsion in several aeras though it does not affect the principal subjects.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Weak oppose - I am sorry for the mess with the other file under, but I definitely think that the extreme left upward leaf is an abuse in the composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
Abstain as author -- mathias K 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
_1_Luc_Viatour.jpg)
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg)
Done--Citron (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
Weak support weak because of some areas focus/ definition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
.JPG)
.jpg)
chromatic aberrations as well as perspective and barrel distortions. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
.JPG)
.jpg)
Keep aber Hallo ?!? dieses Bild wurde in 3 Wikipedia Projekten ausgezeichnet:
Commons (Featured pictures)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
Request @Someformofhuman: can you upload please the 11x single images. I'd like to try to make my own HDR/tonemapping image version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
. It is not a catastrophe. Of, course as nominator, you always have the option to withdraw the nomination if you feel the nomination was a mistake...--Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg)
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg)
JPEG
PNG
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg)
![Königswinter]] and Bonn.](/wiki/File:Drachenfels_View_North.jpg)
,_S%C3%ADdney,_Australia18.JPG)
)--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sídney,_Australia18.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg){kind=link}
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_01_Crisco_edit.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_in_Amritsar,_India.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg){kind=link}
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_par_Antoine_Vestier.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg){kind=link}
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg,_featur){kind=link}
_berthed_in_Hobart_under_a_rainbow.jpg,_featur){kind=link}
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg){kind=link}
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_Colchester_Zoo.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_S%C3%ADdney,_Australia18.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_S%C3%ADdney,_Australia18.JPG){kind=link}
,_Sídney,_Australia18.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_Sídney,_Australia18.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
