Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/November 2009

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


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


Contents

File:AllianzArenaII.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 15:29:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Allianz Arena lighting in blue, Munich, Germany.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of photos that R. Bartz has taken of this building. kallerna 17:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extreme Purple fringing --S23678 (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the spot you chose is a bit unfortunate. I havent walked around there but there seems to be quite good spot to make pics of that stadium. Good old Richard took some very good pics from there. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Mignon Nevada Ophelia2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 14:34:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ophelia, classic beauty


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:U S Air Force Thunderbirds.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 12:41:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by someone named David Armer - uploaded by Dha - nominated by Wolf (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow2! At first glance I thought that it was a mirror photomontage! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing!--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And please do not retake. They are playing with death.--Korall (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, in fact, they're not. This is one of the easiest maneuvres. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I wonder why the "5" on the upper Thunderbird is not upside-down. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info That's exactly the point. Thunerbird 5 (the Lead Solo) is the one that flies upside down in all stunts where an upside down flight is necessary. Wolf (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Sharpness is borderline, but this is easily overlooked given the setting. -- JovanCormac 11:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Definitely has the wow-factor. MartinD (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per wow. Durova (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps a formality supporting this image but it is really good. Agree as been stated above that it does take a special kind of divvy to attempt such a stunt, perhaps retaking this image would be a daft idea (least of all for the photographer). Its a while since an image stunned me so much (mostly at how bloody daft some people can be!) Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:Lake Manyara Wildlife.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Oct 2009 at 04:22:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wildlife as Lake Manyara, Tanzania
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eismcsquare - uploaded by Eismcsquare - nominated by Eismcsquare -- Square (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Square (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Slight lack of sharpness, but overall good. - Darius Baužys talk 06:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very good use of the shallow depth of field. --Aqwis (talk) 08:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice mood --Ikiwaner (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Super! kallerna 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Notning special. No wow. --Karel (talk) 22:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Karel, I can take constructive criticism. But "no wow" is kind of lame, and empty (and some of the images you have voted for lacks any "wow" in them). I hope you did notice the use of DoF to show four distinct 'layers' - from foreground to background, with animals in their natural habitat and movements. --eismcsquare 02:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting composition --S23678 (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Moise Nicu (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good clear foto of the 6 zebras. --Korman (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Ikiwaner (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Dead Vlei 5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 08:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dead acacia tree in Dead Vlei, Namibia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good use of the rule of thirds. Nice colors. Yann (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely image --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Phyrexian (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Simple, I like it! Diti the penguin 20:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good one. Pmlineditor  08:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

* Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is visible even on thumbnails, 1,2 only. kallerna 13:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info What you consider noise are bushes like this one i guess. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Yann. Durova (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --S23678 (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Probably the best photo of Dead Vlei we have. I first saw that location in the films The Cell and The Fall, both of which use it to add to their surreal atmosphere. This quality is captured really well in the candidate image. -- JovanCormac 11:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really tastes good! --AM (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very original. - Damërung . -- 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:GlenHelenGorge NorthernTerritory Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 07:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Late afternoon sun on the western wall of the Glen Helen Gorge in the West MacDonnell Ranges, Northern Territory, Australia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- as nominator 99of9 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 07:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- No profile embeded in the file and there are some large darker spots visible in the upper left area. Sting (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your comment and attention to detail helping to improve the image. I had accidentally stripped the EXIF while cut/paste cropping in GIMP. I've resaved with the original data and cloned dark sky regions. See what you think now. --~ (talk) 13:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Are you sure about your color profile ? When I download the image, open it in Firefox (v.3.5.3 – color mode by default) and compare it to the one opened in Photoshop, it's displayed like if it hasn't any profile embedded and with pretty harsh saturation, well far from sRGB rendering. Btw, when I open it in Photoshop, it tells me there's no profile embedded in the image. Weird, isn't it? Sting (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm a bit out of my depth on this one. I'm sure the camera only takes sRGB (that is the default and I haven't changed it), and each image is marked as such. Would it have been mysteriously changed during the use of hugin/GIMP/Picasa? I hardly did any manipulation, so I doubt anything would have changed it. I use firefox and it looks accurate... 99of9 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Open it in IE which doesn't handle color management and you'll notice the colors are the same than in FF, which means no sRGB profile is embedded in the image. But if you think these saturated colors with imo an unreal sky are ok... it's your taste. Anyway, I'm uploading a version with the sRGB profile embedded (no other change has been made) so you can see what I'm meaning. If you don't like it, just revert to your previous version. Sting (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks for embedding the profile. I'm very happy to have it in there. 99of9 (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good stitching work, interesting, well exposed. I had cropped the building on the right but this is a detail. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical quality insufficient for FP: Looks somewhat blurry and washed out in full resolution, especially on the sides. --NEURO  11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great pano. Not like some of those mind-numbingly long, narrow slots... -- Petritap (talk) 13:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes - good pano --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per NEUROtiker. kallerna 13:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This discussion comes up every few weeks for panoramics with high resolution. 99of9 could have uploaded a downsampled image only and you would say that it's sharp now. However we should engage people to upload full resolution pictures (this one has almost 25 MP). Judging such large images on computer screens at 100% is nonsense because you actually look at a small zoomed area. Reduce to 50% on screen to get an idea how sharp an image will look as a printed poster. --Ikiwaner (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ikiwaner is correct that I have not downsampled at all since (I even turned off the hugin default) since I wanted to provide users with as much information as possible. 99of9 (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
        • IMHO lacking sharpness is not the only issue with this image as I pointed out above. As to downsampling or not downsampling: an image that is overall blurry contains redundant information (a form of w:Oversampling if you will). By downsampling you get rid of that redundancy but the information content is the same. Thus downsampling isn't always a bad thing. --NEURO  22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm the first one to complain about seeing panoramas at full size, but a 1000 px high downsample still shows huge quality problems (noise in the sky) --S23678 (talk) 01:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Trier Jesuitenkirche BW 5.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 08:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done photo, nice object. Very good -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Lookatthis (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not outstanding enough for me. Overall technical quality insufficient for FP. --NEURO  10:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. --99of9 (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As NEURO. --Karel (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose dull colors --Leafnode 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull colors as well --S23678 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it a colourfull HDR, the image gets shot down for unrealistic colours. If you get a plain image, it is shot down because of dull colours. Weird, huh? --Muhammad (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The subject itself seems to be as much to blame than the technique used to capture the image. --S23678 (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great!--Kmenicka (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:US Navy 041201-N-4308O-030 An F-A-18 Hornet assigned to the Silver Eagles of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron One One Five (VMFA-115), prepares to launch from one of four steam powered catapults.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2009 at 21:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-A-18 Hornet readied to be catapulted into the air
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate Airman Ryan O'Connor - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Great image. The steam makes it special. Multichill (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 04:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot of atmosphere :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great composition and athmosphere. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 09:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and JPG artifacts. --NEURO  10:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose, if even I can see the technical flaws (see above), that means there is clearly something wrong with the picture. A pity... Airwolf (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite the technical flaws. -- Petritap (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical quality is much too poor. Maedin\talk 11:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy. kallerna 13:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment all I see is steam ... GerardM (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support awesome (but the filename is a bit long) --Leafnode 07:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Terrible quality, jpeg artifacts and color noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose Promoting this is a non-sense. The quality is terrible. --S23678 (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One should be a bit more careful when judging an image like this terrible or Promoting this is a non-sense. The pic was shot back in 2004 with a Nikon D2H. This was Nikons flagship-line professional camera that cost USD 6000 for the body only. It had 4.1 MP. There was simply no better technology available. The photographer Ryan O'Connor knew what he was doing by shooting this with manual exposure and spot metering. Who ever did a picture of fog knows that this tends to be noisy. Besides the fact that noise is better visible in uniform areas such as fog the fog itself is no homogeneous structure. Therefore I would not recommend to apply a strong denoising filter because the fog would look like semi-transparent plastic. Kudos to Ryan! --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That does not explain the jpeg artifacts. There was less visible artifacts in images from my digital camera I used in 1998. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Per Daniel, I doubt that noise, posterization and artifacts are all camera-induced if we're talking about 2004 technology. Point-and-shoot cameras were better than that in 2004 (my 1 year old 5 mpx sony point-and-shoot was already 1 year old when this got taken). This picture's histogram was probably stretched one way or another, causing low contrast areas, like fog, to be severly degraded. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beside the compression artifacts - which can ruin any photograph taken with both-handedly wielded best and most recent camera in the world, using state-of-the-art deep-matrix metering system, this photo is just FA-18 in the fog. Looks nice, but not informative enough. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 11:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is not fog, this is steam from the catapult that is about to launch this aeroplane in the air. This is imho a very illustrative picture exactly because of what you call "fog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Mind that I have written "informative", not "illustrative". It would maybe be informative had the "fog" be visibly being emitted from mentioned catapult. Here, I don't see any catapult. Thus, I have to rely on your written description. Now, that is not enough information in the picture, sorry. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per bad quality, confusing composition, compresion artifacts and image noise. - Damërung . -- 09:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Longbeach 1 bg 122802.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 11:38:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknow - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

kallerna 12:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Anonymous votes are not allowed /Daniel78 (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Spider webs in Muir Woods.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 16:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spider webs in Muir Woods
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info w:Muir Woods is always dark, even on a bright sunny day. The trees are too tall to let the sun through. Yesterday I've noticed many spider webs that were lit by the sun rays in some places. I was amazed by mystic of the lights and shadows that are clearly seen at spider webs and some Autumn leaves. It was almost as Photographing a model #2, only now it was all natural. BTW how many spider webs do you see :)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in general a nice scene....but for FP it is imho not enough. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
It could make a very good picture of the day for next year w:Halloween--Mbz1 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that some photo could be used doesn't make it a worthy FP candidate. --Leafnode 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a little too hard to see what's going on in this picture (darkness, no clear center of attention). Also sharpness problems. -- JovanCormac 09:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose messy composition, too hight contrast/overexposure - as Jovan. --Leafnode 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with previous complaints. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too messy of a composition of the picture -- per Jovan. Razorflame 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
No matter what I like the image, and enjoy your opposes, so please keep them coming Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Zvíkov 8.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 22:24:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Czech castle Zvíkov on Vltava river
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karel (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Soft and plane is visible in the frame. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Without the airplane in the frame, it would have a very good composition. However, the quality is too low. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above, but also I'd like other perspective better - with even horizon. --Leafnode 09:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blurry. - Damërung . -- 09:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:City Lights at Night.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

City Lights at Night, Los Feliz, Los Angeles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Never Cool in School - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 03:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it's composition and quality are sub-standard to normal FPs. --S23678 (talk) 04:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anyone with some Vietnamese skills could write to Mr Lê and explain him a little about FPC? Out of the 10 FPCs he nominated, he received a total of 1 support vote (considered "weak support" even)... --S23678 (talk) 04:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
    OK, Understood. :)-- (talk) 13:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:360 degrees fogbow.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2009 at 21:14:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fogbow
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is a very rare indeed 360 degrees w:fogbow. Of course nothing is really sharp at the image because of the fog that made fogbow possible. There is even no need to see the image in the full view. The whole thing is seen better in the preview. My shadow in the middle could not have been avoided. Fogbows are always formed around antisolar point, and besides isn't this fun to see your own shadow inside ghostly looking white circle Smile
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was taken with 8 mm fisheye, and the whole thing hardly fit into it.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a remarkable image and a very interesting one too. --Herby talk thyme 10:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is really something special. Very illustrative and the background is very pleasing for such an illustration. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great capture. Durova (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose definitely VI, but IMO not FP --Leafnode 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree with Leafnode. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is FP. It is a very good image of a very rare phenomena. --Mbz1 (talk) 10:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Low modesty levels detected ;) It's a good representation of a very rare phenomena, but IMO it's not an eye-catching image, as the rest of the FPs usually are. That's why we have VIs. --Leafnode 13:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
It is, where we differ. IMO the image, is very much eye-catching, interesting and educational. It surely cautht your eyes, if you bothered to oppose :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Mbz1. Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality. --S23678 (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I wonder what makes you to think that the phenomena is not rare enough? Have you seen it yourself? Have you taken an image of it? Have you seen many images of the same phenomena taken by others? Were they better than the nominated image? Just wonder :) BTW the quality is not low, it is almost as good as it gets with such images.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it... But since you provide pictures of this phenomenon on 2 other separate occasions in the Fogbow category, I guess it's not that rare. And, no, I am not a specialist, but I'm probably not more a specialist than the people who supported your picture. --S23678 (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that I am lying, when I said that the image is very rare? I have quite a few images nominated now, and I did not use the words "extremely rare" to describe any one of them, but that one. Maybe you could link to my other nominations, where I used the words "extremely rare" to describe my image. BTW I said that this fogbow was "very rare" and not "extremely rare". About fogbows. They are more or less rare. "Very rare" are 360 degrees, full circle fogbows, the one, which is nominated now. But I guess you do not see, and do not want to see the difference. May I please suggest you to give it another thought before making the statements as you did? Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can agree that we disagree on about everything... Have a nice day as well! --S23678 (talk) 03:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
The only difference is that I could prove my disagreements with you with the facts, while you are good only at ignorant talking without any proves at all :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why I'm keeping on going with this, but I guess I'm taking it as a challenge. I'm wondering what kinds of facts you need from me, so I added notes on the image about the quality problems. For the rest, it's a mater of personal taste. You think the rareness of the phenomenon is a good enough mitigating reason for the defects that your image have, that's ok, after all, that's why you nominated your image. But I have the right to think that it's not a strong enough mitigating reason as well... If everyone had the same opinion, what a boring place FPC would be. So, is this the last round? --S23678 (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I am not interested in continuing that discussion either, but I'd like yo explain what statements of yours prompted me to respond the way I did. First was that one (highlighted by me) "I don't think the phenomenon is rare enough or the composition is exceptional enough to mitigate the low quality." In that statement you put my statement that the phenomena is very rare under doubt. You had no reason to do it. You know nothing about fogbows. IMO, if a person "thinks" about something, he'd better be able to explain what made him to think that way. Even after I explained to you why this particular fogbow is very rare you did not bother to admit you were wrong about rarety of the phenomena. The other statement was that one: "Given that most of your pictures are extremely rare, that word looses a bit of it's value when you use it..." I asked to give some examples of those. You did not bother to respond.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
This is going nowhere. I'll give you the joy of having the last word. --S23678 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite exceptional. -- JovanCormac 15:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I agree that some of the images attributes are not perfect (colour is a little dull), I think that would be splitting hairs when accounting for how special this image this is. Mtaylor848 (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice shot ! - Darius Baužys talk 10:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Nov 2009 at 21:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sanger Institute and Hinxton Hall, Cambridge, UK. HDR panorama bringing out autumn colours.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Magnus Manske (talk) - uploaded by Magnus Manske (talk) - nominated by Magnus Manske (talk) -- Magnus Manske (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Magnus Manske (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated, even to a point where the tone-mapping software created a halo around the red building in the distance. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 21:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per H005, colours are not right--Korall (talk) 21:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Such a saturation would actually not be that bad if there was no man-made objects, since trees at fall can be deeply colourful, but it's not the case. Composition is not optimal as well. --S23678 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foto is too bright and overexposed. --Korman (talk) 09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated kallerna 12:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The oversatuation makes the photo unnatural. –– Ra-smit (talk) 12:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would this be considered better? (I'm just trying to learn this stuff...) --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Definitely. Not sure whether I'd support it as FP (just had a quick glance), but it's a significant progress. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Not really. At this level of correction you get awful artifacts. Check the shadows on the building on the right side. And why this need for dramatic photographs? --Blago Tebi (talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment die andere Version ist viel besser. Für ein QI würde ich erwarten, dass du die Lichter (Fassaden) noch besser in den Griff kriegst, die sollten nicht überbelichtet sein, da sie sonst wie sterne funkeln und so das Bild stören. Bin gespannt auf die Resultate! --Ikiwaner (talk) 12:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated - Unnatural / weird colors. - Damërung . -- 09:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower at night.png[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:25:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alarzy - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it's too small --S23678 (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Copyright violation => image to be deleted. Sting (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Echium wildpretii LC0203.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 20:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of a plant
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by LC-de - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wonderful colors, wonderful composition. The cloud looks like a dot on the i formed by the plant. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 10:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very hard light makes the colors more dull than it could be. --S23678 (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A landscape shot like this should have higher resolution. -- JovanCormac 11:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am very fond of this image and I think the techincal criticisms are negligable, infact I disagree entirely with the first. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technical criticims is less important than the composition. The colours are good too. Quite a nice foto with the cloud in sky. --Korman (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality and use of lighting. - Damërung . -- 09:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jivee Blau (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 14:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Flowers

File:Kenyon Cox nude study3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kenyon Cox's Nude study


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Puck cover2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2009 at 16:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Puck cover
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Samuel D Ernhart - uploaded and restored by Durova - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Considering the questions being asked about the role of the USA in world affairs, I thought this was a rather appropriate picture to be featured. As always, thanks go to the wonderful and talented Durova, whose (often overlooked) work contributes so much to what makes Commons a world class image collection.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with thanks. Unrestored version is File:Puck cover.jpg. Durova (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. No wow. --Karel (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. -- JovanCormac 11:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Venezia - suggestiva foto con giochi di luce.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 18:00:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

picture of Venice taken from a cruise ship
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by RimOrso - uploaded by RimOrso - nominated by RimOrso -- RimOrso (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- RimOrso (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I won't FPX, since it will generate ridiculous support votes, but : composition (element on top right corner) and quality (noise, low resolution, as in amount of details). I would request someone else to FPX for me. Thanks. --S23678 (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    Really, S23678, the technical quality of this picture is a lot worse than that of all of Lê's pictures. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    S23678, IMO it is not the right thing to do to call "ridiculous" support votes of the people, who have an opinion that differes from your own.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Examples of ridiculous supports. Since their opinions is against me (not the picture), I have the right to think their supports are ridiculous. --S23678 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because Very blurry and noisy. --Aqwis (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Two silhouette profile or a white vase.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 15:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two silhouette profiles or a white vase?
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is an optical illusion. What do you see two silhouette profile or a white vase?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose More VI. This image is not of high artistic merit High artistic merit is not intended for such images in the guidelines, so I remove this, but maintain what's written below. --S23678 (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)--S23678 (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Could you please link me to the guidelenes for FPC, which said that the image should be "high artistic merit" ? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I was about to add this : (in the sense that it's a widely known optical illusion, hence making it not very exceptional). Don't get me wrong, the illusion is well done. I just can't see it's exceptional character, as required for FP. --S23678 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong, if an image of optical illusion will get FP status, at least it is something different.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
And I totally agree with you on this point, but as much as a cliché shot of Machu Picchu must have some exceptional character to it to make it better than most of the other cliché shots done at the same spot, this widely done optical illusion must have some exceptional character for it to make it FP, IMO --S23678 (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Leafnode 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Sorry, but on what merits you think this image should be a featured picture? --Leafnode 17:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
On the merits that I do not think we have a single optical illusion image featured, and on what merits you opposed the image, if I may ask? Not that I am really interested to find out. I mean who cares --Mbz1 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you should read featured picture criteria. FP is not a picture that we don't have nothing against. First picture has to fulfill some requirements, that this picture does not fulfill. First of all, picture should be the finest of commons. Exceptional. This simple drawing is not exceptional. We even have a whole category for pictures like this. I really don't see any feature that makes this image better than the other vase/faces images. I don't know what you meant by saying "Again familiar all faces", but I sense that conspiracy theories are coming on soon. --Leafnode 21:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I think you should read feature picture criteria. Of course the nominated image is the only one from vase/faces that could have been promoted to FP because it meets the size requiremnet, while others do not. Besides you did not even bother to read what I said about the image. It is not a drawing. The image was made from a photograpgh of a real young man that I took last night.I am not sure what "conspiracy theories" you are talking about, but IMO it will be better, if you kept your "sences" to yourself, except of course sense of humor that I believe you're missing Smile--21:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Cup or faces paradox.svg is a vector drawing, so it can be any size you want. It is also sharper, and probably would satisfy Jovan's requirement that the vase should be clearly visible. --Leafnode 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with vector drawing, and have no idea how such images are made :( I looked at the category, and saw the images of only low resolution. Then I decided it will be fun to make the same image with the real face and of a high resolution. I still believe I've done nothing wrong, when I nominated the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course you did nothing wrong. Anyone can nominate any image. And while I tend to put self-nominations under scrutiny ;), it is still just vote, with no very strict rules regarding the substance of pictures (only technical matters), so (almost) any vote is valid. I could have added more philosophical remarks, but that is not the place for my opinions, and you probably won't like to listen to them, so I'll pass here :) Cheers --Leafnode 22:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
BTW thanks for telling me about vector drawing. Now I know why my image is an exptional between vase/faces - it is the only one that is not a drawing! Smile Best, --Mbz1 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Vector images are readily made with Inkscape. Inkscape has a "Trace bitmap" feature that will convert an image like the candidate one to a vector image, which is indeed better suited for the subject. -- JovanCormac 06:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'd love to see this well-known optical illusion Featured, but it has been done a lot better than in this image. The "vase" is barely recognizable here. Compare [1], where both the faces and the vase are better done. -- JovanCormac 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Your example was probably made with the nose of w:Cyrano de Bergerac Smile. My image was made from the image of a very real young man I photographed last night. The vase is still there only with more gentle feauters than in the example you provided.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason: Wow. The lack of it, to be more precise. -- Petritap (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Again familiar all faces.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You can stop those stupid and childish insinuations. -- Petritap (talk) 12:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Stop PA, watch your language, and use your sense of humor, if of course you have one.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop PA, immediately! As for the language, I'm allowed to call your insinuations stupid and childish, if they are stupid and childish. I did not not call YOU stupid and childish. Do NOT make public assumptions about my personal characteristics (my sense of humour, my intelligence, my looks, my skin colour etc.). That is an ad hominem attack. -- Petritap (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Stop commenting on the withdrawn nomonation. It is a bad tone to say the least.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sigh...everything said --AngMoKio (talk) 19:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
That's right "everything said" :) Pictogram voting delete.svg --Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

File:011218-N-9769P-047 F-A-18 With Weapons Ready for Mission.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 13:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F/A-18 Hornet armed and ready
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jayme Pastoric - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by User:Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This may be one of the best images we have of the F/A-18 Hornet on Commons giving the front of the jet in a great composition. -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I couldn't resist: http://leafnode.soup.io/post/21983647/o :D --Leafnode 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Dynamic range is excellent, as is composition, but resolution is too low. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The Resolution criteria is over 2 MP. This is 2.6 MP... I know it's close to 2 MP but if the criteria has changed this should be stated in the guideline. How large should it be? 3MP ?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That issue has been discussed to death (I don't even know which one of the numerous related threads to link to here; this is a recent one), and it appears to be the opinion of a vast majority that the guidelines are non-binding (compare the repeated refusal of the community to delist File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, which has 0.3 MP only). Everyone seems to apply his or her own guidelines (otherwise we'd just purge every single image on this page from FP); therefore, so do I. My opinion is that a Featured Picture should be of sufficient quality to be printable at a reasonable size (say, an A4 page). I will still decide on a case-by-case basis, but in general anything below 5 MP is insufficient for me. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition and lighting are spectacular enough to ignore the regrettable resolution. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per anon dissident. -- Petritap (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per AD. --Lošmi (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:91 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 01:34:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
Original image
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info HDR image of a small water canal going through Machu Picchu's ruins, taken with ND filter. I'm using this HDR nomination as testing grounds for recent Machu Picchu HDR images (heavy link, may freeze computers) I want to nominate as FPC. Given the general opposition (including mine) to HDR images that don't look natural, I tried limit the saturation and contrast. Hope you think I did a good job.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- S23678 (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Sharpness is borderline (roof), but at the image's high resolution that can be forgiven since downscaling sharpens the image. -- JovanCormac 09:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for noticing that no downsampling has been done to "increase quality". As mitigating factors for the (small!) quality defects, there's quite an important NR done, the DOF required is very large, the lens themselves are very large as well, AND I had to hurry-up to avoid pissing off more people by completly monopolizing the stairs ;) but that's not a REAL mitigating factor I think...! Downsampled versions are available here to compare with standard lower resolution FPC. --S23678 (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition - not enough space --Leafnode 22:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Your argument is valid (I can't convince you about liking the composition), but I'll just point the large FOV (14mm on APS-C) and the fact that moving back was impossible --S23678 (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I know that what I will say might sound like a profanity, but with a crop like this, at the first sight it looks to me like an ordinary pile of rubble. And I understand that there might be no space to move back. And while I'm very sorry, in my struggle for better FP level, which recently deteriorated, I can't vote "yes" :( --Leafnode 14:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for a HDR image. I'm glad you tried to make it look natural. -- Petritap (talk) 15:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Leafnode. Maybe it's not possible to take a FP of this object. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Surely not a "pile of ordinary rubbles", but the composition does not convince me.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Almost perceptible! romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know much about HDR, but it seems to me that the shadows are just as dark as the original. The main difference to my eyes is a yellow cast on the stones, and a more blue sky. Is this the intent of the HDR work? --99of9 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • HDR is a very wide field, just as a photoshopped image isn't just an optimized image of a girl in a magazine. I used HDR here to get more color saturation, more local contrast and more details. Having put the shadows less dark would have created an image too far from reality, and while it can be pleasing artistically, it would not have stood a chance in FPC. Verify for yourself and check the difference in details in dark areas. As for the yellow tint, while playing with the levels in photoshop, I got this pleasing golden color and I decided to keep it, since the Incas are associated with gold. --S23678 (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Anser Anser Domesticus.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 11:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of white goose (Anser anser domesticus)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cesco77 - uploaded by Cesco77 - nominated by Cesco77 -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cesco77 (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anser is good, but background is noisy. - Darius Baužys talk 13:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW! Amazing --Muhammad (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is not an issue here, but white should be white and not grey. I'd support a version edited in such a way. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoModified, is it better now?--Cesco77 (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • IMHO no, to the contrary. White balance was quite well in the original photo and should remain unchanged, I'd rather add some light to the image, either as a whole or selectively via gamma curve. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 18:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Upload original image but I've corrected the light a little --Cesco77 (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jep, that's much better, great photo now! -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 20:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 21:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. kallerna 17:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kjetil_r 13:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:B17g and b52h in flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 17:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

B-17 and B-52
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Master Sgt. Michael A. Kaplan - uploaded by Pimlottc - corrected by Jan Arkesteijn - nominated by Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd give this picture a title like Who Should We Be Grateful To or something like that. Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is ruining that picture IMO. Having a beige/brown aircraft with a grey one against a... grey background is not pleasing. And on the side, I don't know why people of commons in general should be grateful to these airplanes... --S23678 (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • a) Yes, it's called camouflage Smile b) Not of Commons - people in general. Wolf (talk) 06:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Composition is good, quality isn't (unsharp, noise on tailfin). On a side note, given that those are bomber aircraft, I really don't see how anyone could be grateful that they exist, except maybe for Boeing, the company that built them. -- JovanCormac 11:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, the B-17 carried much of the tonnage over Germany, and brought many crews home alive due to good design and performance. The B-52 was (and still is) a potent symbol of American military power, which one could argue, counterbalanced by Soviet forces, kept the world in a state of relative peace for 50 years. So I suppose, upon reflection, we do have something to be grateful for. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I and you and a couple million people can probably be very grateful indeed, but it's very americano/western civilization - centric. "We", as far as I'm concerned, includes the entire world, and should be used with a NPOV. --S23678 (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I think you're mistaking us for Wikipedia. There's no requirement for a NPOV on Commons. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
          • It has nothing to do with official rules. It's just that logic dictates that a worldwide project like Commons has nothing to gain from such nationalist propaganda in it's file names and descriptions, and that a NPOV is the best option. I'm wondering what name some pictures would get if we were to adopt a non-NPOV...! --S23678 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Airwolf and I are merely stating what we think; notice that the file isn't called "Who Should We Be Grateful To.jpg" and that the picture of GWB isn't called 'AmericanHero.jpg" or "howdidthisbuffooneverbecomepresident.jpg" There's a difference between expressing a view civilly, and being POINTy about it. And don't forget, you did ask why people should be grateful for planes like these, I'm simply giving you an answer. I've got no idea whether the 'correct' answer (if there is such a thing), but I don't see why I shouldn't state my opinion if you've asked for it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
              • I saw the comments of you 2 as arguments to change the picture's title. We were both right, just arguing on different levels. --S23678 (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That said, I'm afraid I'm going to have vote Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as per Jovan. While I love the composition, the setting and quality (sharpness and noise) aren't the best. Also Jovan, I think you mean 'Boeing' :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Smile Yeah, I fixed that... -- JovanCormac 07:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Who Should We Be Grateful To - what a ridiculous leading question for a title - for a start, that depends on your nationality/allegience, and of course the fact that were not all flag waving morons. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Too many irrelevant arguments are used. These are military planes and they need illustrating. Having only "blue arrows" or other colours because that is pretty is rediculous and also does not illustrate the subject well. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the photography (not voting on the title). Durova (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I don´t think the backgroung and the plane's body color make the contrast worse. The picture has a very accurate exposure as well as a good DoF and excellent resolution, so I think it´s among the featured-deserved pictures. - Damërung . -- 09:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe in a Hollywood film the airplanes looks better than this, but this is a real image captured by a normal camera in a real flight. --Cesco77 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:Bay Bridge at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 14:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bay Bridge
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Much less photographed than Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Bridge is also a beautiful one :)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a shot at a time of the day with more light would be better. Yes, it is beautiful, but so beautiful that the loss of detail due to bad light can be forgiven. Plus there are dust spots in the water to the left and a possible one if not a very strong star to the right of the bridge in the sky. I still like the picture, but not enough for FP, sorry. and please keep on with you work, I like it.--Korall (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the caption of the image specificly explains the illumination of the bridge :

The illuminations on the cables, while part of the original design, are actually a relatively recent addition, made practical by the availability of high efficiency compact fluorescent lamps.The original roadway illumination was by low pressure sodium vapor lamps, which while efficient give off a garish monochromatic yellow light. On the lower deck these have been replaced with tubular fluorescent lights attached to the bottom of the upper deck, while on the upper deck the illumination is by high pressure vapor lamps, which give off a more full spectrum light.

It would have been hard to talk about illumination in a day shot I guess :) Dust spots are easy to fix, except I do not see them :( I will appreciate, if you could fix them please. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the slightly off-center composition (not quite thirds rule yet) and the busy composition of the bridge from this perspective (the bridge towers stacked-up one behind the other). --S23678 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is the only perspective that allows to show the illumination of the bridge, which was the idea of the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition + quality --AngMoKio (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I think the composition is very good, actually, but the technical quality is not quite good enough. --Aqwis (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Aqwis, could you please explain to me what quality problems you see at the image? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
A lack of sharpness and colour banding in the sky. --Aqwis (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. I am not sure about the sharpness. The sparkling lights prove that the image is sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral interesting image, but the glare from carlights are ruining the mood and making bottom of this picture distracting. Also, there are some spots on it - maybe sensor needs cleaning. I'll mark them in a sec. --Leafnode 10:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
About the glare, yes there is trafic at Bay Bridge :)--Mbz1 (talk) 13:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed dustspots. Thanks for pointing them out.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You'd better support the image now because Bay Bridge got upset over all the opposes and has stared breaking appart :( --Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Bay Bridge

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe composition is a lot better, but the quality is not enough. A 3 mpx FPC should be more crisp when viewed at 100% zoom (the f/14 aperture probably didn't help). HDR, image stacking and/or multiple row panorama would get rid of the quality problems IMO. --S23678 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
It is not right to talk abot 3 mpx. If the image were downsampled, then maybe, but it was only cropped and not downsampled at all.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
A lack of sharpness is more acceptable at higher resolutions. If this is a crop, longer lens would be more appropriate. --S23678 (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Black Panther convention2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 03:42:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Chrysopa sp. AF 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 06:14:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Confederate 5 Dollars.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 23:40:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confederate 5 Dollars.png
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Swtpc6800 and edit by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by --190.136.165.178 23:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --Scan (= photograph) => Inappropriate PNG format (especially made from a JPG). Sting (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a transparent image, What do you prefer? GIF ? --The Photographer (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate file format. -- JovanCormac 07:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not sticking to the original file: File:Confederate_5_Dollars.jpg? Seems to be much clearer. --Andreas 06 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Early morning fog over San Francisco and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 17:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog over San Francisco
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's a CW tilt that should be corrected before voting starts. The disruptive foreground elements (some grass and a small tree) could be cutted away at the same time. --S23678 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I just brought the image to PS and placed a grid over it. I could not see the tilt. Vertical lines seem to be vertical. If you would like to correct the tilt, please do, but I am afraid I cannot do it because I do not see it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it tonight, I don't have the tools right now --S23678 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
During this time, could you upload the original image to limit multiple JPEG rewites? --S23678 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was rotated by S23678. The voting may go on now :) Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now that's fog. I'm assuming all the little yellow dots are streetlights? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Most of them are, but not all. Some are traffic lights, while others are lights at the structures. BTW did you see Golden Gate Bridge? It also has a light on.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I must be blind today. :P Are you planning on nominating any images in future without the Golden Gate Bridge? :D Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I nominated an image of Bay Bridge down below. The image is getting opposed, and the bridge got so upset that part of it colapsed It has been clossed for few days already. The traffic is horrible. I asked the folks to support the image (not for me for the bridge :)), but so far nobody did...Smile--00:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Distracting foreground. - Damërung . -- 09:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a bad picture but not enough for FP imho --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess the image is "not just enough for FP", it is the worst image from current nominations because you bothered to vote only on that nomination today, angmokio :)--Mbz1 (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fog. Wow. --Leafnode 22:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the fog in the foreground (lower left corner). Otherwise it's great. -- Petritap (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Great! Why not to oppose an image of the fog because of.... the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I take it back. It's not great. It's awful. -- Petritap (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
And who is the judge?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, interesting... romazur (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Feijoa sellowiana .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 17:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

feijoa sellowiana (or acca sellowiana) - Myrtaceae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Didier Descouens - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great DOF, illustrative, black background accentuates the subject --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Beautiful flower. I think it worthwhile to remove the twig in the right side. - Darius Baužys talk 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I did it, but there was then too dark. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 13:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice, but IMHO technically not perfect enough for FP: seems to have lost quite some detail due to noise reduction plus there's a little chromatic aberration on the right side. --NEURO  18:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too stark contrast and sharpness problems around the petals. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for reasons given.--— Erin (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supermarket overview
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by lyzadanger (Flickr) - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An interesting study of your typical supermarket; notice the huge amount of food, and the 2 people in there. A comment on our wastefulness? Jovan, I'm happy to say this is 5.12MP. Is that enough? :P
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit of noise, but great composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, didn't you saw the third person? --S23678 (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, I didn't. I spotted the wet floor sign, but not the third gentleman. It's like a giant version of 'Where's Wally?'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! Great picture (even though sharpness could be better; most of the labels are barely legible). -- JovanCormac 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Althought there is small quality problems. kallerna 11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice idea, but too noisy and a bit too blurry. --NEURO  12:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually the idea is plagiarized from [2].franklin.vp (talk) 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose- Nice shot, but far too much going on, and there's no defined subject. It's an odd angle as well, so at thumbnail (and indeed at full-resolution as well) all I can see is a mess of different colors. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • which is exactly the point of this picture, isn't it? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps. But it still isn't fit to be recognized as an FP in my honest opinion. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this image can give a false impression that en:Andreas Gursky has donated his internationally acclaimed photo[3] to Wikipedia for free--Caspian blue 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question How is that a concern? Simply because someone else has photographed a similar subject, we can't promote it? I'm not liking the slippery slope here... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Plagiarism concern, not a slippery slope--Caspian blue 00:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition and subject mitigate for some minor technical flaws. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Blurry. - Damërung . -- 09:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality problems are too small for me to oppose. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose People on the right and blurry (maybe cut, smaller version will be better). D kuba (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:GIB 2007-09-18.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 21:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gibraltar Airport
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nervousenergy - uploaded by Nervousenergy - nominated by Avala -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nicely done and it is a very interesting panorama for a change, not just many images stitched together for no reason -- Avala (talk) 21:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks cool, the resolution could have been higher though. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, very different from the usual panoramas. --Aqwis (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love this. The angle, the setting, the crisp detail and of course, the unusual sight of a plane taking off in 5 stages...it's exactly what I want to see in a panorama. Great work Nervousenergy, and a nice find Avala. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This panorama is awesome. I'd support if there was a higher resolution (not downsampled), which is probably easily achievable given the very low vertical size (800px) -S23678 (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting at first look, but resolution is too low and crop on top too tight IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting time-lapse. Great picture. I don't think there is any resolution problem. There is not need of artifical addition of pixels where they don't exist (which is the case of many photographs here) -- Blago Tebi (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive! Diti the penguin 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - It has some over expsure / apperture in the most left part (not the sky, but in the buildings below). Can that be fixed without the need to retake the picture again? - Damërung . -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think that retaking the image would give you any different results. It is the combination of sea fog and sun that creates haze and if you want to include that part of the city in an image I doubt you would ever have different results at this time of the day. Maybe it wouldn't be noticeable if there wasn't for the part of panorama on the right, but these are essentially different images as they were taken under different light and geographic conditions.--Avala (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great view, high quality --Cesco77 (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Damërung . -- 05:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. 99of9 (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great idea to make such a picture. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:Hurricane Bill in First Full Disk Thermal Image from GOES 14.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 17:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hurricane Bill in the first full disk thermal image from GOES 14


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Lasiodora parahybana 2009 G03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 08:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brazilian salmon pink birdeater
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky talk -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brazilian salmon pink birdeater, adult female (Lasiodora parahybana). It is one of the largest spiders in the world. This poisonous spider can eat birds, reptiles and small mammals -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good image given that it was taken with a DMC-TZ5, but heavily pixellated at full size, especially in the shadows. -- JovanCormac 11:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite a good and interesting foto. Nice colours. --Korman (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support if George promises to nominate only one of these. ;-) -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great detail --Tony Wills (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, rare subject --Cesco77 (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Prang's Valentine Cards2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Nov 2009 at 03:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by L. Prang & Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova Restored from File:Prang's Valentine Cards.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 03:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love you, Durova. -- JovanCormac 06:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Terrible. --Karel (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright, that's it. I'm getting pretty sick of your one word image reviews; they contribute nothing to the discussion, tell the creator/restorer nothing about what's wrong with the image and how they could improve it. That's just downright rude, but 'terrible'? That's just going too far. 'Terrible', you say? 'Great' I say. Durova is one of the most talented people I've ever had the pleasure of meeting, so the next words you type had better be 'sorry' and 'it won't happen again'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm wondering whether we should consider (i.e., tally) these kind of votes. It does not contribute at all, imho. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but this is great missunderstandg on side of Lover of Waves. I did not mean, that Durova is terrible. I have never seen her, so maybe is, maybe not. And this is not important in this age of plastic surgery possibilities. But what I really claim is, that this image is one of most ugly kitsch I have ever seen and we should vote about it´s deleting from Wiki instead of FP nomination. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
And since my potential need for plastic surgery has come under discussion, here's a portrait. In future, please refrain from this level of personal commentary during reviews.
        • Kitsch of a certain age becomes historic; this example is from 1883. Louis Prang was an important publisher. Durova (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, forget about surgery, please. But IHMO kitsch is kitsch and if this image is old, it is just only old kitsch. --Karel (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per Jovan. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Durova's work is very good, but I don't like the card. --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, Durova's work is so good, card is "terrible" maybe, but is a historical document --Cesco77 (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, really terrible :-D --Phyrexian (talk) 12:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bravo Durova ! Takabeg (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:San Antonio Christmas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 04:32:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this image very beutiful and clear (and big too), so I nominate it. Sorry if I wrong. -- (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Everything but clear. Heavy image noise, extremely blurry. You could try denoising & downsampling, but then I would probably oppose it for its small resolution. -- JovanCormac 07:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too many quality problems. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better composition and colors, but it's still snapshot quality --S23678 (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I subscribe to the previous arguments. --Vprisivko (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Seattle Columbia centre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 15:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Perspective view of Seattle Columbia Centre
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love the composition, but I think the picture could benefit from some noise reduction (mostly sky). Would support if done. --S23678 (talk) 16:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Denoising done. However the difference is only seen in magnifications not in full screen. --Ikiwaner (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm taking a look at this just before going to bed, and I see no differences between the 2 version. I may be tired (or my screen may be dirty), but are you sure you uploaded a denoised version? --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The new version is now showing denoising --S23678 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Anonymous votes are not allowed. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works very well for me --AngMoKio (talk) 13:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good perspective --Cesco77 (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent point of look --George Chernilevsky talk 12:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 22:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Great composition, but heavily pixellated (noise?) near the top of the tower. -- JovanCormac 07:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:SkansenSeptember2007 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 05:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View from Skansen in Bergen, Norway, in September 2007. created by Aqwis - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.86.252 05:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a random snapshot. -- JovanCormac 07:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, as the creator, I can confirm that it was, indeed, a random snapshot. ;) --Aqwis (talk) 08:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Leafnode 22:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Tanner scale-female.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 14:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tanner scale - female
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by/uploaded by MKomorniczak -talk- - nominated by -- MKomorniczak -talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MKomorniczak -talk- 14:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This makes an excellent Valued Image with its high EV, but it just isn't special enought for FP. -- JovanCormac 15:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposePictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Per JovanCormac, it should be posted in wikipedia, in the valued pictures (instead of here). - Damërung . -- 09:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Tower blocks in Leeds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 20:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view of Tower North Central, the Sky Plaza and Opel 3
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by uploaded from Flickr - uploaded by Mtaylor848 - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has very high levels of noise --S23678 (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Imehling (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's hard to believe you're not trying to make a point against me right after challenging the cleanliness of my screen. If you don't see the noise here, I think you need some glasses on your side. Could you explain why this picture is better than 99.96% of all the files in Commons?. --S23678 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Just regard it as a protest against your arrogance. --Imehling (talk) 17:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. --Korall (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality --Avala (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise is ridiculous. Bring back the FPX. -- JovanCormac 06:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request As the poor hapless idiot who took this hopeless apology for a "picture" can I ask that it be removed from this "competition"? I have never entered a photo competition, and never will. It was taken standing in the middle of a busy road in the rain, so of course it's not a "great" picture, of course there will be "noise" and I don't any of you lot to tell me so, thank you very much. Tdgreen (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A piece of friendly advice to Tdgreen: do not give Creative Commons licences to your pictures. -- Petritap (talk) 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request - Can somebody fix the image noise in the picture? - Damërung . -- 09:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Noise can be corrected, but it's not the only quality issue here (although the most visible). I don't think any post-processing can make this FP, if this is your intent. --S23678 (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:USS Mesa Verde (LPD-19) during shock trials - 080816-N-6031Q-213.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 09:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

USS Mesa Verde shock trials
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the US Navy - uploaded by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, edited by Lycaon - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How does one go about testing the capability of a war ship to stand up to the rigours of combat? By detonating a 10000 pound (4 535.9 kilogram) charge next to it, of course. The ultimate product demonstration. :P Special thanks to Lycaon for his unsolicited (but much appreciated) cleanup of this image.
  • Stupid Pictogram voting question.svg Question Does these tests ever fails (or it's just an excuse to do a 5 tons blast from time to time...) ?--S23678 (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting image ruined by a bad crop. Also blown whites in the explosion cloud. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Anchors aweigh! Durova (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral interesting, but crop is definitely too tight. --Leafnode 10:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:VW Wolfsburg.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Nov 2009 at 18:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Volkswagen industrial plant in Wolfsburg, Germany.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- High Contrast (talk) 18:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has very high levels of noise in the sky --S23678 (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I think the reason given for excluding it from featured picture candidacy is poor. There is little cloud in the sky and in my mind it does not detract from the image. If cloud isn't aloud then how does one take a good picture of the North of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please look here. Noise has nothing to do with the clouds. --S23678 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Serious quality problems. -- JovanCormac 07:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above. I'd also add oversharpening (visible on the left edges of the chimney) --Leafnode 10:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Original one, but with noise problems. - Damërung . -- 09:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /{{{sig}}}

File:Water Dolphin.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Nov 2009 at 23:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Jan Garbarek-2007-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Nov 2009 at 21:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jan Garbarek Group Athens concert in Lycabettus theater, July 10th, 2007
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dimitris Papazimouris from Halandri, Greece - uploaded by Jocian - editing by Carschten – nominated by Jocian -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jocian (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment /me is puzzled by the horizontal banding in the noise in the background. What is it ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice work correcting the exposure, but the extreme image noise is a no-go for me given the low resolution, and it also looks like the color balance is off (red). -- JovanCormac 07:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Not the best quality (see JovanCormac), but the way you look at the musican in action is imo so brilliant that i would Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much overexposure and noise. --Korman (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Kleiner Fuchs bmn3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aglais Urticae


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Image:Paradiesbrücke.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 00:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Paradiesbrücke über die Zwickauer Mulde
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by je-str - uploaded by je-str - nominated by je-str -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Je-str (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Up to the task quality-wise, but problems with composition (that left handguard should be cropped, and it's shade is creating a non-pleasant straight line where there should not be). As well, a bit more color saturation would make this fall scenery look a lot better --S23678 (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as S23678 --Leafnode 09:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose there are some strange unsharp areas in the photo. Composition is imho quite nice. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It has some blurry parts, and the red colors on the left part seem a little bit strange. - Damërung . -- 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Notting-Hill Carnival-Beauty.JPG[edit]

Pictogram voting delete.svg Romazur 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 21:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Notting Hill Carnival Beauty
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Romazur - uploaded by Romazur - nominated by Romazur -- romazur (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality isn't perfect, but resolution is high and the colors are striking. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, first of all for honesty! romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose she is a beauty, no question, and the colors are nice too but I don't like the extreme tilt. Really too bad bcs the scene in general has the potential for a great shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank You for above opinion, too - I accept Your point of view. romazur (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop and too extremly tilt. Typical for the Notting-Hill Carnival are the afro-caribbian members and mainly their fancy costumes, but you reduced it to a nice face. What a pity... -- Ra'ike T C 09:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, typical for present NHC parades is almost everyone, probably from the whole world. Watching it live you may find out it's already transformed into a multicultural event. So, one is able to take a lot of extremely different pictures... Nevertheless, Your undoubtedly important remarks are being appreciated. romazur (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Ra'ike and AngMoKio. Maybe you have some other pictures like that in your collection? --Leafnode 10:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I've got few more, but in my opinion this one is the most interesting... Thank You for Your point of view - of course - too. romazur (talk) 18:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Little quality problems, just too little for me to oppose. I very like the child looking in camera. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I ought to say... at last! Little girl is cute, isn't she? When I discovered her on this picture, looking stright at camera, I started to think it is the best actress in supporting role I've ever seen. Pretty and misterious, as well. And what caused it? Tilt! :) romazur (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilt, bad quality. kallerna 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed. romazur (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Took me quite a time to think about it (tilt or no tilt?), and now I think the tilt is artistically valid here. But it's quite subjective. Overall, I feel it's an awesome picture (and model...!). --S23678 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank You very much for deep insight into the picture... romazur (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I want to see full costume. I think that a nice face is not enough for FP, especially with her eyes being closed (sadly, it makes the pic less interesting and lively for me). Also background could be better. And quality... Nice try though :)--Tired time (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly You have a full right of expecting to see nothing more but each one imagination of Yours. To be honest, this year there were parading several adult women I would be glad to see without any piece of costume... Unfortunetaly rules of the reality are heartless for daydreams :( Nevertheless, above expression of Your thoughts is important for me, too. romazur (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per kallerna. --NEURO  21:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
If "Per kallerna", ok - "Per kallerna": "Tlit was essential... Quality is everything what my compact camera can offer - I am only amateur in photography. Thank You for not long but concise statement, indeed." + I appreciate You were so kind to express some opinion. romazur (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sometimes a bit of tilt does an image the world of good. In this case, it adds a dynamic feel, making you feel as though you're right there shimmying alongside her. Well done! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
That's right - in relation to the facts: this is a picture with content focused on the one particular moment of the NHC, and I was not going to "photoshop" it to get anything more but real portrait of true beauty. So, thanks for wide reflections on this "raw"... picture! romazur (talk) 10:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much like a snapshot IMO, sorry. Distracting background, tilt etc --Muhammad (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank You for Your opinion, too. In fact it is not graphics, so... romazur (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Sapona Panoramic.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 09:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shipwreck panorama
  • Upon further examination, there are indeed many visible stitching seams that, at full resolution, detract highly from the otherwise excellent quality of the image. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've marked some visible stitching seams. The ones in the water are almost unavoidable, but I'd prefer to see them blended more smoothly. The one on the top right of the wreck should probably be fixed before featuring. --99of9 (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • How on earth did I miss those? Would there be someone more adroit with image editing than me, willing to assist? I gave it a go myself, but it ended up worse. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk)
      • A proper job would probably require the original shots. Otherwise all I can suggest is blurring down the seam lines, which will look much better, but probably wouldn't get up to FP standard. 99of9 (talk) 09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stiching errors. kallerna 16:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --— Erin (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

I'll suspend this until I can contact the author, and get the original images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

File:F-16 refuelling, Exercise Green Flag East - 081201-F-3071N-235.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 09:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

F-16 refuelling
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Master Sgt. John Nimmo Sr. - uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, this is excellent! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support FP --Cesco77 (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Umnik (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great quality, interesting composition --Leafnode 10:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality, great composition, high resolution. -- JovanCormac 12:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, now this is the shit. --Aqwis (talk) 14:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful capture of a difficult operation. Durova (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- High guality and I have no chance to take it. Takabeg (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great, but, I think it could even be better by cropping the foreground element, which has some sort of bizzare double-edge in the top right corner. --S23678 (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NEURO  21:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles#Air

File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 05:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Works Progress Administration - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Olympic Bobsled Run Lake Placid.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created circa 1936-1938. Lake Placid, New York hosted the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGreat work --Cesco77 (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Mer30 (Mersī). Takabeg (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The restoration is good, and the image itself may be valuable, but there's no wow for me. It's just an advertisement? 99of9 (talk) 11:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As a Works Progress Administration poster it is technically a public service announcement. An editor had requested a historic featured picture that pertains to the Winter Olympics, to run for next year's games. This was the only available file that was public domain and high enough resolution to restore for featured candidacy. A blog post explains the technical challenges. Durova (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Obviously just because we (someone) *want* a FP on a particular topic that doesn't argue for or against support of any particular image. Nor does it increase the wow. I don't doubt that there were technical challenges, or that you've done a good job. It's just that you're restoring a fairly unimpressive original. --99of9 (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Great work
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As 99of9. --Karel (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Stadtkirche VIT (3).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altar of the catholic church in Viechtach, Bavaria.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - uploaded by Mike aus dem Bayerwald - nominated by Mike aus dem Bayerwald -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good quality, but needs perspective correction. -- JovanCormac 20:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per Jovan, plus needs a slight CW rotation. As well, is this a downsample ?(seems to me, from the corners resolutions) If yes, why not upload the full size version? Maybe the alternating red and green artifacts seen on the tagged window would disappear at full resolution. Finally, could you explain a bit the HDR processing done here? Thanks --S23678 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hello. No, this is no real downsample, the original resolution was 3872x2592, but I rotated it to correct the perspective and lost some pixels. I also tried to remove the purple CAs at the windows, but its not perfect, unfortunately I am not a photoshop freak. And Jovan, how should it be corrected? My eyes don't see the distortion and thus I can't improve it, sorry. And: The HDR is made out of 5 pictures, (from Pentax PEF to JPG) and then with Photomatix 2 combined to the HDR. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, obviously the vertical lines (window edges and benches) should be vertical, but in the picture they are leaning towards the center. This is what needs to be corrected. -- JovanCormac 12:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I just tried a new version, now the CAs are smaller i think. I also could save some pixels and now it is the highest quality. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose washed-out colors, some strange artifacts and CA on windows, perspective, overexposed windows (if it's HDR, this problem should be fixed by making additional exposures), the altar is unsharp. As this is a static setting, it is possible to make this photo again, and I'd support improved version :) --Leafnode 09:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
    retouched version
    I've played a bit with curves and saturation and uploaded a retouched version - I think it's a bit better. --Leafnode 10:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but this version is not what I wanted to intend. Nobody wants to know, what's behind the church windows. The point of interest is just the altar and the interior, and from my point of view, focus and exposition are just right and create a certain ambiance. We can talk about aberrations and perspective correction, but not about the image itself. -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Your new version is better than the first one, but my eye is drawn more on Leafnode's version, which is even better IMO. Still, I' m not convinced that I would support that version, so, I will not nominate it as well. --S23678 (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think retouched version is better... --Phyrexian (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dammit... this means I have lost, righto?! -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 15:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've taken the liberty of perspective-correcting the retouched version (automatically using ShiftN) --99of9 (talk) 05:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I love this shot, but it's hard to not see what it could be. Here's my take. --Calibas (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This really looks quite nice, but if we go on doing this, we will soon have trillions of versions ;) What shall we do now to get a fair result, everyone is happy with? -Mike aus dem Bayerwald (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose any and all versions. Dull. No wow factor.--— Erin (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 14:41:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Su-27UBM
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciek Hypś, Konflikty.pl - uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sad fate for this airplane. I have no comments about the quality, but the composition feels too simple, not developed enough for FP (slightly rotated CW, slightly off-center - but still too much centered). --S23678 (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per S23678--Tired time (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:View over haifa-other.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 13:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Photos.com - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I thinks it perpect. Big, no noise, no exposure, excellent color, have focus and depth, with some my edit by MS Paint. I hope I understood Image guidelines. -- (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Aqwis, I need your help here as well. --S23678 (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, the noise in the upper part of the sky is really weird. Is this a composite of two pictures? Otherwise it's a good picture; I don't think the slight overexposure in the lower part of the picture is a major problem. --Aqwis (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image isn't bad, but not FP. Too noise in the sky, overesxposure in the lower part. And in image like this the resolution is too low. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Regretful oppose This brings back wonderful memories of my visit to the Baha'i Gardens 5 years ago, but the resolution is much too low for such a shot. -- JovanCormac 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and overexposure --S23678 (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. kallerna 14:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks like leaning to the right --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Trieves from hauts plateaux du Vercors IMG 0002-IMG 0027 v2 fused.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 09:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chichilianne, the Trièves and the Écrins seen from the eastern edge of the high plateaux of the Vercors
Uh. There is a weird image bug in the middle of the sky - weird pixels. I'm regenerating the JPEG file. In the meantime, can you please evaluate the picture apart from this bug? Thanks. David.Monniaux (talk) 09:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Bug fixed. David.Monniaux (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support oh wow, pretty :o DarkoNeko 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, the tone mapping effect makes parts of the image look really weird (see: the plants to the right). --Aqwis (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You can clearly see the transition between pictures. Either vignetting was not eliminated, or each section of the panorama was tone mapped individually and then assembled. --S23678 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As aqwis and S23678. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
For some reason Hugin is giving me weird tone/fuse bugs... David.Monniaux (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Create a panorama with each exposure then use enfuse (either with hugin or as a standalone). Hugin is doing the opposite when creating HDR panoramas (tone mapping then assembling frames). It's faster but not ideal. --S23678 (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose stitching 99of9 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Valby Kirke 01-09-07 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Nov 2009 at 22:14:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A small village church on a bright day.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Broadbeer - uploaded by Broadbeer - nominated by Broadbeer -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Broadbeer (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Quality issues : artifacts in the almost blown white wall. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good. - Damërung . -- 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough for FP. And the wall in front of the church is a bit annoying when it blocks the lower parts. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly composition (the white wall cutting the bottom of the picture) and colors. --S23678 (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very visible JPG artifacts. --NEURO  17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Clifton Beach 6.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 11:25:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not sure who constructed the bridge. It is made of two steel RSJs with chicken wire and a plank or two between them. The steel girders have corroded rather significantly. I didn't cross it. Seems to be the only way to reach the point however. --Noodle snacks (talk) 11:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, a bit on the small side, but highly impressive. Wolf (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive... romazur (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WoW --Tired time (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC) . A beautiful picture.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mer30. Takabeg (talk) 10:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I love the water. Very cool. Tiptoety talk 06:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like Wolf --Phyrexian (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is very small for such a static subject (a 1/4 of your sensor's resolution). Why not upload a full resolution? --S23678 (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I find about 95% of reuse ignores the licence and treats the image as free (as in beer). I don't care about this when it is for personal or educational use. I am less happy when it occurs commercially, hence the downsampling to protect my images a bit. If I met substantial opposition here because of it, I would just stop nominating. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it. --99of9 (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 01:59:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

fisherman
  • Everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice ambience for fishing. Excellent photo -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Nice, but you've done it many times. New style? ;) (but I admit, this one is eye-catching :)) kallerna 17:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Kallerna, it is the very first time I nominated an image of a fisherman. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great atmosphere :) --Leafnode 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Juliancolton (talk) 02:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Herby talk thyme 09:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAnonymous DissidentTalk 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. --Karel (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Arguably nice atmosphere isn't enough. Rather dull, no wow factor and bland. Distracting sun.--— Erin (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Pilatus Agusta A109 Flug.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 19:21:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A rescue helicopter type Agusta A109K2 leaves Mount Pilatus after recovering a patient
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created uploaded and nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 19:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NEURO  20:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice shot -- Tobi 87 (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Cesco77 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Leafnode 22:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This picture could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support some minor quality issues. But still a nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S23678 (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition, but needs denoise before I can support. kallerna 15:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Impatiens lawii.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 18:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Impatiens Lawii is native to peninsular India,it's common name is Law's Balsam
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it's too small --S23678 (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Gaucho1868b.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 17:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Oregon Convention Center Dusk 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:35:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Oregon Convention Center in Portland, Oregon, USA. Taken at dusk, 4x2 segment stitched image. created by Fcb981 - nominated by Anonymous -- 122.169.68.145 07:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's insanely detailed. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've marked an apparent minor stitching error. The cable has a sudden kink in it. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong tilt on the right side of the picture (or a lot of wind). I'll remove my "oppose" if corrected. --S23678 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't like the composition.--— Erin (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't good enough. kallerna 14:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:P1150918 Cantharis livida.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Nov 2009 at 16:39:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Soldier beetles (Cantharis fusca). Mating.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Darius Baužys talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Darius Baužys talk 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, definitely! --Aqwis (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, idem ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 18:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail, noisy. inisheer (talk) 20:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 23:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good composition, bad quality --Muhammad (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per inisheer. -- JovanCormac 06:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures! The magnification is fine but the beetle is nothing than unsharp mush! Sorry. --Leviathan (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome capture. Quality is not so good on full view, but it's still very good. Downsampled to 1700 x 1200 (minimum size) looks perfect. --Lošmi (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, thats the worst argument I´ve read here for a long time! So we take, for example, a little unsharp 40mp (10000x4000) panorama and downsample it to 1700x1200 so it looks perfect?! The loose of quality is uninteristing or what??? Sorry but voting like this is pure nonsense!! Why should we upload the highest possible resolution if you vote by downsampled pictures? Cant understand... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Leviathan, you said "Sorry but this one cant be a FP imho! My last try wasn´t even voted". Do you think this is a right argument to oppose? --Cesco77 (talk) 11:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
        • "...wasn´t even voted because of not such obviously failures!" That was what I've written. And the next sentece tells why I think so. The link to my nomination is only an example. --Leviathan (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
          • This picture may be "blurry and noisy", but it's not overexposed and its composition is, frankly, a lot better than that of your candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Actually it does make a sense. Images for web are usually in resolution of 72 px/inch, and for printing are in 300 px/inch. Thus, size of downsampled image and printed image might look similar. Full resolution of printed image won't be that big as full resolution on the web. That's what I taught. --Lošmi (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. kallerna 13:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The thing is that, if the image was just a little bit better quality, and had just a little bit more details, it would not have been safe for the kids to look at Smile--Mbz1 (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, in my opinion very good shot --romazur (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perhaps oversharpened, not convinced about quality inspite of the excellent composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per inisheer. Our FP standard for macros is quite high. --NEURO  21:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Striking.--— Erin (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Tasman Bridge Dusk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Nov 2009 at 07:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Tasman Bridge crossing the Derwent River as seen from the North West of the bridge at dusk. created by Flying Freddy - nominated by AnonR -- 122.169.68.145 07:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm under the impression of already having saw this nomination before. I oppose because I feel the composition is not developed enough. The subject itself is quite ordinary as well. --S23678 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for the nomination, but this was very early in my photography, and overdone hdr was very much overdone. + per S23678 Flying Freddy (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, composition could be better and it's bit overprocessed. Could be QI thou. kallerna 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as all above --Leafnode 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Dead Vlei 3.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Nov 2009 at 18:43:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Contre-jour shot of an acacia tree in Dead Vlei, Namibia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't like this one compared to the one that was just featured and this one which I mentioned last time I preferred. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very good image, however, a bit blurry at the top and there isn't a distinct contrast between the tree and its background.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very good photo for me --Pudelek (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diaa --S23678 (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Along The Riverwalk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 04:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Corey Leopold - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think it is very clear, with the light river, but too dark, I think, but it is not opaque when I zoom it. -- (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of low quality (heavy noise, low amount of details) and composition (intrusive foreground elements). Overall snapshot feeling. You obviously did not understood. You should ask advice from regular contributors BEFORE nominating further images. Next time, I might be a little less polite. Google translate : Bạn rõ ràng đã không hiểu rõ. Bạn nên xin lời khuyên từ những người đóng góp thường xuyên TRƯỚC cử thêm hình ảnh. Tiếp theo thời gian, tôi có thể là một chút ít lịch sự.--S23678 (talk) 04:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doesn't look like a snapshot to me. And what exactly "Next time, I might be a little less polite" means? --Lošmi (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Means I was very polite to take him by the hand another time, as it has been done numerous times in the past by me and other contributors. Mr Lê has difficulties understanding FPC quality concepts, but doesn't seems to learn from his mistakes. So if the childish way doesn't work once again, I might be tempted by a more direct approach next time. --S23678 (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that it's not as bad as previous candidates, but still quite far from FP quality. -- JovanCormac 10:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image, not even close to a snapshot, should not have been FPXed.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, S23678, your impoliteness is far more damaging than Lê's nominating a few pictures that may not be of the quality you expect of an FP candidate. --Aqwis (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Aqwis. It is impolite to bite newbies, who have difficulties understanding English.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the noise isn't the only problem here, low details for me --Cesco77 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality. kallerna 15:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subpar. Takabeg (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Nov 2009 at 20:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now, I uploaded a new full-resolution version of my picture. I tried to improve its quality by denoising some parts (e.g. sky, roof and field). Obviously, my picture arises a strong controversy. Thus, it is hard to please everybody. Please give me a chance, because as Calibas has already mentioned, it's quite frustrating. If you have other propositions how my picture could be improved, don't hesitate to tell me! Thanks:)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. -- Petritap (talk) 12:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 12:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 99of9 (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Most confusing nomination ever. --S23678 (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why does this nomination keep jumping to the top of the list? -- JovanCormac 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the quality problems have been solved. The bright part of the soccer field is overexposed, contrast in the crowd is low, and the whole picture suffers from extreme artifacts and noise. -- JovanCormac 12:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jovan. kallerna 16:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ??? --Simonizer (talk) 14:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jovan & mediocre. Takabeg (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think there aren't great quality problems. Good work. --.dsm. 08:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shows the atmosphere -- Je-str (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Late votes (note I removed the time extension that the edits got, I have not seen any other candidates getting that privilege so I just follow the usual procedure). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

first version[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Olympic station in Berlin at night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Tobi 87 - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I know the too-much-noise-in-an-ISO100-image group will decline this pic for having too much noise. However this is an excellent composition and esposure is perfect under difficult conditions. Last but not least it is very informative. Because the brightest part is where action takes place I think this version is far better than i.e. this day shot. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Shows the atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite a lot of quality issues (noise, moiré pattern on the track, very high pixel level defects), but these are almost invisible at 2 mpx downsample. As well, I would have liked to have the ring of flags not cropped on top, but, as for my final verdict, I can't help but really like this picture. --S23678 (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tolle Atmosphäre. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Cesco77 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, great atmosphere and so on, but the noise is just too much. Noise removal & downsample? kallerna 17:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because of the size noise can be ignored. Great picture --Simonizer (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI don't think we can obtain an image without noise in this extreme low light condition. The atmosphere is beautiful. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 21:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compression is here really too much. And also, what’s the point in having that many megapixels, when the information simply isn't there? You can downsample this picture by 2/3 and still not loose any detail. -- Blago Tebi (talk) 22:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
How everyone can prove this is wrong:
  1. Use JPGSnoop to determine how the original image (18.7 MB big) was saved. Result: Adobe PS CS4, Quality 12
  2. Open the image and downsample it to 66%, Save as with quality 12. Result: 11.3 MB file
  3. Open the new file again and upscale it so it's 7149 pixels wide again. Result: 17.1 MB file
  4. Final result: We lost 1.6 MB or 8.6 % of information.
A few years back I was thinking like you Blago when I uploaded this file as a downsampled version to reduce noise. A few weeks later we had to upscale the same image because we needed a large format print for an exhibition in Berne. That was when I realized that downsampling images is not useful for pictures here on commons. Besides: Take your favourite pictres and make some large format prints yourself. You'll notice how much harder to see noise is on paper compared to screen. Some noise might even increase subjective sharpness. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not care so much about the noise, but I do believe that the image will look better (both on the screen and on the paper), if it is downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, fine by me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problems are too big IMO. -- JovanCormac 07:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. At reasonable downsampled resolutions, it seems more than good enough quality. Some images should not be evalutated only at 100% size IMO. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Petritap (talk) 16:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Blago Tebi. IMO the image will be better off, if downsampled.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Durova (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Diliff. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Per Mbz1. - Damërung . -- 05:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the guidelines that this is the version to choose. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the first!!). If you think that it is of inferior quality as the first, please tell me, so that I upload this edited version as independent file. --Tobi 87 (talk) 11:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

second version[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

panoramic view of the olympic stadium of Berlin
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tobi 87 -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tobi 87 (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info As some of you proposed, I downsampled my picture. Is it now satisfactory for you?
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please, do not erase previous votes when trying to nominate alternative. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downsampling is not a way of enhancing quality, regardless of how bad it looks at 100% view. It sure look better, but this look can be recreated anytime using non-destructive downsampling (through software, not the image itself). In about 30 seconds, you can make your own non-destructive downsampling using the the wiki software, as I did in my previous vote. The old version should be the one featured. --S23678 (talk) 12:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it much better.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original preferred per Diliff and S23678, but I support this too. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not because it's not good enough for FP, but I prefer the full-scaled version. You can always downsample depending on the need you have for your image but not vice versa. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 13:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with H005 --Simonizer (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Perhaps we should come to some conclusion about downsampling here. People are opposing the original because it isn't, and the alternative because it is. Not very fair for the photographer, and all this is going to lead to is people automatically downsampling without telling anybody to avoid oppose votes. --Calibas (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to come to some conclusion. Some like it better in full resolution, others prefer downsampled version. FPC process is not fair I am afraid, yet I believe one of the version will probably pass. Tobi 87, please revert the file you overwritten with the downsampled version, and let the first nomination to proceed. Please upload downsampled version as a new file. That way the reviewers will have a choice between the two versions, which will go parallel to each other, and you will have more chances that one of the two is to pass. Good luck :)--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Calibas that having this debate here is unfair on the photographer. We need clear guidelines for if and by how much an image should be downsized, but lets establish them before we oppose images either way based on downsizing. 99of9 (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) EDIT: Given that the guidelines are clear, I think some votes need to be revised - even if both sizes are separate versions, the high-res version should be featured. Voting the way we are, there is a chance that both version could fail. 99of9 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is not fair to oppose downsampled image. The passing size requirement is only 2 megapixels. The nominated image is much bigger. Some users claim that the image could always be downsampled as needed, but not the other way around, but I believe that Internet connection of some of our readers and reviewers might be too slow to load big resolution images. That's why I believe we should have both images as separete versions. Each will link to other version in the image's description. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • On image summary pages, it says something like this:

Size of this preview: 800 × 234 pixels
Full resolution‎ (15,150 × 4,430 pixels, file size: 25.28 MB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

In my opinion it would be nice to extend this to some common widths, heights, or percentages, so that the downloader could choose their own resolution. It seems odd to have duplicates with different file names. 99of9 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For me the guidelines are very clear :
  • Graphics located on Commons may be used in ways other than viewing on a conventional computer screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices may be used in the future, so it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible.
  • Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality). Downsampling reduces the amount of information stored in the image file.
I see nothing indicating to voters and nominators that their image should be downsampled. I especially like the wording "in order to appear of better quality", since it's clearly stating (and it's a fact) that downsampling is just an illusion of quality, and that voters should be aware of it. Since I've started contributing on FPC, I've always tried to upload my images at the highest resolutions possible, unless strong mitigating reasons (such as keeping uploads under 100mpx...). I would personally make it mandatory for FPCs to be at the camera's native resolution, with the evaluation of quality done at a standard resolution for all nominations. This would put all nominations at the same level, encourage nominators and alleviate a lot of problems such as right now. --S23678 (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO that rule is all, but impossible to enforce. An image could be cropped, and one will never be sure, if it is downsampled or just cropped. The same with panoramas. Also, if that rule is enforced somehow, not only FPC, but Commons will loose some good and rare images IMO. Besides, if one would like to be consistent, one should oppose all downsampled images, and not only some of them. We have few that are nominated now, Would you like to go ahead, and to oppose all of them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please note, that the picture above is the new (third) version (and not the second!!). So, please support the new version! --Tobi 87 (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Big quality problems. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors
The chosen alternative is: File:Berliner Olympiastadion night.jpg

File:天安门夜景.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 06:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gate of Heavenly Peace, Beijing.2009-11-1
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlie fong - uploaded by Charlie fong - nominated by Charlie fong -- Charlie fong (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Charlie fong (talk) 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only one, redlinked category. Pmlineditor  09:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose High image noise. HDR can do wonders for shots like these. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Look at the haloing, it has either had tonemapping or perhaps a highlight reduction (which is a form of tone mapping). Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting, I didn't realize that at first. But still, better results can be created by mapping multiple exposures rather than reducing the highlights on a single shot. -- JovanCormac 14:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On a side note, it would be helpful if you used latin characters only in the file name, since older non-Chinese systems cannot display Chinese characters correctly, while all computers worldwide can handle the latin alphabet. -- JovanCormac 10:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - noisy and blurry.--Avala (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing bad composition-wise, but nothing exceptional as well. The light trails would look better if they were longer. But mainly quality issues as above. --S23678 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Image motion. - Damërung . -- 05:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very noisy. Takabeg (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Chalciporus piperatus LC0182.jpg, not featured[edit]

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.

Chalciporus piperatus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg 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
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de (talk) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Gauravjuvekar (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Morning after Halloween.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 02:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Morning after Halloween
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What is that, exactly...? –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is exactly what the image's name explains: "Morning after w:Halloween" :) The girl is still wearing a costume (horns on her head,and something on her legs), the guy has special shoes. IMO this image is like a story with no beginning and no end. We do not know what happen on Halloween party and why they were sitting like that for half-an-hour (I found them like that and went for a walk. When I came back half an hour later nothing changed in their position). We do not know how it will end up.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you read that recent news article (can't find the link) about an old man who was laying dead for 3 days in front of his house, with his neighbours thinking it was an Halloween decoration... Were this couple breathing? --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No, I have not read the story. Let's hope my image's story is a happy one :)--Mbz1 (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
link --S23678 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject too dark, not particularly interesting --Leafnode 22:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh... I didn't see the guy at first. Thought it was someone peeing in the bushes... :-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Daniel, I would have never allowed myself to upload image of "someone peeing in the bushes" leave alone to nominate it for FP :) --Mbz1 (talk)
Well, users have asked for more nominations of people... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too hard to see what is going on. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm undecided on this one. I'll think about it a bit more. Also, thanks for trying something different; we need more photos like of interesting things like this. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean something different from Golden Gate Bridge :) Thank you for your comment! --Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Not just that, but yes. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's an interesting composition. I'd love to know what their story was. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed. What an interesting composition. JalalV (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great confusion. --Karel (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for reasons given.--— Erin (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:PalenqueAc.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 02:36:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Not for voting: Comparison of the relief today and sketch showing significant differences between the two; this is a combination of loss of detail and addition of detail, causing the sketch to be idealized by the artist.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ricardo Almendáriz - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:PalenqueA.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Detail drawing of a Mayan ruin at Palenque made at the time of its original excavation in 1787.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 02:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another perfect restoration. -- JovanCormac 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Phyrexian (talk) 13:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail drawing and useful for related articles. Takabeg (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment uploaded an image to show the differences between the actual relief and the sketch, which turns out to be idealized and contains artistic liberty from not one, but two artists (see the en.wiki nom for more info on the history of the artwork and archeological dig), limiting its accuracy. Take it or leave it. upstateNYer 06:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • IMO the fact that the artist who drew this picture in the 18th century took some liberties adds value to the picture, rather than taking it away, by showing that "reproductions" back then sometimes were inaccurate - probably on purpose (omission of the bosom). If someone today wants to see how the actual relief looks like, he or she should look at a photograph rather than a sketch. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
      • And that's quite fine; I just wanted to give everyone the heads up. upstateNYer 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in spite of any differences in the drawing to the original. --— Erin (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 99of9 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Stanley Steamer at 2009 Newport Hill Climb 1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Nov 2009 at 23:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stanley Steamer
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Huwmanbeing - uploaded by Huwmanbeing - nominated by Huwmanbeing -- Huwmanbeing  23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Huwmanbeing  23:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing to see one of those in running condition. Durova (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image! Quality, composition, the mood of the people. Especially the queen. :) --Lošmi (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you please explain why you're using PNG format? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just for its losslessness, particularly when performing successive edits on a photo (generation loss). Thanks ~ Huwmanbeing  12:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Omnedon (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somehow I fail to see how this image is special. The quality is good, but not stellar, composition is mediocre at best (several heads cut off in the foreground), and the use of the PNG format appears nonsensical. It just isn't made for photos, results in a ridiculously high file size, and given the average image quality is simply unneccessary. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thanks for the comments. I see what you mean about the heads; however, in dense crowd shots such as these it can be impossible to find a crop that doesn't cut through at least a few individuals, so I chose to give precedence to the placement of the central subject. As for filesize, it could be reduced as a JPEG, but it didn't strike me as ridiculous or prohibitive given that other featured images and candidates in JPEG format range much larger (some above 10-15MB). Thanks! Huwmanbeing  14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much going on. kallerna 16:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I agree with other oppose voters.--— Erin (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Also agree with other oppose voters.PieCam (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Suggestions on how this can be improved? I'm happy to make adjustments, but "too much going on" seems an odd critique of a photo of a race. I'm also not sure how a photo of a crowd can reasonably be cropped without cutting through someone. Thanks Huwmanbeing  03:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's usually the front row shots that get featurable composition. 99of9 (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chopped heads in foreground. 99of9 (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I honestly can't believe that someone oppose this image with reasons like that. Too much going on? Well, this picture actually is about too much going on. The composition is anything but mediocre. You can't put the whole Universe in the image - something needs to be cut off. These heads in the first plan are just the part of the composition, implying that there are people on the other side, siting and watching. There's no need for them to be seen more than they are. And what does it matter if it's PNG? It's now 7,55 MB. If you save this as jpeg it's 3,71 MB. Big deal. Gee, you oppose this picture for really dull reasons. --Lošmi (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • You'd better believe that, if one wants to oppose an image a reason could always be found :) --Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)18:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Alternative 1.
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would any of the oppose voters support this alternative version which has the heads removed and is a JPG file? Note that I needed to use the clone tool to get rid of the tops of some heads as I didn't want to crop off the shadow or wheel. I also narrowed it slightly to make up for decreasing the height. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would. --99of9 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 11:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Vatican angle° 0.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Nov 2009 at 03:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vatican angle° 0
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by juanRubiano - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of quality (overexposure, noise, resolution) and composition (tilt and crop) problems --S23678 (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and be it only to remove that once again precipitate FPX by S23678. Where is your problem? Resolution is many times higher than required, can't see any noise, overexposure only in few spots, tilt is hardly noticeable and can be fixed, and after all, even if these were issues, they can't really destroy the excellent atmosphere in this picture. I'd really like to see more constructive criticism here than to piss of anybody who nominates pictures that just don't meet your personal preferences when it comes to technical standards. FPX is for clearly insufficient pictures, that's it. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 22:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Overexposure masks all details on both sides of St-Peter's basilica, noise is very visible on the out-of-focus areas, image resolution (the amount of detail in an image) is very low on the sides, tilt is very visible and the cross on the top of obelisk is cropped. You may think it deserves to be FP because of it's atmosphere, and I respect your choice, but given what I said, FPX was clearly sufficient to me. About personal preferences, I'm wondering what's FP is, if not a bunch of personal preferences... Your support is as much a personal preference as my FPX is. As for constructive criticism, Mr Lê has some difficulties understanding FPC rules, as it's suggested by his nomination history and some votes about it's nominations. There's some limit at holding someone by the hand, hence the lack of constructive criticism in my comments. --S23678 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I've never heard or read of Lê but can't see any evidence from this nomination that he/she "has some difficulties understanding FPC rules". It's a nice image with IMHO only minor technical flaws, and I value the mood and content of an image higher than technical perfection to a level that only enthusiasts like us here see who inspect every single pixel, but not all those millions of Wikipedia users who just will see a nice image. Sorry for being a bit harsh with my comment, no offence intended, I just found it very annoying to see repeatedly what in my humble opinion is a misuse of FPX. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of an unbalanced composition. Takabeg (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing can fix or make up for the crop at the top. --99of9 (talk) 10:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Nov 2009 at 08:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Bowl of Beauty" Peony (Paeonia lactiflora).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Maedin Tureaud - uploaded by Maedin Tureaud - nominated by Erin SilversmithErin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportErin (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Trivial composition, underexposed. Yes, flowers are pretty, but this picture has nothing which sets it above other flower pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I will support if the background is denoised. I don't understand the "underexposed" comment... any brighter and the delicate whites will blow? 99of9 (talk) 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
    • No, you are wrong here. Check the histogram. The brightest white is at only 90% prightness, the upper 10% of the dynamic range are unused, which, with a subject like this(!), points to underexposure. --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, dull colors/bad light --Leafnode 12:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May I withdraw this? I appreciate the nomination, Erin, but this is not FP quality, by a long shot . . . I'd rather not have lots of opposes telling me what I already know about my own photography! Maedin\talk 19:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, just say the word. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination As per request by Maedin. I'm still trying to figure out what gets supported and what doesn't. Seems to be a very fine line, as even ones which get lots of support will still have one or two oppose votes. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Erin! Sorry to be so crotchety about it, I'm just rather sensitive, :-) Maedin\talk 07:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • You do know that this doesn't mean your uploads aren't appreciated, right? Just making sure :-). --Dschwen (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your kind comment, Daniel. Maedin\talk 18:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Exército no Rio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Nov 2009 at 10:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The military occupied the Complexo do Alemão, a Slums in Rio de Janeiro, 1998
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wilson Dias/ABr - uploaded by Rafamaxpires - nominated by Econt -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Econt (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I nominated this image because it haves a important social contest in Rio de Janeiro.--Econt (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hey Econt, I can tell you right away that the tilt will need to be fixed. Aside from that, it looks good, and yes, the contrast is quite interesting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'll oppose based on what I saw on travels. This is indeed an impressive sight based on a western country point of view. However, it's extremely common in a lot of latin american countries I went to. I did not went to Rio, but I saw the armoured vehicles guarding the Peruvian president's palace in Lima, I got searched at military checkpoints in Colombia, etc. Being such a common sight for that region of the world, I would expect more from such a FPC, in composition and people's visible emotions for example. --S23678 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment People's visible emotions? You don't go see this in Brazil, sorry. It is only appearance, the army of Brazil never can react. Even when attacked by criminals.--Econt (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Good try, but... a simple search through google can easily contradict you claim... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
        • You are right, but I was talking about the army of Brazil, different of Colombia and Peru.--Econt (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Read again, I'm not talking about Colombia and Peru for Google search. As well, I personally remember sharing some common facilities with brazilian military members, and I can assure you they were not emotionless robots. --S23678 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The composition is really good (though it would be even better if the civilian was wearing red clothes), but quality problems are there (noise and sharpness mostly), which makes it difficult for me to support this. I cannot say how common such a sight is in Rio, but S23678 does have a point in that this isn't a war photograph and can probably retaken. -- JovanCormac 12:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much going on. kallerna 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Econt. Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm with Jovan, great composition. I love the fact that there is too much going on - this kind of image always has hidden treasures if you scour it. However the people's faces have defects in them, and there are other minor quality issues that stack up against promotion. --99of9 (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We have to few pictures about ordinary life.. Certainly when it is different from a Western experience it is valuable.. 17:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)This unsigned comment was written by GerardM --S23678 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. On the basis of quality. I would love a better option to come along. --Silversmith Hewwo 04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 04:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Rana esculenta on Nymphaea edit.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Nov 2009 at 12:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A specimen of Rana esculenta (Common edible frog) on a nymphaea leaf. Location: garden pond in Brandenburg, Summer 2005.