Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list

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

Contents

Featured picture candidates

File:Cu Đê River, Da Nang.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 09:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cu Đê River, Da Nang

Image:Light painting screw.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 07:55:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lichtschraube rückwärts, ein Zufallsprodukt

File:Pancuran Tujuh, near Baturraden, Purwokerto 2015-03-23 03.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2015 at 04:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pancuran Tujuh, Purwokerto
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Crisco 1492. Pancuran Tujuh is a sulphur spring in Baturraden District, Purwokerto. This panoramic image is from 40 frames and shows it (and the... erm, "uniquely" shaped outlets) in great detail. Note that the name means "Seven Springs", and all seven outlets are visible --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Aythya nyroca at Martin Mere 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 23:13:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aythya nyroca
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ferruginous duck, Aythya nyroca, at Martin Mere, UK. All by me -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Baresi F (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Pretty darn nice, but that black shadow in the top left ruins it for me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Medialuna Real, Bath, Inglaterra, 2014-08-12, DD 58-61 PAN.JPG

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 21:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the Royal Crescent, a crescent-formed row of 30 terraced houses in Bath, England. The building, one of the the greatest examples of Georgian architecture in the United Kingdom, was designed by John Wood the Younger and built between 1767 and 1774.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the Royal Crescent, a crescent-formed row of 30 terraced houses in Bath, England. The building, one of the the greatest examples of Georgian architecture in the United Kingdom, was designed by John Wood the Younger and built between 1767 and 1774. All by me, Poco2 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very high quality, but the masterpiece of John Wood the Younger looks like a common curved building. Not good composition. Sorry!--Claus Obana (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the composition doesn't succeed. Some parts on the top roof (chimney) are overexposed or rather erode on the edges. So it's also technically only partially on a high level. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 21:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

State Emergency Service of Ukraine (MChS) Mil Mi-8MTV picking up water near Nezhin
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 as per KTC. Yann (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2015 (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.

@Yann:: May I please have an explanation? Commons:Featured_picture_candidates doesn't mention any rule against re-nominating a photo. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I should also mention that during the previous nomination, many votes were cast before The_Photographer improved the photo, so having a fresh discussion (this one) is a good idea. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
The problems are still remaining in this picture which were quite much talked about after the changed version. And this is the same changed version in question. Another version hasn't been done since the not-so-supportive consensus so I don't know what fresh can I/we say. --Ximonic (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Something's wrong with the archives, this picture is shown as "in use" on FPC log files in 2013 and 2014. It also affects other FPs. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Fixed: [1], [2], [3]. Thank you for discovering the problem. When Yann posted his message, I was concerned that this nomination was going to end up being a complete waste of time, but now people can see that it helped find and repair an issue with CommonsDelinker. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Re nomination is fine if the picture is imporoved after the last nomor it failed on the margins. Here I see no new edit; previous nom failed at 11-9. This is not a place to GAME the system. Jee 01:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The 2nd round was confused by a new version, and the 1st round was interrupted at 14:7 by an invalid "blank+protect" vote. On my box the old version is better, I can fix the saturation and still see the ropes. With the new version there's not much to fix, but the ropes didn't survive the processing. –Be..anyone (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
See; I'm always against "politics" affect positively or negatively a nom. If you can fix the "issues" better start a new nom after completing all the home works. The file was here in Commons for a long-while; as it was uploader by the same user person earlier without much attention. Now too much wow because of some "strange reasons" that I don't care. Here in FPC, there is no strict rule; but there is already a "best practice" to avoid renominations within one month. But as you are not much involved in this drama so far, I can COM:AGF in your attempts. :) Jee 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern am See, Sythen, Werkzeughalle der Quarzwerke -- 2015 -- 4433.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plastic pipes, tool shed of the Quarzwerke in Sythen, Haltern, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- XRay talk 17:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now this is something different! Oh, and it's good technically, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and very original --LivioAndronico talk 21:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting in its perspective, good composition, technically sound. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Code (talk) 06:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support absolutely per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Kłodzko, kościół Matki Bożej Różańcowej 32.JPG

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 17:51:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Our Lady of the Rosary church in Kłodzko

File:Arthur Timótheo da Costa - In the Studio - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 16:22:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

In the Studio, by Arthur Timótheo da Costa

File:Altar of Santi Bonifacio e Alessio (Rome).jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 16:01:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Altar of Santi Bonifacio e Alessio (Rome)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp, overexposed areas, even though, a little bit dark photo. The right column is not even close to be in the correct perspective... -- RTA 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support not ideal, but enough to FP in my opinion --Pudelek (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Henry Déziré, Tête de Bretonne au ruban rouge (avant 1913), Musées d'Art et d'Histoire de La Rochelle, cliché Max Roy.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 13:12:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Henry Déziré, Tête de Bretonne au ruban rouge, Musées d'Art et d'Histoire de La Rochelle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henry Déziré/Max Roy, uploaded by Araynaudreversat, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting painting, high quality reproduction. -- Yann (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Resolution is high enough to show the painting's features fully. --Tremonist (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dandelion, April 2011.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 11:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henry Marion (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of artistic expression. --Tremonist (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the idea, the lighting and how the bright subject stands out against the dark background. I would have preferred a slightly deeper DOF and/or a focus point just a little bit further away, to have the whole central "docking station" in focus, if possible. A bit more space on the left and a bit less of it on the right side could maybe improve the composition as well. --El Grafo (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Pencil 01 kamranki.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 08:27:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Macro of a pencil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by kamranki - uploaded by kamranki - nominated by Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kamranki (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of high resolution. --Tremonist (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because I hope it takes more than size to get something featurable. Or one could as well macro shot any object at home, and submit here. - Benh (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm actually more than happy with featuring macro shot of everyday objects, but the issue I have here is the execution in this instance. There's burn out part on the shaft of the pencil, and also is that fringing I see at the bottom part of the pencil? -- KTC (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the lighting: Top and bottom of the wood section are well-lit, while the center section is quite dark. So the lighting diverts attention from the sharp center section to the not-so-sharp outer sections – should probably be the other way round, if you ask me. --El Grafo (talk) 08:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dead bull at bullfight.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2015 at 02:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Completely blurred. --C messier (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose High educational value and good framing, but the technical quality is far below FP level. --El Grafo (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2015 (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 per previous comments, blurry even in preview. -- KTC (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2015 (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 I find it curious to nominate the pic for deletion for two comments so quickly, it is like shooting without aiming. What some may judged as technical flaws, other may judge as creative desicions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tróia March 2015-1.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 20:46:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ruins of a Roman settlement in the Tróia Peninsula, Portugal (5th or 6th cent. A.D.). The facilities were known for its production of salted fish and the very appreciated fish-based sauce Garum. In the picture we can see the ruins of a mausoleum and the thanks were the fish was salted. In the background, a fully flowered Bridal veil broom (Retama monosterma). All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The subject in itself is very interesting and wow, but I do not get a wow the way it is portrayed. Disturbing crop in left background side, light is flat, not a particularly eyecatching composition. Are you sure about the white balance? It appears too cold for me. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to colours. --Tremonist (talk) 13:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Ακρόπολη 6912.JPG

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An almost night view of the Acropolis of Athens from Pnyx (the darkest part of the photo has been removed). All by me -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- C messier (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Too dark below. --Tremonist (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would say better crop is required. There is too much black in the bottom. Furthermore, the upper fog surroundings aren't that interesting as well (but it's fine because it focuses your view into the Acropolis). I think more centered version would look way better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can try to recover some detail from below from the raw. Pofka, you mean a further crop? --C messier (talk) 16:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Something like this: http://i.imgur.com/CtE4NwZ.jpg :) If it would be possible to recover some more detail from the bottom, then it would probably look even better. -- Pofka (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Agree with Pofka and his suggestion. But I'm afraid the subject itself is a bit soft.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done cropped No raw for this set (and only) - Merphy's law :P --C messier (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. I really like the way Acropolis is lightened here. -- Pofka (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks very washed out as after too much highlight or shadow recovery. Some areas of the subject show almost no significant brightness changes. — Julian H. 20:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too big dynamic range to adequately capture with only one frame. Too dark foregorund and too many burned highlights. The illumination appers more white than what I can find from a Google image search for illuminated night shots. Also it is a bit too soft for my taste and there is a little fringing. For such a subject, shoot raw, try to combine several bracketed exposures to better catch the extreme dynamic range. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's actually four frames merged into one. And it has more DR than most of the other images in the category, with much less blown highlights. --C messier (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That information is worth adding to the file page, which has an exif indicating it is a single 6 s exposure. It is surprising that the end result does not exhibit a larger dynamic range when that is the case. May I ask how you have combined the exposures and how large the EV difference was? Do you still have the source images? It is my experience that you need a separation of 2 EV for four exposures with my entry level and not terribly new DSLR. There may be another optimum for your camera, which I am not familiar with.-- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Combined as descripted here (although the brightest was the base, because otherwise, the stars appear blacker than the sky), it 6s, 2,5s, 1/1,3s and 1/5s with same f, ISO and exposure compasation, and I have kept the original images.--C messier (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @C messier: Thanks for the information. If my math is correct that corresponds to steps of around 1.2 EV, 1.7 EV and 1.95 EV, which is a slightly odd spread of the exposures, especially the span from 2.5s to 6 s is a little low (1.2 EV), but it should be fairly OK, I guess. I do not know how well the GIMP method described works as compared to other methods. If you are interested in sharing your source images I could try and have a go at it using PTGui to make a 32 bit floating point "super raw" tif and postprocess that in lightroom as an alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Slaunger: Were can I upload them? They are useless on their own to upload here. And if you can align the pictures, I have also a nearly identical set of exposures, but with raw with 6w, 1,6s and 1/4s. --C messier (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • @C messier: In PTGui alignment is easy, and raw as source is better too, asCA can be removed efficiently in Lightroom prior to exporting to PTGui in 16 bit tiff for HDR fusion. Where to upload? Hmmm, well I used Dropbox, when I had Diliff help me with a restitch. If you do not want to share them in a public folder, I can email you, such that you can share a private folder. Any other file sharing service of your choice is another option, if it is not too big a hazzle for me to access. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Slaunger, check your e-mail. --C messier (talk) 08:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @C messier:: Thanks, I have send you a few candidates by mail. Not a vast improvement, but in some respects perhaps an improvement, in others perhaps not? Have a look, and see if you fand any of them relevant for upload. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
            • @Slaunger:, thank you for your time, but the jpeg-based looks overprocessed (with a black halo around the acropolis), the other looks better, although a bit too yellow. --C messier (talk) 07:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Air National Guard wraps up training at Global Dragon 150319-Z-SV144-004.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 15:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Decontamination during a Global Dragon training event
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christopher Muncy - uploaded by -- (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. -- (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am sorry, too wow for me --The_Photographer (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks very catchy at low resolution. Reminds some kind of video game or something. Definitely has that "Wow, what's that??" feeling. -- Pofka (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wow is certainly there, but the overall image quality is not there, and it is Symbol wtf vote.svg Overprocessed for my taste. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this may be one of those cases, where WOW trumps quality. Processing seems appropriate for this kind of picture – I'm even inclined to say that more of that "funky" processing wouldn't necessarily hurt if it moved it still further into the direction of video games and science fiction movies. Photography does not always have to try to resemble what the human mind perceives as "reality" as closely as possible, even at FPC. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Solidago rugosa 001.JPG

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 05:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Solidago rugosa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for nomination Christian Ferrer. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice yellow! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A no wow and a distracting background would be enough to oppose for me. But here it's not even processed correctly with (compression ?) artifacts all over the place even where it's originally blurred, and a lot of jagged lines. - Benh (talk) 20:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done AC removed.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Benh, sorry. — Julian H. 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Southern sea lion, L'Oceanogràfic (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2015 at 00:03:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Southern sea lion
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Southern sea lion (Otaria flavescens) at L'Oceanogràfic. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull, CAC (4).jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 22:14:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yellow-legged gull
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) in the water outside L'Hemisfèric, Valencia. All by KTC -- KTC (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It's the same bird as this recent nomination, earlier in the get out of water flight sequence, but I think the pose is sufficiently different and interesting to nominate this one as well. -- KTC (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better than the other nom. Daniel Case (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I doubt if two almost identical pictures really should be featured... -- Pofka (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Pofka, the setting is too similar and there is not enough "wow" to justify two FPs IMO. --King of ♠ 02:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same same here. And none of the two noms wow me anyways, with very little details on the feathers, and non attractive context around. - Benh (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:View to Sifjorden from Sifjord, Senja, Troms, Norway in 2014 August.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 12:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition of this image confuses me. Is the main subject meant to be the plants in the foreground, or the land/water in the background? Combining the two doesn't work for me I'm afraid. -- KTC (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is certainly a way above photo as usual for Ximonic, but I find the light is flat, and the composition is not quite there. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find this composition quite good and the mood wonderful. Lots of wow for me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Before all, thanks for this nomination! I like this picture and view but to be honest, have no special feels for it. The mood of the weather was quite wonderful when seen by oneself but not so optimal for photography. Instead of having a very specified subject this is more like postcardish kind of a photo giving a good idea of the local landscape... Which it does rather well as it is quite typical scenery for the area. Anyhow, I stay curious about external points of view from other people. Thanks! --Ximonic (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:St. Peter's Church Interior, Riga, Latvia - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 09:16:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Peter's Church interior. Riga, Latvia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pofka -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great quality as usual, but I'm not sure about the metal frame in the centre in front of the windows which has at places taken on a semi-transparent quality. -- KTC (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very distorted. Look at the painting left. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Spurzem. See the CoA at right.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Quiet Beach in Da Nang.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 04:15:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quiet Beach in Da Nang
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Christopher Crouzet -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow to me, too hazy altogether. High resolution made up for by blur. Left side appears entirely tilted (poles along railway line, pylons on the hills) --Kreuzschnabel 06:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that it's not easy to take a non-hazy photo around Da Nang. In 6 months that I've been here, I have rarely seen a clear sky. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 06:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but it still lacks whow. "Couldn’t take a better shot" is never an excuse on FPC. --Kreuzschnabel 14:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I never said the opposite, I just said that for your information. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Actually if you downsample the image to about 5000x2000px, the image is sharp so I don't think the blur at full resolution is a major problem. What bothers me a bit more is that the framing around the sky is a bit tight. I think it would look more balanced to use the rule of thirds and have the horizon on the 1/3 position. Diliff (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree, I also would have preferred with more sky, which I actually have in the original file but I had to crop it out because of electricity lines being on the way. Maybe I could Photoshop them out, but I'm not a big fan of the idea? -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't like cloning objects out either, but it might be the lesser of two evils here. Diliff (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Convocation House 2, Bodleian Library, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Convocation House

File:Pitt Rivers Museum Interior, Oxford, UK - Diliff.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2015 at 01:51:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pitt Rivers Museum

File:Gornji Orahovac, Bosnia y Herzegovina, 2014-04-14, DD 10-13 PAN.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 21:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of the course of the Trebišnjica river near Gornji Orahovac, Southeast of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panoramic view of the course of the Trebišnjica river near Gornji Orahovac, Southeast of Bosnia and Herzegovina. All by me, Poco2 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco2 21:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Great composition, though lighting could be better. --King of ♠ 01:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice view, nice composition and actually I don't think the lighting is too bad - it's a bit flat but it doesn't need a sunset to be impressive and interesting. Diliff (talk) 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Diliff. Yann (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its good. --Mile (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Јованвб (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support and because of the colourful landscape, I think the flat lighting is ok here. — Julian H. 17:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 19:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico talk 20:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 09:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Bernardo alle Terme - ceiling
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LivioAndronico talk 09:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor sharpness, CA everywhere, clipped white,... --A.Savin 10:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin. Interesting idea but poorly performed. ISO 400 seems to be too much for this camera, theres NR smudge visible everywhere. --Kreuzschnabel 12:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • unfortunately I had to use ISO 400 because Security stopped me immediately with tripod --LivioAndronico talk 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not the camera (see [4]). I hope that in 201X no DSLR performs this poorly at ISO 400. - Benh (talk) 14:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If you want i can send you the raw --LivioAndronico talk 15:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If it's fine with you I can try to have a look. - Benh (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done New version --LivioAndronico talk 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Friends will be friends - right till the end! --A.Savin 16:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Even the enemies Savin Clin --LivioAndronico talk 16:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp, too soft, some CA. No enemies here for me, just my opinion about a photograph. Not the best of "Commons", far from FP standards IMO, quality wise. Excellent point of view and nice symmetry though. Good idea, not good enough achievement.--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • But infact Jebulon, you are objective and your opinion, as you know, is always well accepted. Anyway Thanks Face-smile.svg--LivioAndronico talk 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Moonfire' 006.JPG

Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2015 at 05:50:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dahlia 'Moonfire'. A brilliant selection. Warm colors combined with dark leaves. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Touzrimounir (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose From an APS-C size sensor camera from 2012, I don't understand the image quality. There is this strange, not sure which word to use, maybe flaky texture across the whole image. At just over 4 Megapixels, I don't think that's acceptable in a FP.Julian H. 15:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Definitely much better now. I'll give a good Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral because it's still quite small and relatively usual in what it looks like. — Julian H. 08:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of details by over-sharpened and heavy NR. Halos around petals and probably a bit over-saturated. I just presumed... :) --Laitche (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The new version is getting better except the composition but still not reach the FP bar, I think. --Laitche (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: You mean the crop? --Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I don't know the reason exactly, Maybe that needed ISO 200 and 1/40 exposure time when this has been taken, just a little bit motion blur happened or maybe lack of luminous for a APS-C, in any case it's not enough detailed for a FP, I guess, imo. --Laitche (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Just my opinion. Currently 5 support 1 oppose 1 neutral, never mind :) --Laitche (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I seem to have a bit of a problem with the background. It looks a bit like you cut the flower and placed it in a vase on a table with a nicely trimmed lawn in the background to achieve a smooth background. No, I'm not saying you actually did that, with a flower of this height it's easily possible to get this effect in situ. It's just that it looks a bit artificial to me – which is to be expected for an artificial cultivar growing in an artificial garden, but still … To be honest, I just don't like it as an image and would have probably preferred a plain black studio background. Or to say it in FPC slang: No WOW → Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sorry, --El Grafo (talk) 10:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dahlias are not hardy in the Netherlands and are usually used as a pot plant. The Dahlia was also in a pot with the background lawn.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks for the explanation – it doesn't really matter, though. It's probably just a matter of taste – others seem to disagree with my opinion and that's perfectly fine, of course. Forgot to say in my initial review: The colors of the flower itself look really great, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Komos site baie Crète.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 17:13:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bay and site of Komos
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support View of the archaeological site of Komos, which was the former harbor of the minoan city of Phaistos, around 1900 BCE, and of the bay. Snowy mountains in background. Island of Crete, Greece. -- Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice landscape. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jastarnia, schron bojowy Sęp (WLZ14).jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 13:31:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bunker Sęp, Jastarnia, Poland. All by 1bumer -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1bumer (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mrtony77 (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite ugly structure, but looks surprisingly good as whole composition. -- Pofka (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but the lighting is too flat. --King of ♠ 02:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 09:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I would prefer less space on top and more towards the sea. — Julian H. 10:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Empire State Building New York March 2015.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 12:49:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Le repos du guerrier, Zoo de Beauval, 2012.jpg

Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2015 at 11:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

File:Fishermen - Tamandaré - Brasil pan.jpg (delist), not featured

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 22:31:18
Visit the nomination page
Freshwater fishermen near Tamandaré, Brazil

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's a nice scene sure, but even at its less than 0.9MP resolution, nothing is sharp. Previous removal nominations have over time moved from keeping it towards its removals, but though in majority, there weren't enough votes to delist the last three times. [Original nomination (2006), Removal/1 (2006), Removal/2 (2008), Removal/3 (2009), Removal/4 (2011)]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- KTC (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Far below the quality expected from FPs. --King of ♠ 23:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)'
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size notwithstanding, would not pass if nominated now—blown cloud in center and noisy water surface. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per others. --Cayambe (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The only issue I see is the size. If you forgot the size it's a better image than more of 90% of what we have actually in the QIC page. -- Christian Ferrer 08:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    My primary issue isn't actually the size, but that (to me) everything is blurry. -- KTC (talk) 09:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Of course, I wasn't active in 2003, but comparing this to casual holiday images shot with decent (not DSLR) cameras back then the image quality still is quite bad. Not TBOC for me and probably never was. --DXR (talk) 10:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep good composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist quality issue. per KTC. --Laitche (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice picture, but far away from FP level quality-wise. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice composition, but tilted and per others. — Julian H. 10:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist for todays expectations on a FP it should be delistend.--Hubertl (talk) 11:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Eryphanis reevesii - Schmetterlingshaus Wien 4.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 18:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eryphanis reevesii
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Spacebirdy - uploaded by Spacebirdy - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 18:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pofka (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background is too dark, I guess because of flashlight. --Laitche (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop is too tight, and the angle of the butterfly doesn't aid in the composition.--Fotoriety (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Agree with previous opposes, the crop is too tight, the butterfly is too dark and the angle makes it awkward. I've always thought that butterfly images should be rotated so that the insect is horizontal, but only if there is nothing in the background that would look strange if the image was rotated (such as a horizon, a flower, etc). Diliff (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support From this pose and look, I assume it is a newly emerged one drying its wings. The crop is a bit tight; but 15 MP out of 18, so I don't think not much to do now. It is more of a matter how much magnification we need still keeping enough space around. Flash is disturbing; but reminds me this previous FP. Jee 11:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05).jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 14:07:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. Yerevan, Armenia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Saint Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral. Yerevan, Armenia. - all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Halavar (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely mood. --King of ♠ 17:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support These clouds contrasts very well with the church. Really good timing. -- Pofka (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Makes you wander, do city planners deliberately calculate how they can ruin the aesthetics of a setting by (as in this example) adding a communications mast just slightly off-centre from this cathedral?--Fotoriety (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Good point. That chimney on the right looks ugly as well. Somebody really should be fired in this city. -- Pofka (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The communications mast is now blasted out: 2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05) edit.jpg. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am opposed to this type of practices that falsify reality. --Halavar (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Halavar: +1. So you (we both) can withdraw the alt-version. My reworked version was only to show us the same image without the communications mast. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
It can stay. No problem. --Halavar (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --XRay talk 10:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The chimney doesn't interfere. From the first time I don't notice the difference between the photos. :) --Brateevsky {talk} 18:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also ok I guess. — Julian H. 08:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Pofka: great lighting! --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ordinarily I might find things to justify a weak oppose: the detail on the people going up the steps is a little soft (I think you could have gone up to f/11 at least), there's some noise in the clouds, and the antenna. But the first two are not enough to offset the stunning symmetry of this shot, and the clouds behind the building actually make the antenna less of an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 09:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jebulon (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alternative

2014 Erywań, Katedra św. Grzegorza Oświeciciela (05) edit.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Edited and proposed version by Alchemist-hp without the mast in the background. Thanks. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Without the mast. — Julian H. 15:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good too. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Removal of permanent structures (even if not pretty) is not acceptable for FPC, imo. --DXR (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There may be cases where removing things from an image is acceptable or even beneficial, but I don't think this is one of them. --El Grafo (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks way better, but as others said: We have to keep reality as it is. -- Pofka (talk) 09:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Agustín Salinas y Teruel - School Festival at Ipiranga - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 11:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

School Festival at Ipiranga, by Agustín Salinas y Teruel

File:Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A UNESCO site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A UNESCO World heritage site, Mausoleum of Khoja Ahmed Yasawi in Hazrat-e Turkestan, Kazakhstan. Prime example of Timurid architecture, hence conical shapes. Shot off-centre, to the left. All by -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mile (talk) 10:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 12:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks like image is not straight. Building leans inward. That can be fixed. I think image should be first checked in QI pole. --Halavar (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I made PD correction. --Mile (talk) 16:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. --Halavar (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More good pictures of Kazakhstan! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks amassing. --Јованвб (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Perth International Arts Festival SMC 2010.JPG

Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2015 at 10:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Theatrical group La Fura dels Baus opening Perth International Arts Festival 2010. Created by SeanMack - uploaded by SeanMack - nominated by QuimGil -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- QuimGil (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting and unsual. Yann (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting, but too noisy.--XRay talk 10:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I wonder why this event should be free of copyright for this artistic performance (e.g. like all show of Cirque du Soleil). There is no admit to make pictures of this written. So I have to assume that this image is a copyright infringement and therefore I started a DR. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Polanica-Zdrój, fontanna w parku zdrojowym 02.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2015 at 13:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spa park in Polanica-Zdrój, fountain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unimpressive photo of an unimpressive fountain, which seems to be only partly operational. There are far more impressive photos on Commons, therefore this cannot be "among our finest". At most a QI. -- Colin (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. It’s not bad, but not outstanding either. Looks a bit overexposed to me (background colours washed out), and the fountain itself is mainly in shadow. We’ve got finer rainbows, so this is not among our very best. --Kreuzschnabel 07:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Tremonist (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Riehen - Neuer Wenkenhof - Eingangsportal.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2015 at 07:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Neuer Wenkenhof" in Riehen, Switzerland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 14:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The symmetry and details take it above QI for me. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 05:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support straight and clear. What does a FP need more? No wow at the first glance. But slowly growing. --Hubertl (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, nice colors, etc. Yann (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice symmetry, but it's a pity a large part of the left door is in shadow. --King of ♠ 17:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Of a symmetric door. Is there any information missing or a strong aesthetic disturbance? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fifty shades of shadows ... Yes, the shadows are very disturbing for the aesthetic for me, because it is simply to fix it: take the image a little earlier or later with less visible shadows. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
The shadow is disturbing because it is simply to fix? Where is the logic of this argument? --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Wenn Du mein "schlechtes" Englisch nicht verstehst, dann eben auf Deutsch: etwas früher oder später am Tage photographiert (hängt von der geographischen Lage des Standpunktes ab) würde den Schatteneffekt minimieren und das Bild von den störenden Schatten befreien. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Du gabst diese Möglichkeit als Grund dafür an, dass es dich ästhetisch stören würde. Und das wirkt als Begründung nicht sehr schlüssig. Leider gab es keine Begründung, warum es dich dieser minimale Schatten stört. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Alchemist-hp.--Fotoriety (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose parts of the door disappearing in the shadows. --El Grafo (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Where we have light we naturally have shadow. Each shadow part is visible good, non of the parts in shadow is relevant for the image. The parts of shadow is less about 5%. So what's exactly is the problem? --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Measuring distracting elements in % probably doesn't help. I feel this image lives from its symmetry and the shadows clearly do not help to strengthen that impression. This is a matter of taste, but saying "none of the parts in shadow are relevant for the image" is not a good argument for FPC, imo. We see no sky at all, so perhaps a cloudy day would have solved such issue? --DXR (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed the symmetry-argument is the first documented reason here. But for sure I evaluate this situation different. Shadows give objects plasticity so this is not an issue of this picture IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very strong technical quality as usual, but the motive is not really appealing to me concerning wow (perhaps a wider view would have given a nicer pattern of windows) and the shadows do not help. --DXR (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The whole photo looks washed out as if a layer of grey was applied on top. -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you proof your monitor to calibrate it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

File:15-02-27-Flug-Berlin-Düsseldorf-RalfR-DSCF2427b-02.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2015 at 14:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

City of Berlin in morning fog
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish it were bigger/more detailed. I like the diagonal transition and the light hitting the side of the buildings. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as colin.--Hubertl (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LivioAndronico talk 17:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Christian Ferrer 06:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose top-left part overexposed + bad light. Again a BW-image because the quality of the color image was too bad ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alchemist-hp. --King of ♠ 17:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Both arguments of alchemist-hp I can't follow.
  • (1) A picture isn't excellent automatically if there is light from behind as well as a picture isn't bad if we have back-lighting. I see neither a aesthetic problem with the bright corner nor in information content. The important center of Berlin is good captured and the atmosphere of this image is winning compared to a "normal" birds-eye-view. So what is really here the problem of this part of the picture?
  • (2) It is the decision of the photographer if he nominates colour images or an image in bw. The contrast is very good, especially for a birds eye view from the plane. I can't remember that FPC would have restriction for black-white-images. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinion, but this is absolutely not mine! Sorry for this hard words, but this is digitally trash for me.
because if I read the image description:
   Dieses Bild wurde digital nachbearbeitet. Folgende Änderungen wurden vorgenommen:
   RAW-Entwicklung in Adobe Camera RAW
   Konvertierung in cmyk, dort extreme kanalgetrennte Tonwertkorrektur
   Rückkonvertierung RGB
   Entrauschen mit Dfine 2
   S/W- Umwandlung mit Silver Efex Pro 2 (90% Deckung)
   Schärfung mit Sharpener Pro 3
   Skalierung auf genau 50% mit PhotoZoom Pro 5; Methode S-Spline Max
Nice, but what is true at this image? Perhaps I do have some more software packages for additional reworking ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Alchemist-hp: It's absolutely no problem for me if our opinions are not equal. This is not hard because true. This image has a high aesthetic and information value. And the technical development is for me a reason for it and not against. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Its all simply Photoshop. --Ralf Roleček 07:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • WeakSymbol support vote.svg Support The effect is very nice--Σπάρτακος (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 12:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Light and also a bit noisy. -- -donald- (talk) 07:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't work for me, as per others. Yann (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting idea, but stumbles in the execution. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Fisheye view of fireworks from atop Burj al Arab.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2015 at 14:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fisheye view of fireworks from atop Burj al Arab.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dubai Tourism - uploaded by Venusgrey1 - nominated by The Photographer -- The_Photographer (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The_Photographer (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting and unique view. --King of ♠ 03:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can read, so I am aware this has gone through OTRS regarding the license, but how does this pass the FoP test for one of the UAE? Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
    Which particular non-de minimis building are you worried about here? -- KTC (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting? Yes. But then so are most fish-eye images, due to the unique perspective. Othe than that, i don't see what would warrant an FP.--Fotoriety (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- KTC (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know this is somewhat part of such a photo and very hard to avoid, but the very obvious stitching problem right in the center of the image isn't very attractive in my opinion. — Julian H. 12:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tibetan, Central Tibet, Tsang (Ngor Monastery), Sakya order - Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 15:04:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tsang (Ngor Monastery), uploaded by DcoetzeeBot, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Four Mandalas of the Vajravali Series, Tibet. c. 1429–56. The best reproduction of a mandala we have on Commons.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Halavar (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Something unusual. -- Pofka (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJulian H. 16:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Sharpeness isn't the same everywhere,but subject is very interesting--LivioAndronico talk 20:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support For artwork it is essential that the JPG have a colourspace defined. This one appears to have been stripped of all metadata. Perhaps the DcoetzeeBot is to fault and should probably apply sRGB. But if GoogleArtProject are to blame, well they need to get their act together. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Any chance the left side could be marginally cropped in a way to match the right side so it doesn't have the white/milky colour bit or most of the black. -- KTC (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done @KTC, Colin: Hopefully, it also fixes the issue mentioned by Colin above. OK? Yann (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yann I don't see any change wrt sRGB EXIF. See this tool. What software are you using to edit the image? -- Colin (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
        • @Colin: I use Gimp. In "Image properties" -> "Color profil", I see "sRGB built-in". Regards, Yann (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I'll have another look tonight. You could try downloading ExifTool to see what it says. -- Colin (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oh Yeah! More fine paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014 Prowincja Ararat, Widok na Wielki Ararat i klasztor Chor Wirap (04).jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 10:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Great Ararat and Khor Virap monastery. Ararat Province, Armenia.
  • All by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Halavar (talk) 10:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tractor in front of the medieval castle. =D Overall, the composition is really great. -- Pofka (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support D kuba (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Relatively small main subject, very nice background but lost in the haze, light isn't great. The attention goes to the contrasty, saturated foreground that isn't appealing. There's also a strange horizontal line pattern in the background that I can't explain at all. — Julian H. 16:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LivioAndronico talk 20:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although centering the monastery to the right of picture would be better. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ThePolish 21:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting idea of a composition, but while I do like the clouds covering the mount Ararat, it may be a bit too much here. Besides, the background is washed out, the lighting is flat and nothing but the very foreground is sharp. - Benh (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Ben and Julian. Yann (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mainly per Benh, and the centered composition does not work for me, the image lacks balance. --Kreuzschnabel 19:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New, fixed version uploaded. Opposers, please take a look again. --Halavar (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not one of our finest works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. --Karelj (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ben and Julian, sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition but poor quality,sorry --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Image:БАШНЯ СПАССКАЯ - Torre Spasskaya.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2015 at 09:47:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spasskaya Tower
Are you sure about the "lack of detail"? It's a >23 Megapixel image with pixel-sharpness pretty much everywhere. I'm with you regarding the light, but if this isn't detailed enough, I don't really know what is. — Julian H. 16:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I will try to rise levels on the wall and tower. About detail, nothing more can I try, but I will. Tonight or tomorrow. Thanks.--Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
New version available. Not to much differen, but a litle bit detailed. --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that introduced a visible white rim/halo along the left side of the roof. --El Grafo (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Reverted. Thank you very much --Pedro J Pacheco (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flat light, halo, chromatic aberration in the leaves at left. Excellent composition though. A nice picture, at a bad time.--Jebulon (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Only the lantern at the left is a bit distorted obviously due to perspective correction. But it is a good composition with good colors and good sharpness. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Jebulon. A very good image, but the lighting prevents it from being truly outstanding. --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the part of the tree at the left is too small and disturbing. Sorry. --XRay talk 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Mouflon Corse.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:29:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Clément Bardot - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1989 22:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Great! --Brateevsky {talk} 10:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Too tight crop (let the poor thing breath), dof too shallow: the beast's nose should be sharply focused and detailed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, and I find the background to be quite distracting. Not the best lens for blurry backgrounds apparently. — Julian H. 15:42, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Julian. --El Grafo (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice animal! --Tremonist (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad DoF, per Alves. Overexposition in white parts.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not saying that the opposes are wrong, but from experience I have to say that balancing DoF is pretty hard for such images. We like soft backgrounds but also want good sharpness all over the subject. Pretty hard to do in practice, keep in mind that the depth is much larger than for e.g. a human face. --DXR (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree, and DOF is actually quite OK for me. My oppose was mainly because of the background. --El Grafo (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, per Jebulon --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

File:White peacock (Anartia jatrophae jatrophae) underside.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2015 at 22:23:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White peacock
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charlesjsharp - nominated by 1989 -- 1989 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 1989 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Brateevsky {talk} 10:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Although the technical quality is good enough for QI, this falls somewhat short of the previously featured butterfly images (OOF top of the wing, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Charles (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A different approach by using a very long lens. Sometimes I prefer this over a shallow DOF macro. There is a slight alignment problem as Crisco mentioned above. Background can be improved by cloning out the OOF leaf and fill the white pixcels on top right. Cropping a bit on left to improve rule of third may be worth to consider even if the subject is then going out of frame. Jee 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I chose the crop to keep in all of the damaged leaf that supports the butterfly. I'm not sure a crop of the left would improve things. I could naturally clone out the OOF leaf if that was the consensus. --Charles (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes; I noticed it (keep in all of the damaged leaf). It is a wise decision. Jee 11:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tremonist (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roleček 14:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry,for the opposer --Σπάρτακος (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


Unconfirmed results: (info)
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)