Commons:Propositions d'images remarquables

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

interface en français Cette page du projet dans d’autres langues: Alemannisch | Asturianu | Česky | Dansk | Deutsch | English | Español | Suomi | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Lëtzebuergesch | Молдовеняскэ | ‪Norsk (bokmål)‬ | Português | Polski | Română | Русский | Shqip | Српски / Srpski | Svenska | Українська | 粵語 | ‪中文(简体)‬ | ‪中文(繁體)‬ | +/−

Shortcut: COM:FPC

Aller directement aux propositions en cours

Cette page recense les images qui sont proposées pour être affichées dans les Images remarquables. Notez qu'il ne s'agit pas de la même chose que l'image du jour ou que les images de qualité.

Les archives des votes précédents se trouvent sur cette page.

Il existe également une liste chronologique des images remarquables.

Voir aussi les Images de qualité, les propositions d'images de qualité et les critiques photographiques.

[edit] Procédure

[edit] Conseils avant de proposer une image

partie en cours de traduction depuis la version anglaise, votre avis est le bienvenu.
Lisez entièrement le guide avant de commencer
Quelques règles informelles à retenir avant de proposer une image (les termes en italiques sont la traduction anglaise des termes).

• Résolution (resolution) : les images de Commons peuvent être utilisées sur d'autres supports qu'un écran d'ordinateur, par exemple pour être imprimées ou vues à très haute résolution. Il est important que les images proposées aient la plus haute résolution possible. Au moins 2 millions de pixels (par ex. 2000 x 1000) semble raisonnable à présent. Les images de résolution inférieure sont systématiquement rejetées sauf s'il y a une bonne raison.
• Mise au point (focus) : tous les objets importants de l'image devraient être nets.
• Avant-plan et arrière-plan (background and foreground): ils peuvent être dérangeants. Le sujet principal ne devrait pas être caché par le premier plan, ni se confondre avec l'arrière-plan.
• Qualité générale (general quality) : Les images proposées devraient avoir une très haute qualité technique.
• Une retouche (digital manipulations) ne doit pas tromper l'observateur. La correction de quelques défauts dans l'image est acceptée pour autant que ce soit limité, bien fait, et non pour tromper. Les retouches courantes sont le recadrage, la correction de la perspective, de netteté, des couleurs ou de l'exposition. Des manipulations plus importantes, tels quel l'élimination d'éléments dans l'arrière plan, doivent être décrites dans la description de l'image, par le biais du modèle {{RetouchedPicture}}. Les retouches non décrites ou mal décrites qui transformeraient le sujet sont inacceptables.
• Utilité (value) : notre but principal est de présenter des images utiles et précieuses. Les images devraient donc être spéciales d'une façon ou d'une autre, donc, entre autres :
  • La plupart des coucher de soleil sont beaux, et la plupart ne sont pas différents des autres existant déjà.
  • Les photos de nuit sont souvent belles mais davantage de détails sont visibles de jour.
  • "Beau" ne veut pas dire "utile".

Au niveau technique, nous avons l'exposition, la composition, le mouvement et la profondeur du champ.

• L'exposition (exposure) est l'obturation du diaphragme qui modifie la luminosité (brightness) pour rendre avec qualité les ombres et les lumière au sein de l'image. Le manque de d'ombres dans le détail n'est pas nécessairement négatif, cela peut être un effet désiré.
• La composition (composition) est l'arrangement des éléments dans l'image. La "Règle de trois" est un bon guide pour la compositions, c'est un héritage des écoles de peintures. L'idée est de diviser l'image par deux lignes horizontales et deux lignes verticales, nous avons donc trois parties dans chaque sens. L'objet ne doit pas forcément être centré. Les sujets intéressants doivent êtres placés aux 4 croisements des lignes. L'horizon ne doit jamais être mis au milieu, car il couperait l'image en deux. L'idée principale ici est de rendre l'image dynamique.
• Netteté (sharpness) renvoie à la manière dont les mouvements sont représentés dans l'image. Ils peuvent être nets ou flous. Ils ne sont pas mieux l'un que l'autre, cela dépend de l'intention du photographe. L'impression de mouvement dépend des différents objets de l'image. Par exemple, photographier une voiture de course qui apparaît nette par rapport à l'arrière plan ne donne pas une idée de la vitesse. Il faudrait en fait que la voiture soit représentée nette, mais avec un arrière plan flou, créant ainsi le mouvement. D'un autre coté, représenter le saut d'un joueur de basket net avec le reste de l'image flou, en raison de la nature peu habituelle de la photo, lui conférerait de l'intérêt.
• La profondeur de champ (depth of field or DOF) renvoie à la zone de mise au point devant et au delà du sujet principal. La profondeur de champ est choisie en fonction des besoins spécifiques à chaque image. Une profondeur grande ou petite peu améliorer ou dégrader la qualité de l'image. Une faible profondeur de champ peu attirer l'attention sur le sujet principal, en le séparant de son environnement. Le lentilles à petite distance focale (grand angle) ont une grande profondeur de champ, et vice versa, les lentilles à grande distance focale (petite ouverture) ont une petite profondeur de champ.

[edit] Proposition

Si vous pensez avoir trouvé ou créé une image qui puisse être considérée comme parmi les meilleures de Commons, avec une description et une licence appropriée, copiez le nom de l'image dans la boîte ci-dessous (en incluant le préfixe File:), après le texte déjà présent :

Après cela, vous devrez insérez un lien vers la page que vous venez de créer en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list.

[edit] Vote

Vous pouvez utiliser les modèles suivants

• {{Pour}} ( Pour),
• {{Contre}} ( Contre ),

Ainsi que :

• {{Neutre}} ( Neutre),
• {{Comment}} ( Comment),
• {{Info}} ( Info:),
• {{Question}} ( Question: ).

Merci d'inclure quelques mots expliquant pourquoi vous aimez ou pas l'image, surtout si vous votez contre. N'oubliez pas de signer avec ~~~~.

[edit] Règles

[edit] Règles générales

1. Le résultat est donné 15 jours après la proposition (voir le planning en bas de page). Les votes ajoutés le 15^e jour ou après ne sont pas décomptés.
2. Les utilisateurs non-enregistrés peuvent proposer des images, faire des commentaires, mais pas voter.
3. La proposition elle-même ne compte pas comme un vote : il faut l'ajouter explicitement.
4. Le proposant peut retirer une image à tout moment, en écrivant I withdraw my nomination.
5. Souvenez-vous que le but de Wikimedia Commons est une bibliothèque pour tous les projets Wikimedia, y compris des projets futurs ; les images n'ont pas à être utiles uniquement pour Wikipédia.
6. Les images peuvent être retirées de la liste dès le 7^e jour si elles n'ont reçu aucun vote "pour".

[edit] Règles de nomination

L'image candidate devient une image remarquable si elle remplit les conditions suivantes :

1. Une licence appropriée (bien sûr !)
2. Au moins cinq votes "pour".
3. Une majorité de 2/3 de votes "pour"/"contre".
4. Deux versions différentes de la même image ne peuvent pas être nominées en même temps, mais seulement celle avec le plus grand score.

[edit] Contestations

Avec le temps, les critères d'évaluation évoluent, et il peut être décidé qu'une image qui était auparavant assez bonne pour être dans la liste ne peut plus l'être.

Pour qu'une image soit déchue, il faut qu'une majorité de 2/3 avec au moins 5 votes accepte de retirer l'image, autrement elle reste "remarquable". Pour voter, utiliser les modèles {{Keep}} ( Keep : mérite de rester "remarquable") ou {{Delist}} ( Delist : ne mérite plus le label).

Pour contester une image, copiez son nom avec le préfixe dans la boîte ci-dessous à la suite du texte déjà présent :

Vous devriez inclure les informations suivantes :

• Informations sur l'origine de l'image (créateur, importateur).
• Un lien vers le vote d'origine.
• La raison pour laquelle vous contestez le label, avec votre signature.

Insérez ensuite un lien en haut de Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal.

[edit] Sommaire

Contents 1 Procédure 1.1 Conseils avant de proposer une image 1.2 Proposition 1.3 Vote 1.4 Règles 1.4.1 Règles générales 1.4.2 Règles de nomination 1.5 Contestations 2 Sommaire 3 Pour ajouter votre proposition à la liste 4 Propositions en cours 4.1 File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg 4.2 File:Secret Service WMG.jpg 4.3 File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg 4.4 File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg 4.5 File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg 4.6 File:House wren - food drops.ogv 4.7 File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG 4.8 File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg 4.9 File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg 4.10 File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg 4.11 File:CoA Città di Milano.svg 4.12 File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg 4.13 File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPG 4.14 File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPG 4.15 File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPG 4.16 File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPG 4.17 File:A surfer in the air.jpg 4.18 File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG 4.19 File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg 4.20 File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg 4.21 File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg 4.22 File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg 4.23 File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg 4.24 File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg 4.25 File:Blonde Woman.jpg 4.26 File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg 4.27 File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svg, not featured 4.28 File:Map-Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ (Amsterdam, 1685).jpg, not featured 4.29 File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg 4.30 File:Sean Astin 1.jpg 4.31 File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg 4.32 File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG 4.33 File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg 4.34 File:Millesgården 2009.jpg 4.35 File:Laughing Kid.jpg 4.36 File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg 4.37 File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg 4.38 File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpg 4.39 File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg 4.40 File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg 4.41 File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg 4.42 File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg, featured 4.43 File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg 4.43.1 Crop 4.44 File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg, not featured 4.45 File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured 4.45.1 Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side" 5 Contestations en cours 5.1 File:Brombeerlaub.jpg 6 Planning (15e jour après proposition)

[edit] Pour ajouter votre proposition à la liste

Pour ajouter votre proposition à la liste, cliquez ici et ajoutez votre proposition en haut de la liste : {{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:FILENAME}}

[edit] Propositions en cours

[edit] File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg

Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2009 at 15:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Dmitry Kardovsky. «V. I. Lenin in Gorki village, of Pereslavl uezd». 1926. — Created, uploaded and nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC) -- PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Secret Service WMG.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 20:55:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Secret service by William Gillette , 1897. - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Barun (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Wholly undocumented attempt at restoration on this image, broken source link at upload page. Appears to be a good faith attempt, though. Would gladly work with the nominator toward a viable nomination. Durova (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg

Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2009 at 07:34:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Charles Edward Chambers - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Yiddish WWI poster.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: World War I era poster in Yiddish. Translation: "Food will win the war - You came here seeking freedom, now you must help to preserve it - Wheat is needed for the allies - waste nothing".
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Of course. Takabeg (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good restoration work. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Of course. -- JovanCormac 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Buteo magnirostris -Goias -Brazil-8.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 20:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by - Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice hawk, nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I wish that there weren't so many distracting elements in the bottom-left, though. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, Nixón^〃 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOW. Takabeg (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 18:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by William Channing Woodbridge - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Woodbridge isothermal chart.jpg by Jujutacular and Durova -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Historic map of the world that shows Alexander von Humboldt's isothermal lines. Published 1823.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Happy to support the restoration of this map :) Thanks, GerardM (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's fascinating to see that even in 1823, there were "white spots" on the map, and Canada was largely unknown as well. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:House wren - food drops.ogv

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 17:53:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by qmnonic - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Pity for the resolution, but the quality, educativeness and rarity of this free video gets my support! Diti the penguin — 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I intentionally uploaded the lower resolution even as HD is available (because of people with low bandwidth). There is no problem to upload the HD version, you can watch it on Flickr for now. As there are close to no official rules for video now, I just did not know how to behave, whether to do low-res or high-res. --Kozuch (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Low resolution (of course: low to a reasonable scale) is better, because of the bandwith. Remember that you aren't very likely to put an 800px wide video into an article. And even if you insert it as, say, 480px, it won't increase the speed of loading anyway. Wolf (talk) 20:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, so I suppose current 640×360 pixels is not a real low-res for a video. If someone thinks this cant get featured at this resolution, I will upload HD.--Kozuch (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I suspect in the long term we'll want high res, just as we do for photos. It can't be that hard to produce scaled down versions, but it's impossible to scale up. 99of9 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support It's a rare sight that someone dares to nominate anything but a static picture here. Great quality! -- JovanCormac 07:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - High educational value and interesting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I think the first two seconds should be cut from the video. There's nothing happening, really. -- JovanCormac 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Right, its very educational and interesting, but this is commons and not wikipedia. And for videos the same rules should apply as for pictures. The composition is rather boring --Simonizer (talk) 20:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Belgian F-16 Radom.JPG

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 14:06:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Łukasz Golowanow (User:Airwolf) & Maciek Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment If you have the impression that this picture has already been nominated, you're almost right, this one has and now that I think of it, its failure was justified. The one here has a slightly lower resolution, but is definitely less blurry and I really like the diagonal composition (a rarity in aircraft photography) and the shadows which prevent a feeling of flatness. Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolf (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Spider internal anatomy-en.svg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 09:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I cannot speak for the accuracy, but the illustration looks clean, and all text is embedded as SVG text objects, allowing for easy translation of the labels. -- JovanCormac 11:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support just as Jovan said :) --Leafnode✉ 14:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 16:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good job. Takabeg (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 22:09:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Two multiple units hauling the narrow gauge Bernina Express over the alps, at Lago Bianco. The picture was taken more than 2200 meters above sea level.
•  Support -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 13:54:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Oversaturated, also resolution is too low for a landscape shot IMO. -- JovanCormac 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Jovan, this image has the colours and the saturation of the former Kodachrome 25 film. I worked with Kodachrome 25 in the years 1974–2001 and know what I say. Kodachrome 25 has been one of the best films with great sharpness, and I try to bring the Kodachrome 25 feeling into the digitally world. Maybe you worked in the past with other films and likes therefore another feeling with soft colours and saturation, but that is your own window to the world of photography and is ok for your own images. - This image has the resolution 2,602 × 1,645 pixels (4.28029 pixels), that's more than the double of the needed 2 million pixels. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmm, after seeing this Kodachrome picture I'll have to say you're probably right, the saturation seems to be a feature of that specific film, though I would consider that image on the verge to being overexposed as well. Nevertheless, I believe that photography (especially landscape photography) should mirror reality as closely as possible, and I've certainly never seen grass as green as it is in your candidate shot. If I understood you correctly, this is a digital image that you edited to look like it was taken with the Kodachrome film. If that is the case, it should be clearly marked as auch ("retouched" template).
      As for the resolution, this is a matter of personal taste; I myself believe that landscape shots should have at least 6-8 Megapixels unless they are absolutely spectacular. -- JovanCormac 08:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I retract my vote of "Oppose", the color issues have now been corrected AFAIC. Still don't know whether to support, though. The view is rather ordinary. -- JovanCormac 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Actually leaning toward oppose due to the tight crop, but I do have an unhealthy-powerful zeal for giant photostitched landscapes, so I think that's probably influencing my opinion too much. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 14:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Leafnode, what is your problem with my composition? Please see this Featured picture. It has the same composition. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

    And as it could be expected, I don't like the composition of the second photo either. And now why - horizon is in the middle, and as a consequence in this particular shot there's too much of the bottom part - even grass is rather boring. IMO this picture would be better with some cropping. --Leafnode✉ 12:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support, very nice landscape. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, IMO bit boring composition. —kallerna™ 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: I made an update, cropped the Blumenwiese and made the green colour of the grass light. The "Blumenwiese" is an essential part of the high mountain region of Europa and IMO an important part of this image. Therefore I leaved a part of it. I didn't found any word for the "Blumenwiese" in the English language. JovanCormac, Leafnode and Kallerna, I hope, the colour and the composition is now ok. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CoA Città di Milano.svg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 09:13:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Fale - uploaded by Fale - nominated by Fale -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Coat of Arms of Milan city (Italy)
•  Support -- Fale (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support – Molto ben fatto. --Ernie (talk) 10:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose A valued image for sure, but not nearly as spectacular as this recent nomination. -- JovanCormac 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg

Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2009 at 07:21:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Simply amazing.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

Whoops, forgot to denoise first. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have to disagree. Looking at the noise I am quite sure a lot of detail will be lost due to noise reduction. The picture is fine the way it is and noise is just natural. --Ernie (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll let the nomination run it course. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support A lot of educational value in a difficult photo to reproduce. --99of9 (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Like Ernie, I think that denoising would only hurt this picture. -- JovanCormac 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Ultra-rare shot! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 07:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I know it's hyper-rare shot and so on, but the noise is just too much for me. NASA can make better photos (even though this was taken in 2002). —kallerna™ 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Pabellon Mudejar.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 22:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image quality is mediocre, the composition has some problems (I would like to see more space on the right-hand side), and there is a tree blocking part of the subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Put differently: judging from the composition and the portrait orientation, this is a photograph of a building and some trees; but to be a featured picture, it should really just be a photograph of the building itself. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition, cut-off tree.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Un-refined composition. The scene has potential for FP (warm tones, nice building), but this picture left it un-exploited. --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Mbz1 --AngMoKio (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't know what's the object of this picture - trees? Building? Both? Now both of them are presented badly - trees cut, building obscured. --Leafnode✉ 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oliviers Andalousie.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose For me, this lacks the value of a closeup shot (not enough detail) while also lacking the value of a landscape shot (not enough context). Because it falls into the middle ground and does neither of those things well, it's an unexceptional image. There are also distracting elements in the bottom-left of the image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp enough IMO, also lower left corner does not look good IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Notyourbroom --S23678 (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Notyourbroom wrote everything. --Leafnode✉ 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Flags of Europe Andalusia and Spain.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment So if I understand right, these are all flags which apply to the autonomous community of Andalusia, because it is a part of Spain, which is a member nation of the EU. I'll annotate to clarify which flag is which. Is there any special significance to this image beyond its ability to demonstrate the political hierarchy (for lack of a better phrase) of Andalusia? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment A majority of official buildings (administration, town council, etc) and castles in Andalusia have in front of them (or on them) these three flags. These ones are on top of the Alhambra, in Granada. Geoloc :  Done --Gregory Zeier (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment should be de-noised --S23678 (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality problems (looks like a mixture of noise and JPEG artifacts). Good composition, though. -- JovanCormac 06:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose this picture has potential, but apart from the aforementioned quality problems, front-most flag IMO is too dark - maybe other environmental conditions (different hour, other wind) would make it better --Leafnode✉ 15:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Jardines de Murillo 1.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 21:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The palm in foreground, and the tree in background are cut-off, and nothing special IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The palm trees are nice, but foreground elements are distracting. --S23678 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – One thing I often recognize is the yellow cast Nikon Coolpix cameras and digital SLR's produce by default. Just by looking at the image I could tell it was Nikon. --Ernie (talk) 10:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition - highest palm is cut, as well as right side column --Leafnode✉ 15:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A surfer in the air.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 20:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Impressive, and much better post-processing than the other similar nomination. I would still like to see full resolution, if this is a downsample. --S23678 (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support quite a capture. Durova (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral great capture, but I don't like the composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support excepionally! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose strange photo, not in COM:PS. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • It is being used in an article on en.wikipedia - so is in scope.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I find the concept that this image is "out of scope" simply bizarre I'm afraid. This is action photography of a sport. I look forward to seeing the deletion request removing all such images. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose IMO the composition is awkward - the surfer is too close to the right edge of the image.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well captured, but in a FP surf's photo I prefere action --Cesco77 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 19:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Grez - uploaded by Grez - nominated by Grez -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Gregory Zeier (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Decent level of quality, but if it's meant to illustrate the feet and hands (per the image's title), it does a relatively poor job due to the way the monkey is positioned. On the other hand, this is a photograph of a wild creature which is an understandably difficult subject. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 11:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 11:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Tiny resolution, but what a picture! -- JovanCormac 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Well captured dramatic action. --99of9 (talk) 12:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 15:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Could geolocation of the image be provided please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And it could be renamed. —kallerna™ 16:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Don't forget about the {{Geo}} template ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, but it has to be renamed. Wolf (talk) 20:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for the file name and the poor quality of the description page. It would be great to have a species name and a geolocation tag, and why is there essentially an extra license in the "Permission" field? —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: Also, what's happening here? Has the pelican just landed? It is flying away? Is it just flapping while floating in the water? This would also be nice to know on the description page. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ianaré (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 09:18:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Stougard - uploaded by Stougard - nominated by Erin Silversmith -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Silversmith Hewwo 09:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support – Over-sharpened! I doubt I would vote for it if it was in color. --Ernie (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't support desaturated color pictures. Post the color picture instead; if someone wants to see it desaturated, he or she can to so with a single click in Photoshop. But posting desaturated already simply robs the picture of color information without giving anything back in return. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Harsh contrast (left-hand side), confusing composition, bad crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose This one would benefit from colours. Oversharpened. —kallerna™ 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per the several above points. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very ordinary picture IMO, sorry. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poorly desaturated picture, also bad contrast and composition. --Leafnode✉ 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 08:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Jarod Hodge (US Navy) - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like this picure. But the resolution is too low. Takabeg (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment What? It's over 12Mpx! How much larger do you want it to be?! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • And you supported this one, which is one third the size! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes I sopport Spider Nephila clavata 0911.jpg. The resolution of that picture is enough. Bu in this picture the shapes of planes aren't sharp. Takabeg (talk) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Resolution is low or file size? --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Quality is not ideal, however as a whole it is fantastic view. Rare shot -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak SupportMaybe Takabeg is talking about the fact that none of the planes is very focused and there are also a lot of artefacts, especially in the sky.--Silversmith Hewwo 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Suggestive and rare image --Cesco77 (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great picture, but spoilt by overzealous JPEG compression. 1.22 MB for 12 Mpix is simply ridiculous, and it shows. JPEG artifacts are all over the picture. -- JovanCormac 12:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Nice composition, but too much JPEG artifacts and noise IMO. —kallerna™ 15:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is great of course, but the quality is really bad due to the high compression. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great combination --JuergenKlueser (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality issues, per Daniel, especially in the top portion of the sky. Given this was a photo ops, I see no mitigating reasons for the quality not being better. --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose due to the quality related compression. Even at reasonable resolution (screen size) the clouds above Mt Fuji just look wrong with what looks like lots of posterisation. - Peripitus (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose with heavy heart, but I have to oppose because of a poor quality --Leafnode✉ 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. --Lošmi (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support When I saw the thumbnail at first I thought it was fake - impossible! 99of9 (talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2009 at 02:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded, and nominated by User:Notyourbroom. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This is the current valued image of the Cathedral of Learning, a Great Depression-era Late Gothic Revival skyscraper in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
•  Support as nominator. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  NeutralI'm not convinced by the lighting/point of view/time of the day combination. Architectural features are difficult to see, given the angle at which we see them. Right side of the building has less perspective distortion but is in the shadow, and thus dimmer. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)vote striken by MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment There are only perhaps two angles from which a relatively-unobstructed shot may be obtained- remember, this is a skyscraper in an urban environment. Also, when the building is uniformly well-lit, it appears exceptionally bland and "flat." For comparison on these points, see this alternate version. My intention with the submitted shot was (1) to illustrate the structure in a way which would not confound the viewer with other buildings in the frame, as well as (2) to use the angle of lighting to my advantage to reveal the volume and ornamental nuances of the building, rather than leaving it to appear homogeneous and flat. In a sense, I am not attempting to photograph a structure, per se, but an art style or a design philosophy, and I am trying to do so in a way that will not confound the viewer with extraneous details. (Crazypaco, an expert on this structure, articulated a similar analysis in his review of the photograph for valued image.) I hope that this helps to clarify my decisions. —Notyourbroom (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these details and explanations. I agree that the alternate view you provided almost looks like a cardboard cutout of the building itself, whereas this view actually shows the intricate volumes that comprises this tower. Is it one of the best views one can get of this structure? I'm willing to think so. Is it superior to many others we can see on Commons and elsewhere? Once again, I'd think so. Is it thus a featured picture, a valuable picture, or something else ? Well, I don't know... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support per the explanation provided by Notyourbroom --Mbz1 (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Voters may also find it instructive to see more of Crazypaco's assessment and comparison of these two images (stitch 1 and stitch 2) here on my talk page. And for fun, here is what it looks like in typical rainy Pittsburgh weather. ;) —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I really do like the contrasts in the composition : that imposing, grey, and, to some extent, scary architecture presented in such a vivid and empty blue sky, and surprisingly green surroundings (very cartoon-like). Everything fits in place. Bravo. --S23678 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just barely acceptable quality in my view, but the lighting leaves much to be desired. Return just before sunset (or just after sunrise) for a better picture. I'd keep the same composition. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Thank you for the suggestion—I may try that. I believe that sunset would be better than sunrise for this angle (because sunrise would provide almost full front-lighting), but in either case, it is now too late in the year to capture the lawn and trees in a non-dormant state. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Apophysis 3D fractal ball.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Garden Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Garden. 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Request: This is a beautiful artificial image, but would you please elaborate on why it is a valuable addition to Commons? I do not know much about this area. —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell it's the only example of a 3D Apophysis flame (i.e. one made with that program) on this website. Garden. 10:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great educational image since it shows that the concept of a fractal is wider than the Mandelbrot set and Sierpinsky triangle laymen typically associate with the term. -- JovanCormac 07:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Request: None of that theoretical context and detail is present on the image's description page. Would you (or George) mind adding more information to help a layperson such as myself? Maybe a few well-placed wikilinks, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added a few words (in English) highlighting the two fractals shown in the image. The parameters given on the description page didn't work for me, though; therefore, I cannot give detailed information on the projection that links the surface of the sphere and the plane. It looks deceptively like a stereographic projection but I don't think it is, since the tiles are not evenly spaced on the surface of the sphere. -- JovanCormac 07:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice picture. Also i support it as an mathematician, per JovanCormac -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I never knew you were a mathematician as well. Cheers! -- JovanCormac 13:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support For Jovan Cormac. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per others --Cesco77 (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Excellent image. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 22:13:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by unknown - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 3348-19 Huizen aan het water in Coronie, vermo.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: Nineteenth century watercolor of a coastal settlement in Suriname.
•  Support -- Durova (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Garden. 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fine. But I've never been to Coronie. Takabeg (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful. -- JovanCormac 07:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Blonde Woman.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 17:04:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I withdraw my nomination Barun (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

---

. Sorry. I think I made a mistake. I was a bit hasty in selecting the picture. I concentrated more on the person than the picture.

• Info: created by

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edbrambley/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too noise on background and on hairs, jpeg artifacts. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – White balance, ordinary fill flash. Nothing special. --Ernie (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose snapshot, boring composition --Leafnode✉ 18:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:A pond with reflection in Golden Gate Park 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 16:11:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info:everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Leafnode✉ 16:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Please provide a reason for opposing.--Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  Sure. There's no clear subject of this picture. Most of the picture is blurry. Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed (just like the rock in the bottom-right). Sorry, but I don't see any single feature of this picture that could fit in featured picture guidelines. --Leafnode✉ 19:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  "Duck is underexposed, apart from the places, where it's overexposed" Hahaha. It is really funny :), and I cannot agree more, I really mean it . Yet I still like the image because it is all about shadows and light, and the light was really amazing! About the sharpness. Of course the image is not sharp because it is reflection, yet it is a rare reflection because one could see every individulal leaf.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Nice shot. --Moise Nicu (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeBlurry and nothing exceptional. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose agree with Erin. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is reflection. Have you ever seen a sharp reflection? Not all images should be sharp. Some just should be beautiful.--Mbz1 (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is beautiful as it is rather murky. Also, the leaves which aren't reflections are blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I know we have a very different ideas what is and what is not beautiful. So far you have opposed few of my images, and never supported any. The image is as sharp as it gets in such situation. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think a reflection can't be sharp? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the water should be absolutely still in order for the reflection to be sharp, and it is really rare. Please take a look at that image (not mine) [1]. See how sharp the mountain is and the reflection is not so. If you have a sample of the image with a sharp reflection in a natural body of water I'd be interested to see one please. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with on what you focus and the shutter speed you chose. Right now i don't have such a picture at hand but I am sure a google search can give you a lot. Your photo was made with a shutter speed of 1/20, this way the reflection can't get sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That particular reflection was not sharp, wnen I looked at it with my own eyes.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

•  NeutralQuality is good, but chaotic composition for me. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose for some reason the (dirty) water does not seem to be level; the duck's head is just a black blob. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

IMO "dirty" water still is much better than dirty people.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose, as above. --Vprisivko (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cross sections of teeth ru.svg, not featured

Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[edit] File:Map-Novi Belgii Novæque Angliæ (Amsterdam, 1685).jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2009 at 11:33:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Nicolaes Visscher II - uploaded by Moyogo - nominated by Polca -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Polca (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose could do with a restoration to remove stains and some restoration in the top left hand corner. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agreed with the above: this is a good candidate for restoration. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Probably, not quite sure though. JPEG2000 compression sometimes produces a milky artifacting pattern. If someone would like to try their hand at this I'd be glad to give it a look and coach the restoration. Durova (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Family George V of Hanover.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 22:15:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Julius Giere (1807-1880) - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The caption in the bottom margin (see annotation) is faded and illegible. I think it should either be removed or restored. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: Thank you, Notyourbroom, I removed the illegible inscription. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I strike my opposition. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mer30.Takabeg (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sean Astin 1.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Actor Sean Astin (Rudy, Lord of the Rings, The Goonies etc.). Photo created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
•  Support --Dschwen (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's true that we don't have enough good portraits, but the quality is everything but stellar. Even the face isn't entirely in focus, and there is significant image noise in the background. -- JovanCormac 10:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Significant image noise in the background? That's a bit too picky in my opinion. Noise/grain has always been a part of photography and always will be. Even high-end digital cameras produce noise at their lowest ISO/ASA settings. Personally I prefer noise over any smeary NR. Noise reduction always means some detail and color will be lost. Demanding noise-freeness is simply unrealistic. --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral – I like it, but it really is slightly out of focus. Or is it motion blur from shooting at 1/50 sec. when zoomed in to 150mm? --Ernie (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (weakly) I agree that it looks slightly out of focus. Otherwise, it's excellent. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Water droplets (by) (1).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 17:07:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral It's a beautiful image, but I don't like the fact that the lighting is artificial. (Full resolution shows a rectangular light source reflected in the droplets) —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Flash-gun or not. I have to oppose the composition. It simply does not strike me as a featured picture. --Ernie (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Easy target, not the best result. —kallerna™ 15:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Thomas Bresson - Water droplet-6 (by).JPG

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 16:56:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question: Could you please describe what this is exactly? Wolf (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: It's some water droplets on spider web. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Silly me... Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wolf (talk) 22:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose not much stuff in focus. --Dschwen (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Lagoon Nebula (ESO).jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 10:10:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by the ESO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The location of the image in relation to the rest of the galaxy.
•  Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very subjective but, while the quality is gorgeous, the position of the nebula in the frame is not optimal (bottom center), and the nebula's shape is too vague, not "charming" enough --S23678 (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore amazing quality, I like the vague nebula shape --Phyrexian (talk) 13:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 10:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as it is with sunsets, almost every image from space telescope is beautiful. Just two days ago we've featured other skyscape, which I find far more interesting than this one. And just basing on a comparison - I vote no for this image --Leafnode✉ 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, all telescope images like this are beautiful, but all beautiful images, I suppose, can be featured. --Cesco77 (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 18:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Millesgården 2009.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 09:22:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Holger Ellgaard - uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard - nominated by Lidingo -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Lidingo (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Urbourbo (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Hard contrasts (under and overexposure), noise, CA, low details, messy composition (sculptures + tree + clouds all mixed up)... Wished I could FPX... --S23678 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario Too noisy --Phyrexian (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose FPX. —kallerna™ 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per others (noise, lack of sharpness, cluttered composition). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose but cannot be FPXed. It was supported, by an user other than the nominator.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Laughing Kid.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 06:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by http://www.flickr.com/photos/vatobob/ - uploaded by Barun - nominated by Barun -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Barun (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great expression, colour and lighting. My regrets are the big white scarf label, and the fact that you can see the shape of the flash umbrella reflected in his eyes. --99of9 (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question: I have the feeling that this picture got nominated before. Most likely with another filename. Is my mind tricking me or am I wrong? Does someone else has the same feeling? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • See Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Well-clothed baby.jpg. Ayack (talk) 11:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ha, I knew it. Thanks for the link. My brain is better than I thought. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose unfortunatelly the photo has the same problems as 2 years ago. I like the photo but the PS-work on the skin of the baby is really too much. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support JukoFF (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per AngMoKio GerardM (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as per AngMoKio --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Inflatable structure in Bad Schallerbach.jpg

Voting period ends on 26 Nov 2009 at 00:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good. (I hope the license is not a problem here)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very well seen. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral. There are things I like, like the colours and quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. I appreciate the cleverness of the children running towards the castle, but I think the castle isn't made a big enough feature of the picture. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Erin Silversmith. —kallerna™ 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose composition feels very lopsided. —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Ahh, Notyourbroom has hit what I was trying to figure out about this image. Otherwise I liked it. --99of9 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:M-nikita-kolokolna-1.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 15:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC) - nominated by PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Overexposed (I believe) and the buildings detract from the main feature. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per foreground issues stated by Silversmith --S23678 (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as nominator. There is no extra exposition, as a bell-tower is white itself. The foreground roofs help to see the belltower in its historical context — as the monastery was always surrounded by village.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cerkiew w Zabludowie obraz 2.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 11:15:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created and uploaded by Polimerek - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose An interesting image, good quality, but no wow for me, sorry. Would benefit from perspective correction (right side vertical is not vertical). --99of9 (talk) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg

Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2009 at 02:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Julien Bryan - uploaded by Jarekt - nominated by NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Please read the full description of the picture to understand its horific context and historic relevance. --NormanB (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- NormanB (talk) 02:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unfortunately this is too small. Can someone access a high-res scan? --99of9 (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Silversmith Hewwo 10:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yes, it is quite touching. But it's quite small. Chinmay26r (talk) 11:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

{{FPX|Size below 1Mpix --Leafnode✉ 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)}}

• The image was supported by an user other than the nominator. It might be a good idea to read the rules before using the template.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

  My mistake --Leafnode✉ 15:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Size. —kallerna™ 15:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutrale This is one of the best pictures we have, and one of the best I've ever seen, but I can't support it for the size --Phyrexian (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with NormanB. High horific context and historic relevance. Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support From FP guidelines "A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph" --Cesco77 (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Resolution (VI) /Daniel78 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small & low resolution. Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yes it is small, but the artistic and historical value is exceptional.--Korall (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg

Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 23:30:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Patrick Thompson - uploaded by Geo Swan - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment As Jovan said, "...unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused."
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose poor quality, Multichill (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality issues are too important IMO for FP. Unrelated to my oppose, but, as for the propaganda issue (or non-issue), I think it's a little bit simplistic to view this as candid snapshot, made and published in order to present a balanced POV rather than being a subtle but possibly efficient counterweight to the enormous controversies surrounding this detention camp. I am not against featuring shots that can be considered to be propaganda (this one is, IMO), since they can "have a life of their own" and can even be used against their publishers once released, but I don't buy into this "more balanced view of the subject". Sorry Jovan to hit on your citation that may be taken outside it's context (didn't found the source), but since it was used here as an argument, I am just offering the counter-argument. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Hehe . Even the Guantanamo pictures released by the mainstream press were of worse quality than this one mostly. Add to that the fact that this photo, to my knowledge, hasn't even been published in the press before. This picture is so valuable and unique that I am more than willing to overlook almost anything in order to proudly present it as one of our best. -- JovanCormac 07:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose It's originality vs quality decision. I like the idea, but when looking at photo without context I see just blurry, out of focus image. --Justass (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality is not good enough. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Quality is not there but this is not QI and exceptions can be made. I love the DOF effect and the man holding the rosary walking away. --Muhammad (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose nice composition...but the quality is really problematic --AngMoKio (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Composition. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very poor quality. —kallerna™ 15:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Contrario Quality --Phyrexian (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.--Ankara (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Winterthur Stadthaus.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 15:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk)
•  Support One of very few pictures here taken with a shift lens. -- Ikiwaner (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Logical, they cost too much! Good. :) Diti the penguin — 17:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But also, in this age with good panoramic stitching software and panoramic heads, there's little reason to use one for architectural photography IMO, unless you absolutely have to capture the image with a single exposure or you want to use the tilt/shift for creative DOF. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment IMHO, it is overexposed, and thus displays a very harsh contrast. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral The sky is stunning, the building may well appear over-exposed - or it may be that ashen, the foreground is (to me) incomplete. L-Bit (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It's true the generousity of the 19th century is partially lost today. Just on the left there is now an ugly bus station and the garden on the right adjoins a not less ugly footpath. Seee street view or this commons image. --Ikiwaner (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support very nice colours -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant  Oppose. Perspective distortion is rather severe. Durova (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right there is some left over perspective distortion. However just because you have a shift lens or a panoramic software that doesn't mean you have to correct it fully. Nothing looks worse than an over corrected perspective. For my pictures with a natural distortion of 10-15° I will leave about 1.5°. This avoids that not perfectly staight lines are tilted the wrong way round. --Ikiwaner (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support 99of9 (talk) 11:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kjetil_r 11:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Diliff (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Durova. --Karel (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Quality is high, and the use of shift lens is interesting, but the overall feeling I get is a normal picture, not exceptional. Hard light and not very appealing composition in the foreground detracts me from supporting. --S23678 (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose – The 24mm T/S really is exceptionally sharp and at f/13 the usual light fall-off is not too harsh. On the other hand there really are some composition issues in my opinion. I think the wide angle look cries for more depth, but the building is pretty much the only object standing out. --Ernie (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Avala (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Buchenwald-bei-Weimar-am-24-April-1945.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 12:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: Senator Alben W. Barkley of Kentucky, a member of a congressional committee investigating Nazi atrocities, views the evidence at first hand at Buchenwald concentration camp. Weimar, Germany. Source- US Gov. Archives - nominated by Anon.
•  Oppose Mainly the composition. Maybe valued image? --Ernie (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think the composition is great and interesting, but this needs to be restored before I support. -- JovanCormac 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lest we forget L-Bit (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good heavens this deserves to be featured, restored or not. Thank you very much for one of the year's most important nominations. Durova (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose When there are obvious ways to improve the image, it should not be featured yet. --99of9 (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. --Silversmith Hewwo 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Needs restoration. —kallerna™ 15:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore I support it now. If a restored version will uploaded I will support it and we can delist this. --Phyrexian (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Albertus teolog (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I'd prefere a restored version of this important image. --Cesco77 (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Due to prior commitments I am unable to restore this image at this time, but would be glad to coach if some other editor would like to work on it. If interested please email for my Skype ID. Durova (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very important historical image. Can't expect the best quality for a 1945 foto. --Korman (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - What a stunningly moving image. Even with worse quality this would be a great featured picture - Peripitus (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - GerardM (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC) I love the composition, the man has to realise what happened before he can more further .., yes, a higher resolution would be good, but is not essential ... this is not a digital snapshot ...
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Historically precious. It is a valued picture, but it needs restoration for being a featured image. --High Contrast (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kozuch (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:99 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.edit1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

WARNING: Some browsers may have trouble displaying this image at full resolution: This image has an unusually large number of pixels and may either not load properly or cause your browser to freeze. Downsampled versions are available here.

• Info: All by me -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm nominating 2 versions of the image, since I think the larger version (which I prefer by much) may get opposes from 2 reasons : quality problems on the left tried, but can't get rid and shade from the Wayna Picchu, on the right, hence the smaller second version. A third version, getting rid of only the left side, is also available, but I'll bring it up only if necessary. Both images were uploaded at full resolution and do suffer quality problems when viewed at 100% zoom, so they should be viewed with some downsampling. To do so, or if the image is crashing your browser, please view downsampled versions here. Some flare got removed on the left side by cloning as well. These are HDR images taken from the small ruins on top of Wayna Picchu, looking down on the Lost City of the Incas.
•  Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Both versions could use a denoise IMO. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've uploaded denoised versions, and they are shown on the downsampling page. I'll replace them in the nominations if people think they are better versions. Beware as well, on the downsampled version, of trees in the shade that may look like noise. --S23678 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• • •  Support NR version Much better. I was talking about the noise in the sky mostly. -- JovanCormac 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like that you provide "fake downsampled" versions. That's enough to be seen how the image will look if it's downsampled, so there's no need for actual downsampling. --Lošmi (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent quality. --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore I prefer this not cropped version --Phyrexian (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer this version. The visible sun makes it more dramatic/exciting --Simonizer (talk) 07:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crop

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:42:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Support -- S23678 (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --NormanB (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --99of9 (talk) 02:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I like this one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great quality foto of Macchu Picchu. --Korman (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sandsculpting, Frankston, Vic jjron, 21.01.2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Nov 2009 at 08:07:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Jjron - uploaded by Jjron - nominated by Jacopo Werther Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Stunning --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! Excellent -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Beautiful subject, but crop should be wider and resolution higher. -- JovanCormac 12:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Comment-Isnt this a derivative work? Is this pic OK to upload on commons? Cause if it is a have loads of similar pics.--Korall (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think so, of course you can nominate this pic (and others) for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

OR start uploading and see if thay stay? =)--Korall (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This image was taken in Australia which allows freedom of panorama in its copyright law. Other similar images would depend on the local copyright law in the location where the photograph was taken. Durova (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends on if the sculpture is a permanent installation or not. Im not sure I would see a sculpture made out of sand as a permenent installation, because it will fade in much shorter time than something made from a more time-consistant material.--Korall (talk) 15:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps this nomination should be suspended? We actually can't promote if this has licensing issues. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok! I think is just the time to suspend this nomination and nominate this file for deletion. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought we all had a big fight over any potential licensing issues at WP:FPC at some point. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to read the previous deletion debate: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg and: en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Sandsculpting,_Frankston,_Vic_jjron,_21.01.2009.jpg -- Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

How about a sand sculpting exhibition in Portugal where they change the the sculptures once a year? Would those images be OK to upload? Cauase if they are I have some pictures.--Korall (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Jovan, plus, high levels of noise in the sky. --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wonderful ! I like the "mise-en-abime" effect (sculptors in sculpture). Ceridwen (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 23:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Provisionally withdrawing support per licensing issues above. Durova (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Jovan. —kallerna™ 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ocean Beach in San Francisco at sunrise.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2009 at 19:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment I would support if there was not that red thing (is it lens flare, I don't know) on the top of the image. As well, the sky shows some levels of posterization. Are you using your RAWs and converting to JPEG only at the last step, since it's not the first time I see this issue in your nominations, or it's only from post-processing?

I cropped out the red thing. If you add notes to posterization I will try to fix it, but I am not sure where it is.Is it all over the sky or only in a few places? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember how large my previous note was, but that red flare (I'll call it flare, without knowing exactly what it is) is still very visible below the sky/mountain transition on the red side. As for the new crop, from comparing with the previous image, I feel something important is missing in the composition of the image. Rather than being part of the scene as previously, the cliff is becoming more an intrusive element in the picture. For posterizating, I don't consider it a "pass or fail" issue here since it's barely visible, but it could be a point to improve on for future nominations. As for where it is, it's all over the sky. Just more the image from left to right at full zoom to see some Colour banding where we would normally see a nice gradient (and I'm not talking about the clouds themselves). Finally, is this a downsample or a crop? --S23678 (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to fix it once again.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Editing has been well done at some places, but not at other, as per the new notes. The darkening of the sky caused the picture to lost a lot of it's charm as well. Fixing a problem creates other ones, I'll make you stop doing edits, and I'll just abstain from voting. --S23678 (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose. Nothing very distinct. Too dark. --— Erin (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose could be agreat image but the left dark side spoils it --Simonizer (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"The left dark side" could be cut off.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose as Simonizer - probably this scene can't be taken properly from that position. --Leafnode✉ 08:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

[edit] Edit 1 cut off "the left dark side"

•  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Muhammad (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Now the aspect ratio is improper imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice scene. However, either way the beach is cut in half, so I can't vote to feature either composition. --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Between vote to feature and oppose is still a choice not to vote at all :). Both images provide a very good idea how the Ocean Beach looks, but who cares...--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose composition --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination

---

[edit] Contestations en cours

[edit] File:Brombeerlaub.jpg

Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2009 at 15:16:04

• Info: Leaf of an unidentified plant; not a species of Rubus as the filename suggests. Minimal educational value, which is a major requirement for Commons. (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- MPF (talk) 15:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The leaf is from the bushes see photo below --je-str (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planning (15e jour après proposition)

Sun 8 Nov → Mon 23 Nov
Mon 9 Nov → Tue 24 Nov
Tue 10 Nov → Wed 25 Nov
Wed 11 Nov → Thu 26 Nov
Thu 12 Nov → Fri 27 Nov
Fri 13 Nov → Sat 28 Nov
Sat 14 Nov → Sun 29 Nov
Sun 15 Nov → Mon 30 Nov
Mon 16 Nov → Tue 1 Dec
Tue 17 Nov → Wed 2 Dec
Wed 18 Nov → Thu 3 Dec
Thu 19 Nov → Fri 4 Dec
Fri 20 Nov → Sat 5 Dec
Sat 21 Nov → Sun 6 Dec
Sun 22 Nov → Mon 7 Dec
Mon 23 Nov → Tue 8 Dec