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:FEMA - 12695 - Photograph by Barry Markowitz taken on 02-19-2005 in American Samoa.jpg 4.2 File:Interno cattedrale ortodossa Fira, Santorini.JPG 4.3 File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg 4.4 File:Painted Cliffs.jpg 4.5 File:Kremnica (Kremnitz, Körmöcbánya) - Plague Column (part2).JPG 4.6 File:Squirrel Posing at Logan Pass.jpg 4.7 File:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-337.jpg 4.8 File:Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758).jpg 4.9 File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG 4.10 File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif 4.11 File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg 4.12 File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg 4.13 File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg 4.14 File:Torre del homenaje.jpg 4.15 File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg 4.16 File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg 4.17 File:Kardo-lenin-kopia.jpg 4.18 File:Yiddish WWI poster2.jpg 4.19 File:Woodbridge isothermal chart3.jpg 4.20 File:House wren - food drops.ogv 4.21 File:RhB Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg 4.22 File:Julian Alps with Prisojnik and Razor.jpg 4.23 File:CoA Città di Milano.svg 4.24 File:Etna eruption seen from the International Space Station.jpg 4.25 File:A surfer in the air.jpg 4.26 File:Macaca sylvanus feet and hands.JPG 4.27 File:Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg, featured 4.28 File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg, not featured 4.29 File:CVW-5 Apr2007.jpg, featured 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:FEMA - 12695 - Photograph by Barry Markowitz taken on 02-19-2005 in American Samoa.jpg

Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2009 at 12:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Barry Markowitz, FEMA - uploaded by Multichill - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Now, I know not everyone is going to agree with me (hey, what else is new? :P) but I think that this image has the potential, not only to be featured, but to be Picture of the Day, December 25th 2009. Why? Well, in the past, we've only ever had one christmas themed image for POTD, and that was more of celebrations during Christmas than the event itself. So I decided that I'd try and get a festive FP for Commons. For 2 weeks I went looking through the various yuletide categories, examining hundreds of images of lights, decorations, presents, food, people and trees, seeking out the biggest and best for Christmas day. I found many grand and expansive images, but it seemed as if each of them had been specially crafted to look great in thumbnail, but horrible at full size. Onward and upward I pressed, discarding 12Mpx images left and right, determined to bring home the perfect picture. I had tried every search term I could think of, and had almost given up, when at the bottom of the screen, I spotted a tree. Not a large tree, not a tree draped with lights and streamers, in a city square or surrounded by rosy faced children; but a small tree, decked with simple red bows, perched atop an errant boulder, with a somewhat elderly gentleman holding it steady. Having already convinced myself that my search had been fruitless, I nonetheless clicked on the link, idle curiosity and utter exhaustion piling atop one another to see just why this man looked so proud of what was a very small and obviously weathered and threadbare plastic Christmas tree. "What possible reason" thought I, "could someone have for being happy with that scrawny thing?" It was then that I happened to glance at the caption. That tree, that small, weathered tree had been sucked out with the storm surge of en:Cyclone Olaf, a Category 5 cyclone that struck American Samoa in February 2005. Reading the article, I realised that the gentleman in the picture, Ioasa To'o, was from Tau Island, the hardest hit area by the storm. This is a man who quite possibly lost most of his worldly possessions, had certainly seen friends have all they owned ruined, and had his home island devastated. It was then that I realised I had found what I had been searching for. This was what the spirit of Christmas is about. Not gifts, or carols or lights, not even about trees. What this photo says to me is 'hope'. Even amongst disaster, the true spirit of Christmas, embodied in this tiny, unassuming tree, shines through. Just this once, I'm ignoring quality all together. For a picture like this, I wouldn't care if it was 100 pixels by 400 pixels. Wherever you may be, a Merry Christmas to you all. May it be as insightful as mine has been.
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Interno cattedrale ortodossa Fira, Santorini.JPG

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 21:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Zitumassin - uploaded by Zitumassin - nominated by Zitumassin -- Zitumassin (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Zitumassin (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because this image is very small and has much too tight a crop. Some portions are also severely underexposed or overexposed. I encourage you to stick around to learn more from the community here and get a better idea of what images are considered FP material. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

[edit] File:Martian Dust Devil Trails.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA/JPL/University of Arizona - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: This image shows twisting dark trails criss-crossing light coloured terrain on the Martian surface. These trails are now known to be the work of miniature wind vortices known to occur on the red planet.
•  Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fascinating picture, I believe it's almost impossible to detect what it's about w/o reading the description page... My brain couldn't decide what my eyes were staring at: sheer fabric? Human tattooed skin? An eerie impression for sure. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic, nice and ultra-rare -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per George above. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Painted Cliffs.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 12:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support There is some info at http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=1490 about this rock feature. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very pretty. --99of9 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Strong support Excellent --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, nice --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Are those rocks on the foreground really that blue? —kallerna™ 09:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: These are wet stones reflect the blue sky. Look are natural in this case. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
    • There is this edit (File:Painted Cliffs auto wb.jpg). I have no preference but the natural white balance is quite blue when the sun has well and truly set. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I love rocks, and those are beautiful no doubt! Yet, I do not like the composition, and I cannot help it. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kremnica (Kremnitz, Körmöcbánya) - Plague Column (part2).JPG

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 11:53:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral Quality is not exceptionnal (blown reflections in the golden parts, noise...). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Squirrel Posing at Logan Pass.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 07:27:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by AlexAH - uploaded by AlexAH - nominated by AlexAH -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- AlexAH (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Cute squirrel. Unfortunately there is a blue fringe running along the horizon of the background (and the sky is blown). --99of9 (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose sorry - nice squirrel but the sky/background is overexposed. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, 12th AU Summit, 090202-N-0506A-337.jpg

Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2009 at 05:52:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by

U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt - uploaded by Martin H., edited by Grondin - nominated by 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support -- 67.220.5.154 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose I'd love to promote this, but the image noise is hard to ignore. -- JovanCormac 08:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment, I suggest denoising this. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• How would one go about de-noising the image? I really like this one, and want to help get it featured. Really, what I'm asking is what needs to be done to eliminate noise. Thanks. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • There are several tools available for denoising. I have found Neat Image to be quite good (they also have a demo version, which can do close to everything the full version can. -- JovanCormac 17:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Even if this was fixed up, I find the eyes way too scary on the guy in the background. Otherwise I would have supported. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Procyon lotor (Linnaeus 1758).jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 22:23:29 (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) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Really good! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fur is unsharp, also lots of image noise. -- JovanCormac 08:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good subject, but have Low DOF, low details and too noise. --Cesco77 (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)--

[edit] File:Mercedes SL 500 front.JPG

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 15:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by S 400 HYBRID - uploaded by S 400 HYBRID - nominated by 320td -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Very good picture. -- 320td (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support gestochen scharf und wirklich realistisch. außerdem nicht verzerrt wie fast alle Auto-Bilder auf der wiki dazu gehören auch viele bilder von S40 Hybrid oder wie er auch heißt. -- Luft+ (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Belle. Mais pourquoi la voiture parque à l'arrière-plan? Au total cette image est excellente. -- Autofan45 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Jag tycker tycker det ser lite artificiellt ut at censurera nummerplåten, och den avhuggna bilen i bakgrunden är störande. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. That's my picture nominated here. Thanks a lot for it. Thinking that that is my best picture I hope that it will be a featured picture. -- S 400 HYBRID (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Composition: second car in the background distracts. --99of9 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support In my opinion the picture has a sense. In the background we can see the little brother of the SL the SLK. So, I mean this composition is organized very well. For me this picture is also a featured picture because there are not so many good pictures at wiki like this. --Lukas.zz (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment If the second car is also a subject (which sounds fair enough), then I would prefer it was not chopped at the top. --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Weak support. Since so many languages have appeared here... Sama obecność automobilu w tle nie wydaje mi się wadą godną sprzeciwu, jednakowoż fakt, iż wzmiankowany automobil ma ścięty dach, jest z pewnością niejakim minusem rzeczonej fotografii. Wolf (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose this is a solid shot and might be a case for QI. But for FP the composition is too straight forward. And the SLK in the back is distracting. To combine those 2 cars is in general a good idea, but with the cut off roof of the SLK the composition seems random. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment hmm...it smells a bit strange here. Does anyone else smell it? --AngMoKio (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that was my dog. :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  :) ok..now i know one source of the strange smell. But it also smells of socket puppets here. Don't you think? --AngMoKio (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't know anything bout that; but what I can tell you is that my little dog did the most unholy fart just as I was looking at this nomination. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
        • That must be a sign :) He is thinking the way i do. Some pro voters are suspicious. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Normal, good quality image with samo small composition problems. No reason for FP, IHMO. --Karel (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination 320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

---

There is no chance any more for FP -- 320td (talk) 13:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no chance any more? There are 6 pros and 4 opposes... --AngMoKio (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Because in five days the picture has to have at least 2/3 pro's and that is not the case right now. --320td (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Australian Flag Flying animated.gif

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 11:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support as nominator -- 99of9 (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support This is cool. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ce n'est pas assez exclusive. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• Info: As far as I know it is the only animated gif flag on commons that was not computer generated. --99of9 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Oppose Too few frames, could have been much smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And much heavier, and not possible due to the FPS limit on most DSLRs. Diti the penguin — 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how valid a defense that is. My DSLR has a full-fledged video mode, as do many currently on the market. Point-and-shoots have had that sort of capability for more than half a decade, too. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Yours may do, but what about people like me, who buy standard DSLRs from Nikon (D40) or Canon (450D)? This category of DSLRs is the most common, and not every people is willing to buy every new camera that comes to the market. Diti the penguin — 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Whatever the reason is does not make this look any smoother. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I do not know what you mean by "standard" DSLRs; Nikon sells DSLRs at several price points with video recording capability, including the Nikon D5000, Nikon D90, Nikon D300S, and Nikon D3S. I'm not as familiar with Canon's models, but my point is that video recording capability is not unusual at all in modern cameras. It's certainly not restricted to high-end models. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I would think a video would have been much a better medium to illustrate this through; Commons is a repository of video as well as images, after all. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment I chose the format in preference to video because I believe it will be more widely used than a video equivalent. IMO usefullness is easily as important as frames per second. Not all movies can be squashed into 256 colours, but flags are great candidates. 99of9 (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:University Hall Northwestern.jpg

Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2009 at 05:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: University Hall, Northwestern University Author - Madcoverboy - nominated by Anon -- 122.169.82.44 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Crop is terrible. -- JovanCormac 07:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Image is not centred on the building and the crop is poor. Image is tilted more to left side of the building. --Korman (talk) 07:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose crop --Leafnode✉ 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose unusual perspective. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ce n'est pas bien. Pardon. -- Autofan45 (talk) 17:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Photographs of architecture should have their perspective corrected as much as possible, for example to make naturally-parallel lines appear parallel in the image rather than converging railroad-tracks style; many digital tools exist by which to accomplish this. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:US Navy gas mask excerise 021015-N-6996M-589.jpg

Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2009 at 08:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Shane T. McCoy (US Navy) - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: The yellow attachment is a MILES. And yes, I'm aware of the large space on the right, but I think the picture benefits from the off centre composition. Feel free to disagree. :P
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support WOWWWW --Muhammad (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing composition. -- JovanCormac 09:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Enough to get on your POTY list? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • That's what I thought as well, though the mosquito below is also a good candidate. -- JovanCormac 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too noisy 4 me. —kallerna™ 11:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, considering that he's walking around in cloud of smoke, some noise is to be expected... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Regretfull oppose i like military photos, but this really too noised. :( -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I hate image noise, but in this special case I think it actually enhances the image, since it looks like the soldier is walking through dirty, green fog. -- JovanCormac 15:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree about the noise. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support. Noise adds to this image.--Silversmith Hewwo 21:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good composition of a subject that is quite tricky to photograph. Jopparn (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support The look in the eye gets me. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Hey Notyourbroom, long time no see! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Jklamo (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support - Peripitus (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Mosquito Tasmania.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 23:52:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice. -- ZooFari 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support More disgusting than nice. Noting the abdomen swollen with blood. I hope you killed it. ;) Durova (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support like Durova, disgusting but also wow! -- Ra'ike T C 08:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good. - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support One of our better macros. Resolution is acceptable given the high magnification. -- JovanCormac 09:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Disgusting WOW ;-) Great macro! --Cesco77 (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I do get some Dexter-feelings from this one! Very good! Jopparn (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Awesome :o Fale (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Torre del homenaje.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 16:14:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by Qoan - uploaded by Qoan - nominated by Qoan -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- Qoan (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Only a little foreground in shown making orientation less easy. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose No wow ... looks like any other old stone tower. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too much vignetting, and it's very soft in the edges. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose vignetting, composition, perspective --Leafnode✉ 08:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:RSD-10 2009 G1.jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 12:19:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: All by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
• Info: SS-20 Saber a.k.a. RSD-10 Pioneer . Intermediate-range (Europe-range) Soviet ballistic missile with 3 nuclear warheads.
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Theoretically a fine subject, but the composition is relatively poor (distractions, background objects, shade etc.). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Anonymous. Sigmund Freud would love this, though. -- JovanCormac 17:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good resolution, good quality, high EV, and I cannot think how it could have been photographed with a better composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Distracting objects and the nose-cone of an aircraft in the background. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose ack Snowmanradio --AngMoKio (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Umnik (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose Other object in background is too distracting. --Korman (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose distracting background - too deep DoF, could have had more space. --Leafnode✉ 08:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Rub' al Khali (Arabian Empty Quarter) sand dunes imaged by Terra (EOS AM-1).jpg

Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2009 at 06:15:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

• Info: created by NASA/GSFC/METI/ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team - uploaded by Elipongo - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Who knew sand could be so reflective?
•  Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Fantastic view! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great image, I had considered nominating it myself once. Observe that the "water" between the dunes is of course actually air. -- JovanCormac 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jovan, it is not a mirage. One cannot see a mirage looking down like that. Here's a good place to learn about mirages.What we are seeing here is rather an optical illusion I guess.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an air reflection, similar to the phenomenon called a "Highway mirage", which is described in the article Mirage (even though it arguable doesn't fulfill the classical definition of Mirage being = Fata Morgana). -- JovanCormac 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It is no air reflection! There are many little salt lakes between the dunes dry or filled with saltwater. Look a long time to the enlarged image: You can see, the salt lakes are lying in holes between the dunes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be that, it might also be the "Typical pale gravel plains" mentioned in the WP article on the en:Rub' al Khali. I do think I see reflections of clouds there, though. Strange that the NASA page doesn't explain the phenomenon. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a former river delta with brown yardangs between the small arms of the former river. The delta is now oversaltet and contains many little hypersaline lakes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Question: Why didn't you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Don't quite remember. I think I nominated File:Oil platform P-51 (Brazil).jpg instead, and then forgot to nominated the Rub al Khali picture later. In fact, I only remembered when I saw this candidate. -- JovanCormac 08:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Kosiarz-PL 09:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support —kallerna™ 17:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I wish I saw it in real life :) --Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm not sure how you'd get back down though... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Well I meant I wish I were able to see it from above, let's say from ISS :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Lovely as an abstraction, too. Daniel Case (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Wow. Durova (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support 99of9 (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support wow --Jklamo (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[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)
•  Comment "Source: Own work"??? Please supply more detail. -- JovanCormac 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • This photo is my own work. Clarified at the file description.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose it does not look like a photo and the justification or the explanation of the "own work" may explain things but it unreadable to me. GerardM (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry? It's a photo of the picture on the wall, of about 4*2 meters size. The picture is by Kardovsky, published in 1926; the photo is by myself, made in 2009. Where is the mess?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
• Question: . I assume it's in the public domain like this other Kardovsky painting? --Silversmith Hewwo 11:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pre-1917 paintings are not protected in Russia. Thinking about the current law -- Kardovsky died in 1943, thus in 2013 all his works will be in PD. But, as far as I know, Kardovsky's date of death removes his work from the coverage of the current civil law because of the regulations of the Law of Implementing a Civil Codex. That law states that only works of the authors who died after 1943 are under this current 70-years protection.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:34, 28 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)
•  A favore Wow! Thank you! --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 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)
•  A favore Really fascinating... --Phyrexian (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:41, 25 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)
  •  Comment I think the video is not too long and doesn't need to be cut, is less than 30 seconds, and the first two are precious: you can hear the bird and begin to understand what is the subject --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 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)
  • I think you completely miss a point here. There is no language and that means this video is nicely useful accross various projects and languages, that makes it uniques for a Commons (featured) candidate.--Kozuch (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. I don't think you can see anything well enough - the bird is tiny, and we can't even see it feeding the chicks, just going into the box. It's nice, but not quite wow enough. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
•  A favore As Jovan --Phyrexian (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose - As Simonizer, common video not close to FP status. I also have some doubts as whether videos should be evaluated here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunatelly dedicated process for video does not exist yet. --Kozuch (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Silversmith. 99of9 (talk) 21:00, 24 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)
• Info: Das Problem des Bildes ist, dass der Bernina-Express als Hauptsache zur Nebensache wird. Das Bild ist groß genug, dass Du das Nebensächliche entfernen kannst. Vom See darf nur ein schmaler Streifen mit der Spiegelung des Zuges stehen bleiben, und auch vom Himmel kann ziemlich viel entfernt werden. Die Mindestgröße des Bildes (über 2 Millionen Pixel) muss erhalten bleiben. Dann hat der Zug mehr "Bodenhaftung", und das Panoramabild verstärkt die Wirkung des langen Zuges. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Vielen Dank für die gute Rückmeldung, ich werde es mir für nächstes mal merken! (vielleicht sollte ich doch mal einen Kurs besuchen, bei dem man lernt, auf solche Dinge zu achten...) Diese Nomination werde ich jetzt aber nicht mehr ändern, bringt wohl nicht mehr viel. --Kabelleger (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:41, 26 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)
•  Weak Support. I like it - almost perfect. --Silversmith Hewwo 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support--Avala (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Great composition. You want to walk into it. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Nice foto of mother nature. No oversaturation of colors and great composition. --Korman (talk) 07:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support good composition for me and nice landscape --Pudelek (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support nice composition, i like the meadow in the foreground --Jklamo (talk) 02:15, 28 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)
•  Contrario Purtroppo devo concordare con Jovan, ma se puoi continua a creare gli stemmi dei comuni italiani con questo livello di accuratezza, ne abbiamo bisogno su Wikipedia ;-). I have to agree with Jovan, by the way please continue creating CoA with this high graphic level of italian municipalities, we need it on Wikipedia ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Jovan --Jklamo (talk) 02:16, 28 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)
•  A favore Fantastica! Too educational value and rarity to care about quality, that is not so bad... --Phyrexian (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:18, 24 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)
    • There are thousands of the images on Commons that are not used in any project, which most of the time does not mean they are out of the scope. What is out of scope here is the oppose vote of kuiper, who opposed not the image, but me personally. --Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 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)

If it is not an action shot, I do not know what is.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

• • • This is an action shot of surfing. The surfer is on the board and is making a manouvre. Your image isn't bad, but isn't good to illustrate this sport well. --Cesco77 (talk) 12:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying your position! I cannot agree with you. For wxample, please take a look at that image File:Surfer in santa cruz 14.jpg. It is of a a surfer exiting a closeout. So the nominated shot is an action shot, and it is what I observe quite often. Please take a look at one more image File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg--Mbz1 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I understand your position, but wipeout isn't the best moment in this sport to take a picture, for me. The two surf pictures you have upload and featured, are simply perfect (this and this), but this one don't have the same quality IMO --Cesco77 (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support clear sport photo in action -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment. Shows the wave better than the surfer. To me it looks like the individual in the picture is falling of the board, so I think that the wrong moment is captured for a FA. If not, perhaps the surfing manoeuvre could be illustrated better in a video. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he's falling of the board. They all usually do in the end :) It is a normal , and usual part of surfing. We already have few FP images of surfers on the board. It would have been nice to have one out, and btw IMO to show a surfer without the wave is not nearly as interesting. The wave by itself has EV. A surfer provdides a great scale for the wave, which makes EV of the image only higher.BTW what "FA" stands for in your comment above?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case, I think that the image description should say that he is falling off the board. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Info: The image's description is corrected, the situation is explained, now you could take out your oppose vote :)--Mbz1 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I see that the image description has been amended to explain the picture better. I have changed my additions above to a comment, and I might vote again later when I have considered the image again. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

In any case I'd like to thank you for helping me to improve the image's decription :) --Mbz1 (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I don't understand the out of scope comment (above). I found no other pictures on Commons with the surfer in the air that shows the underside of the board clearly. It appears to have high illustrative merit, is probably difficult to repeat, and meets the other criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. Mainly for the composition, but also that most of it is a bit blurry. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose. As above, mainly composition problems. --Karel (talk) 19:16, 25 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)
•  A favore --Phyrexian (talk) 04:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting and unusual look --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)
  • Info: The name is now File:Pelecanus crispus-Nk1046349362-20061210-hd.jpg and the description is Dalmatian Pelican washing. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Path on water Nanjing.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. 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)
  • Question: What's so impossible about it? Rare, certainly, but not impossible. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment Obviously I was wrong. It just wowed me. --99of9 (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose --Distracting and irrelevant background. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Irrelevant background? That's Mount Fuji you're talkin' about. I vote for this picture particularly for that reason, because it reminds me on modern version of Hokusai's series Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji. --Lošmi (talk) 23:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Support per 99of9 --Jklamo (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[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)

 Comment That looks like blackberry to me. Also, this picture was only just nominated for FP, doesn't it kind of render the voting process pointless if people spend time voting to feature a picture only to have it instantly delisted? --Silversmith Hewwo 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, if this is a Rubus leaf, then apparently it is very educational since it seems the current images we have don't give a good enough idea of what the leaves actually look like. --Silversmith Hewwo 07:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Planning (15e jour après proposition)

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
Tue 24 Nov → Wed 9 Dec
Wed 25 Nov → Thu 10 Dec
Thu 26 Nov → Fri 11 Dec
Fri 27 Nov → Sat 12 Dec
Sat 28 Nov → Sun 13 Dec