Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2011

File:Astralium calcar 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 04:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The image is too dark and monotonous. The colors are sleeping. We name this in German: "Dies ist eine graue Maus". The image needs a better contrast and lighter colors. Avoid overexposure by the white color. I tried this in photoshop, it looks great! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment You're right. Some corrections done. Better now? --Llez (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
• Es ist besser. Entferne bitte noch das Rauschen in der rot-orangenen Öffnung von der Muschel rechts oben. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Done --Llez (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting shell with Seashell surface and geometric Helix in five views. Nice large and sharp image in delicate coloration. I like it. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good technical standard. Careful arrangement. Valuable. --Slaunger (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Claus (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportElmA (TalkMy files) 17:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Not so much amazing, in my opinion. All shells look flat. However, well arranged. --sNappyml 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Chedul.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2011 at 21:52:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support An impressive view. Would have preferred it with no people on the way though. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support 100% excellent composition and colors. Some unsharpness, but not very dramatically IMHO --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support nice and interesting view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Obviously lacking sharpness, this would be avoidable if the camera adjustment where chosen well. It is a impressive view but with this implementation it is not featureable. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nice photo, regular quality. Not featurable imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar and Wladyslaw--Miguel Bugallo 01:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but as the others already pointed out not really close to perfect. The debris is too present in important parts of the picture. -- Avda (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Elvis-nixon.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 05:19:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Ollie Atkins - originally uploaded by Ausir - modified by FranksValli & Beao - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support A picture of great historical value and high quality. -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 05:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral High EV, yes, but many technical problems; dark areas too black, some noise and low resolution, besides the fact that I think the crop doesn't work here. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Agree w Paolo Costa, especially concerning the crop. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  CommentThe President and the King. I've read somewhere that this picture shows two of the greatest recording artists of the 20th century. It is because of the 'watergate' scandal in the beginning of the 70's, when it appears that Pdt Nixon recorded secretly all the conversations, even private, in the oval office. I find this funny. But the crop of this picture is not good IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree w Paolo Costa.--Claus (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Liévin - Fosse n° 1 - 1 bis - 1 ter des mines de Liévin, puits n° 1 bis (S).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2011 at 18:54:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comment In fact, this image comes from a big serie which has been taken in black or white because the sky was grey, the rest of the time, I only take photos when the sky is blue. -- JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose Interesting composition and subject. I find the crop at the top too cramped. Not too happy about the BW either. --Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Detailaufnahme Weizenfeld.jpg, not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2011 at 11:01:54

•  Info Random composition, flash light, not featured subject and little resolution (Original nomination)
•  Delist -- Citron (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist mainly due to compositional issues (cropped flowers all round, stalk extending towards the viewer, somewhat random arrangement). --Quartl (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist per nom. -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep it was simply in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist Composition, per Quartl.--Cayambe (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist For me this is nearly a FP, but the flowers cropped at the bottom really spoils the composition. --Xijky (talk) 16:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Delist Tomer T (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Keep I like the colors. -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 18:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


File:Jaszczurka.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 13:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lagon poé.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2011 at 08:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Roman.b
•  Support -- Roman.b (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice composition and colours. But 72 dpi is very small. We need 300 dpi for printing. Please give us the camera-location. Use the Coordinates tool and add the template underneath the information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I could be wrong but I've always believed the DPI figure inside a JPG is merely a hint to a publishing application about what default size to display / arrange on the page. It has nothing to do with image resolution or printing. This 10MP image will print 12 inches wide by 9 inches tall at 300dpi. One could argue that with the heavy noise-reduction in compact cameras that the official 10MP no longer contains that much resolution detail but that is a different issue from DPI. Colin (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I don't like composition. In such case, I'd rather see the whole tree. As a side note, it's tilted to the left. - Benh (talk) 18:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The quality is so-so (strong noise reduction?). It's hard to tell which dark parts are actually dark (lake bed) and which ones (if any) are just cloud shadows. The tree is debatable... I'd say a more complete view of the tree would look better. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the composition and colours. But the camera has applied some heavy noise reduction and/or compression and even if I resize the image down to 5MP there's still insufficient detail for FP IMO. Plus it is tilted too. Colin (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportElmA (TalkMy files) 17:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sydney Ferry Collaroy 1 - Nov 2008.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2011 at 17:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Very good quality but nothing extraordinary justifying FP status. A too tight framing imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose indeed, the background could be so much more interesting. --ELEKHHT 05:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose as Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The light, colors and overall technical quality is excellent as usual for this creator, but the composition is ordinary and the crop too tight. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Iguane terrestre des Galapagos (Conolophus subcristatus).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Meylans - uploaded by Meylans - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 17:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support -- David C. S.
•  Oppose Nice, but the horizon is tilted and the F/4,5 is, perhaps, a poor DOF (the head is out of focus)--Miguel Bugallo 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The head is out of focus and the horizon is leaning. -- Avda (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rather good composition and angle-of-view. Nice that it is taken in the wild. However, as has been noted already, the photo has tilt (correctable), but even if that is done, the focus is way to soft on the head in my opinion for FP. --Slaunger (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Volcán Chimborazo desde Guayaquil, Ecuador.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:35:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Maddingcrowd - uploaded by BetacommandBot - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support -- David C. S.
•  Oppose Unsharp, noisy, tilted. If you wanted to turn this good opportunity into an excellent picture I think you would have needed a better camera. -- Avda (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I have no doubts that seeing this in real life was breathtaking. It is, regrettably, not captured very well in this photo, which has the quality issues mentioned by Avda. --Slaunger (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose La calidad de la imagen no es la mejor David, con pocos pixeles, mucho desenfoque (sobretodo las luces al frente), poco detalle en el volcán, y muy poca iluminación en la mayoría del frontal. Una vista hermosa sin duda al atardecer con colores hermosos, pero esto no se aprecia tanto en la foto y no creo que sea una de las mejores de Commons. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:La Cour du Palais des études de l’École des beaux-arts.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2011 at 17:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Dalbera (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good exposure, sharpness, colours. Maybe somebody don't like the crops on the sides. But I like the image and give the support. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I thought it was going to be a support, but it's very small, and even at that size, quality is soso (I don't think it was necessary to choose f/11.0, ISO800 and 1/500sec). Also tilted. Very nice shot to me otherwise. - Benh (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Photogenic space. --ELEKHHT 22:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Benh. No reason for such a small pic. Also packing boxes stop the image being pristine. Colin (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yep, distracting boxes and non-optimal camera settings, but very nice light and colors. --Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral The lighting is very very good (symmetrical, at the zenit), the other picture shows how the light can make it worse. Colors are very nice, but per the other opposers I'm staying neutral. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose too small for a panorama.--Claus (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Schönau - Mariä Himmelfahrt25.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 09:43:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Comment The image description needs to be expanded: Schönau in the Black Forest; who is represented here?, etc. --Cayambe (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting subject, but not enough to give full reading on my wow-o-meter. Distracting loudspeaker in the background. Moreover, I think the image could benefit from a perspective correction. --Slaunger (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose There's clearly a story here, but what is it? Some context is needed in the image description, or at least some links. The background is unfortunately very distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Plan de Paris vers 1550 color.jpg, delisted not replaced

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2017 at 07:18:26

New file

•  Info New file is far better. See also: Original nomination and Old delist nomination
•  Delist and replace -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC) Delist per Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --Yann (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist and not replace. Both are not original, but a 1980's copy. They suffer of a two strong stitching errors which does not appear on the original of course. Please look at the two escucheons (King of France and Paris), and look carefully !! None can be a FP in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist per Jebulon. Daniel Case (talk) 15:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist per Jebulon.--Peulle (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist per Jebulon. -- Pofka (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist per Jebulon.--Cayambe (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Delist and replace --B dash (talk) 10:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. cart-Talk 08:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


File:St.Felio de Goixols Beach.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2011 at 20:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Vitold Muratov - uploaded by Vitold Muratov - nominated by Vitold Muratov -- 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- 20:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Nice vacation shot. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Oppose No wow for sure --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Request need a GEO tag and a right description too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Location:Spain.Costa Brava beach.Sant Feliu--Vitold Muratov 00.30,28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Please add the details on the file page as it is unlikely anyone will look here for the information in the future. --Slaunger (talk) 11:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose First something positive: I think the light is good. But, have to oppose because: Overall image quality so-so concerning detail level. No clear idea in the composition, and distracting elements, like ugly white plastic tables. Point and shoot character. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Idea is clear: sunny morning impression (like by Oscar-Claude Monet).By the way:the furniture are withdrawn --Vitold Muratov 13.35,28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Better without the white plastic furniture. However, still far too many distracting elements for my taste, like the sign, the base plates for the sun umbrellas and the containers for litter. I do not think you will find equivalent compositional elements in Monets paintings :-) Regrettably not really fixable. Something you could fix though would be the rather strong clockwise tilt (check with horizontal line at the horizon). --Slaunger (talk) 12:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Skyline is correct now, I hope.Thanks. But another items ... "c‘est la vie", indeed!--Vitold Muratov 22.05,28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks for fixing the horizon, but now you have re-introduced the plastic tables... You really like that white plastic, huh. --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Total defurniturisation now (exept wooden box - it goes without saying)--Vitold Muratov 22.55,28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose It only shows how awful a touristic beach can be:full of trash including the trashbins --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
• Vote striked out. User already voted oppose once. --Slaunger (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pale Blue Dot.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 17:41:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Support as this image is the most distant image of the Earth ever recorded, making it a "historical or otherwise unique image". It shows just how small our planet is in space - as it is taken from just outside the Solar System. The low resolution is a inherent in its creation, because of the device (Voyager 1) and the distance - from 6 billion kilometres away the Earth appears as a tiny speck, visible only at low resolution. Also, this picture is actually a blown up version of a much smaller image in which the Earth is essentially invisible, and the graininess results from that increase in size. It appears as NASA created and distributed it - no larger versions are available. It has very high encyclopedic value in illustrating Pale Blue Dot, and significant encyclopedic value as iconic image of the Voyager Program.
From the 'pedia nom. - Benzband (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose We had a nom of this a few months ago. I haven't changed my mind since. I'm not the "modern abstract art" kind of guy. There's a huge technical challenge behind this, but you really have to have the explanation beside to get the whole meaning of it. But otherwise, I only see noise (something I could pretty much mimick by taking a picture in the dark with ISO pushed as far as 12800) - Benh (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Benh. Colin (talk) 19:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose "one" excellent blue pixel, but not that noisy image. It can be perhaps a very VI image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Rules can be broken and all, but I really see this 100% more a valuable image than a featured picture. No composition, colouring, sharpness, quality, there's noise and chromatic mess. I'm sorry but despite its value, I really don't see it as a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Info nearly identical version already declined. --ELEKHHT 03:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• sorry i didn't know about the previous nom. However it seems the picture received much more support back then than it is getting right now. - Benzband (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support I can't believe that this image is opposed purely on technical merit. Of course is noisy and withoud details. The earth is a tiny pixel - that's the point, d'oh. Please read Reflections by Sagan, maybe you'll change your mind. --Lošmi (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think is "purely on technical merit". The image does not work as photography, all the encyclopaedic value (well recognised on Wikipedia) is in the caption, as already explained by Benh. --ELEKHHT 07:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was not your intention, but "that's the point, d'oh" doesn't sound too polite, does it? I know that's the point, but I still don't see it as a FP sorry. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess not, but it's not polite to oppose this image based on sharpness and noise as well :D This image is about feeling you get by how and why it was made, and what it represents. Simple "No wow", would be much more sencere reason for opposing, IMO. I don't think that every image should be judged solely on visuals. What's wrong if you must read a description sometimes? For example, lots of images in this category requires reading the description to get what they represent, this one is featured because of it's historical significance, etc. --Lošmi (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I can understand how you feel about that, but the feelings you talk about, they come only after reading the explanations, and the picture don't add much (if at all) to them. If I show anyone the picture and give no caption on it, I bet no one will feel as you expect. Photo can convey feelings close to or stronger than reality. IMO, this one doesn't compare to how small I feel when I look up and see a clear starry sky. - Benh (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
When I think about featuring or not I think: if I was a random visitor of Commons and wanted to see the best pictures, would I expect this one to be there? Or would it be better placed in a section called "valued images"? That's the reason why I give a lot of weight to the technical part. This picture has its own amazing story, but I just see a lot of disturbing random dots. I remember taking a picture of an incredible starry sky far away from the city, in amazonia some two years ago... that night I stayed up for hours just looking at the sky in meditation. Then I came home, watched and edited the ISO1600 pictures and in the end I remember thinking those pics were just an awful mess. I did not place them among my best pictures despite the value of the moment. The text is awesome, but I don't picture the image in the FP gallery. So that's how I see it. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Agree with the opposers, despite the text of Carl Sagan (whom I admire very much). This image is valuable because of what it represents, not because of what it shows. And what it shows is not featurable imo. It is not like a poor quality photograph (e.g. an old one) depicting an extraordinary or rare event, where the lack of quality is mitigated by the value of the visual message transmitted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong oppose Agree with Paolo Costa and Elekhh.--Claus (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeElmA (TalkMy files) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pink elephant in the sky.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2011 at 18:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support When I saw this, I hadn´t had even a cup of coffee!!! -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The composition is too busy with balloons in various stages and people taking pictures. The lighting on the subject isn't best. I don't see much special here other than a novelty balloon. Colin (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Hmmmm... I thought you had participated on the discussion on the talk page... I would apprecite a more objective critique. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Not totally sure I follow your text but suspect you are thinking that given our prior disagreement that my review might be biased. I can assure you I bear no grudges and very much believe that a FP review should judge the photograph, not the photographer. But, of course, we shall see what other people think of the pic. Colin (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I like that busy and colorful atmosphere. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overall a nice picture, but the bottom crop feels a bit random, with people in the foreground cut half. Also the people looking in different directions on the right side add to the too busy feel. I think a slight crop on the right (woman with child posing) would help, but am not sure about the bottom. --ELEKHHT 03:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Alkazar. Toledo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 09:38:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Vitold Muratov - uploaded by Vitold Muratov - nominated by Vitold Muratov -- 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- 09:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment it is a problem in this nomination the image quality.. too much noisy - blurry for a FPC. Ggia (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment super light, very good composition, but the image quality... :-( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeNoisy and unsharp. Also the tower tops look like some filter went wrong. -- Avda (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeNot your fault, but the fault of your camera. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Borgeby castle in winter.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 09:15:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Vitold Muratov - uploaded by Vitold Muratov - nominated by Vitold Muratov -- 09:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- 09:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it is a nice idea to try and frame the castle the way you have done with the braches/twigs, but I think they obstruct the castle view too much. Also way too much fog. --Slaunger (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bakka kyrkje 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 16:32:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:Golden retriever ruede.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 14:53:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by vorderstrasse - uploaded by vorderstrasse - nominated by vorderstrasse -- Dirk Vorderstraße (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral -- Dirk Vorderstraße (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment sehr schönes Foto. Nur muss das Bild, um überhaupt exzellent werden zu können, mindestens zwei Megapixel groß sein. Vielleicht könntest auch die überbelichteten bzw. aufgefressenen Stellen am Hund reduzieren? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nice picture, but unfortunately the image size does not fall within the Guidelines. —Bruce1eetalk 05:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Nice, but per Bruce1ee, "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information, for example, 1600x1250." Also the head is in the shadow. -- Avda (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Angel Thunder 2011.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 17:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Staff Sgt. ANDY KIN - uploaded and nominated by Morning Sunshine -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not particulary good for a US Gov. photo. Focus too close to the camera. V-wolf (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good, but both rotors are cut and the sharpness is not really where I would expect it. -- Avda (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree fully with V-wolf and Avda. Moreover the light is too harsh and has too abrupt transitions from bright regions to regions of deep shadow. --Slaunger (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportElmA (TalkMy files) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Raspberries macro 1r.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 14:11:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Muffet - uploaded by Raghith - nominated by ahura -- AHURA♠ 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- AHURA♠ 14:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support yum-yum --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too many blurred areas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose...and messy composition. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The green area is disturbing. Otherwise very nice. -- -donald- (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeElmA (TalkMy files) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Thomas Edison2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2011 at 14:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Michel Vuijlsteke - uploaded by Mvuijlst - nominated by ahura -- AHURA♠ 14:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- AHURA♠ 14:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support already featured on en wikipedia, an excellent image of high quality, great EV (one of humanity's most brilliant minds), nice lighting, but the focus is really weird. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very notable subject and also a good portrait with a charismatic expression. However, as minimum for its time I would have expected the face to be fairly sharp, but only the eyes, nose and lips are in focus. --Slaunger (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:A Arnoia. Río Arnoia na desembocadura no río Miño-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 22:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Miguel Bugallo 22:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Very distracting bush right in the middle of the foreground. I do not see anything particularly featurable. What is it I am not seeing, that the nominator sees?? --Slaunger (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose This is a picture of a bush, not of a river. -- Avda (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Just not there... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The bush really stands in the way. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Gizeh Grosse Sphinx BW 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 18:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The position of the pyramid, which is about half hidden behind the head of the sphinx, the lack of contrast in the yellow zones, and the too shady face of the sphinx, are some of the weak points. --sNappyml 19:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Nappis. --Slaunger (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Krefeld, Egelsbergmühle, 2011-08 CN-01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 19:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The mill on the small mountain Egelsberg is the most noted building on the Krefeld district Traar (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Featured picture IMO.--Dr.Haus (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support great composition! -- Royalbroil 03:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportBruce1eetalk 05:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  week support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good work! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 23:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Hängebrücke am Berliner Höhenweg Nr 526, Zillertaler Alpen 5.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 17:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- lovely image --Llorenzi (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose A similar (IMHO better) image is already featured plus the lighting isn't the best. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Agree with Kabelleger. Even worse, it diminishes the impression of the FP by revealing the context :) --ELEKHHT 10:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per the votes above. --Lošmi (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sparrige Schüppling Pholiota squarrosa.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 14:39:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

- Oppose A third of the pic (top left) is just dark bokeh. Also the sharpest objects seem to be some leaves on the right, not the mushrooms. -- Avda (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Aix galericulata (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 00:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Barberini Faun, Glyptothek Munich.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Barberini - uploaded by Vitold Muratov - nominated by Vitold Muratov -- 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- 21:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose good composition but sadly not the complete statue is focused well --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info the picture is made sharper--Vitold Muratov 09:40 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Unsharp + strong pixellisations, and some issues (stitching ?) annotated. I like the composition, and the light is good. I'm afraid the camera not.--Jebulon (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Vocabulaire de l'académie, 1832 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 13:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded & nominated by Coyau -- Coyau (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Coyau (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Interesting to look at and eye-catching with a great mood. I appreciate the worn look of the dictionary and the table on which it is placed. Good topic too. But I find there is not a proper balance in the photo; the crop is too tight at top and left edges, and the shadow on the lower side of the dictionary is too dark, I think a small secondary light source from another direction would be helpful. Then one could alse see the worn pages, which are only vaguely hinted at now. --Slaunger (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment To me (and my Imac screen), the worn page are very visible and nice... But I agree with framing/crop, which is not perfect. It is enough for a very nice QI, nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Holy Trinity Cathedral - Niš.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2011 at 23:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abstain as creator.--MrPanyGoff 08:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Great light, composition, and minimalist idea. No flaws IMO. Featurable.--Jebulon (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lion carved swiss pine 2 rear.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 07:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:LFP - Barcelona vs Mallorca pre-match - Oct 3rd 2010.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- I was caught by the superb composition and was going to support. But then I opened the picture in full size and realized how the ISO 640 affected its sharpness and detail! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I agree that the quality is not perfect, but it is beautiful, it makes sense. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral uh, oh, no, the referee... As German I can't vote unbiased here :-) But seriously, very, very difficult conditions… High ISO: inevitable; wide open aperture: inevitable; short exposure time: inevitable. I don't expect high quality and I see it's the camera's full resolution, but mostly the details are too low, sorry. So I abstain. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per Alves "superb composition"   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm going to feel lonely here, but the composition seems rather fortunate to me (most people shooting from similar place will end up with this). I looks nice for sure... but why is it a little offset to the left ? Quality issues are mitigated by the conditions IMO (but I would have traded more graininess for more details during NR I think). - Benh (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)-
•  Comment I prefer the first version you uploaded without the chroma NR. A slight RHS crop, which makes the distance from the circle to the two sides identical would optimize an already very good composition. Other aspects concerning the quality are mitigatable given the circumstances. Oh, well, I could just have read what benh says above. --Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

•  Info Ok guys, thanks for the feedback: I uploaded a new version, takin' into account your comments. In answer to Benh: I left some space on the right side because referee (quite prominent in yellow) is in there, balancing the composition to that side. Plus, the referee fell perfectly in the intersection between two lines of thirds, which is usually good (e.g.: placing an eye of a subject in that intersection). But now I centered it anyways. The difference in sharpening is considerable: a bit grainier now, but you were right about NR, looks better imo. If you have some time, feel free to re-check it out.
•  Support Latest edit. --Slaunger (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Compo is good, quality is substandard. พ.s. 12:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Overprocessed Cathy Richards (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Paris - Île de la Cité 2011.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 09:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created and uploaded by Starus - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
•  Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I can't see anything particularly special about this map which makes it worthy of FP status. --Claritas (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose One could tell at first sight it's from open street map. Here, colours, fonts don't look very attractive, and I see no benefit from having this svg compared to getting straight to the website (no extra information added by the author it seems). - Benh (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Upernavik cemetery 2007-08-06.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 23:46:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info This nomination is a tribute to Böhringers panoramas. When I saw his latest nomination I was reminded of some old photos from Greenland taken with a compact camera. I recalled one of the photos were out-of-focus, and I had given up stitching it. However, Böhringers photo inspired me to revisit the old photos and try again, this time also with better stitching software than back in 2007, and it turned out better than I had anticipated. The pano is not flawless, it has still a soft area in the foreground to the left of the large cross (see annotation on file page), and the overall image quality is a bit 2007ish. But maybe wow mitigates? --Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain As creator. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral I remember a pano of yours which I voted for despite some flaws because Greenland is not one of these mainstream places. I still face the same dilemma here. It's a tad soft, and one shot was missed on the left (blurry band). The lighting is also very flat and doesn't help guess the shape (volume) of the landscape. But it's a beautiful place with an interesting composition, so I can't oppose. - Benh (talk) 12:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• It is more than four years ago, you did that review, and you remember well!. I agree with your review btw, except for the "very flat light", but opinions differ... --Slaunger (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I did not realize it was so long ago... already. As for the light, I'm sorry to insist, but the peninsula (looks like so) is evenly lit, which is why I mention it's flat, and why we can't tell the volume (or relief). If you like it that way, it's another issue :) - Benh (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• As Groucho Marx once said. Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana. Upernavik is located on a small island 2.5×1 km, see the geocode map on the file page, if you are interested. 1100 inhabitants and 2000 Greenland dogs... --Slaunger (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Such an interesting place to shoot! And still I have the annoying feeling that something is missing at the bottom. Crop too tigh, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I understand. I think I could give it some room below, but at the expense of the sides. I'll look into that tomorrow. I wish I had had better equipment then, and the knowledge I have today. There were so many awesome sights there. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd really love to have this on our gallery! It really is a unique location. This has better lighting than your FP. But I fully agree with Gaspar. Once you upload the new version I might help you with the blurred band: since it is relatively little, I can improve it with some patient cloning, sharpening/blurrying job (in case you are interested). But first fix the crop: this one has a great light and not such a bad resolution for 2007, I think it could be featurable, plus; I love the icebergs: they are so illustrative about how cold the place must be, even in sunny days! --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Paolo, thank you for your kind offer. I am very much interested in getting help with the editing, as it is not an area in which my competences peak the most. This evening, I will upload the full resolution stitch with black areas and all. It gives a better impression of give-and-take possibilities concerning the crop, and what you can clone from. I will also have a look in my file repository for more wide angle single shot photos of the cross the same day. As I recall, I have some on my NAS. Cheers from Denmark. Concerning the whether: At summer time it was my experience that the wheather could be in three states: Dense fog 45%, storm 10%, blue sky with no wind 45%. When in the latter state, the climate felt very mild. When in the latter state you could actually often just wear a T-Shirt, an open wind breaker and jeans. Average high temperature of 8 deg C in July and August, but when sunny and in calm wind it feels warmer. There were days, where the temperature was higher than in Northern Italy in the summer of 2007. The sea temperature is always around 3 deg Celsius independent of the season.--Slaunger (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with comments about the too tight crop at the lower edge. I have uploaded the full, uncropped version from the stitcher, and if other editors feel they can come up with a better crop, or can do some nice cloning to fill in some gaps or repair the soft region, I would be absolutely thrilled. --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• It really is a shame about that empty space in the lower part... that would have definitively improved the already attractive composition. That really is the reason why I tend to take some huge margins now when I take panoramic picture :) - Benh (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I just found another set of photos from the same location taken 1-2 weeks after! I had totally forgotten that back then I also found out I did not cover a field of view, which was large enough. Unfortunately, that set appear to better cover the lower part, but also seems to have huge parallax issues at the big white cross. I will try to work with that, but it will require quite some hours of fiddling and masking work. I'll be back! --Slaunger (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• If it's from similar point of view, and similar lighting, then it should be possible to properly add it into the other set of pictures in the stitching. The missing part shouldn't bring up parallax issue as far as I can see. If parts are still missing, I think you can get a good result by filling with careful cloning. You seem skilled, so let's wait and see the result. - Benh (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination--Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

File:20101009 Arrested refugees immigrants in Fylakio detention center Thrace Evros Greece restored.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 21:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - edited by Slaunger and Ggia - nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Usually, I find B&W photography using film cameras a nonoptimal technique for modern photography. However, this photo from October 2010 using the Kodak Tri-X high speed B&W film (first introduced 1940 and once one of the most popular films for photojournalism) has made a big impression on me ever since I saw it the first time about a year ago on Ggias blog. Ggia has now been so kind to rescan and upload it in very high resolution, and besides Ggias work in a real darkroom and a film scanner, we have toyed a little around with it in the digital darkroom to remove dust spots and such... I think the use of B&W ISO 400 film gives this photo of imprisoned refugees in the Fylakio detention center in Greece a raw look which help highlight the expressions of the refugees. Also I find the high resolution an excellent display of the purpose of film grain. It is the grain which makes the photo - or the signal which is in the noise. I also find the recent documentary topic refreshing, and I think we need more peoples photography on Commons. Hope you like it!
•  Abstain As editor and nominator. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support InverseHypercube 03:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Regards, 11:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Info some information about the detention centers like this one (Fylakio) you can find here EU: Border Agency Exposes Migrants to Abusive Conditions or to this report The EU’s Dirty Hands Frontex Involvement in Ill-Treatment of Migrant Detainees in Greece (go to page 29 for Fylakio detention center) (pdf). Last year was also filmed a small documentary by Norwegian TV about that immigration issue in Greece: "The battle of Attica Square" (in english). At 7:53 you can see scenes from that detention center where the photo comes from. IMO it aesthetically more nice b&w film for documentary photos like these one (I had also with my my Nikon D700 full-frame body but I used my Nikon FM2 film camera for that photo). By the way.. this image [1] is a panoramic image of this detention center shot by my D700 digital camera. You can see the immigrants caged inside this detention center. Ggia (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Well taken image, and the B/W helps focus on the facial expressions which is really the subject. But "Arrested refugees immigrants [...] in detention" sounds a bit confusing. So "Refugees at Fylakio detention center" would be a better filename/description, I think. Also should probably be tagged with Template:Personality rights. --ELEKHHT 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• has been added now by Ggia on this file page and its other versions. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose yes, a simply perhaps valued snapshot, not more for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not politically correct oppose, but per Alchemist-hp. Nice collaborative work nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 18:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• With your French translation of the description, you are part of the collaboration, which is appeciated! Thanks. I do not see an oppose as having anything to do with political correctness or a lack thereof. I trust it reflects the conclusion you have reached after reviewing the photo against the FPC guidelines.--Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice historical picture!Trongphu (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info it is not an historical picture.. it is dated October 2010, but shot by b&w film (Kodak TriX 400ASA). Ggia (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well it looks like one when i just saw it. So guess not. But i can see a potential of historical picture in the near future.Trongphu (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Brodski lenin.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 00:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I know this is not an argument for featuring, but many featured pictures don't meet the size criteria, such as File:Edmund blair leighton accolade.jpg. InverseHypercube 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
For the particular example a user has uploaded a lower resolution version of the file a few months after its promotion in 2007 (should be fixed I guess). The version, which was originally promoted was +3Mpixels.--Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I just restored the originally promoted version. --Slaunger (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportElmA (TalkMy files) 12:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Only 0,813 megapixels--Miguel Bugallo 21:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Too small. --Slaunger (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I created a larger version by stitching together the parts from the website using ImageMagick (I think the previous version was a screenshot). Now it is 9.49 megapixels, closer to the guideline. InverseHypercube 00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Still too small, sorry. (1,200x791 is 0.949 megapixels, not 9.49) —Bruce1eetalk 05:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Leeds Castle - side view.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 15:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Jean-Etienne Minh-Duy Poirrier - uploaded by Morning Sunshine - nominated by Morning Sunshine -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Morning Sunshine (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportBruce1eetalk 05:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Question What about a recrop at the bottom, to get rid of this unfortunate focal point, aka the red stroller ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I proposed a crop of that image.. Per Maurilbert about the bottom. Ggia (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Recropped version would be much better. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree, a crop would be better, but perhaps the bottom edge of the crop should be dropped to just above the people. —Bruce1eetalk 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Done--Morning Sunshine (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support New framing does improve the image in my opinion. FYI, another similar excellent shot by a promising photographer. - Benh (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support per new crop Ggia (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Great, but actually I see more sharpness and natural colours in the image Benh mentioned. -- Avda (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Consider cropping out also the tiny area with foreground leaves in the upper right corner (see annotation). --Slaunger (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Lotus flower from the Mekong Delta, Vietnam.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2011 at 10:40:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Dennis Jarvis (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
•  Support --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Royalbroil 03:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportBruce1eetalk 05:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but I have to oppose: EV is high but it looks oversaturated, the crop is tight on the sides, making the composition weird, exposure is low, there's a petal covering the center of the flower which I wanted to see in detail, image size is higher than 10 Mb but it looks overprocessed instead of detailed. Many problems; better pictures of flowers have been uploaded imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Paolo Costa, and noise--Miguel Bugallo 21:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Paolo Costa. And really very noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful to me!Trongphu (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy background --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:2011.10.frankfurter zoo 077.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 10:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Twin Pyrite HC1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 09:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Holger Casselmann - uploaded by Holger Casselmann - nominated by Holger Casselmann -- Holger Casselmann (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral as creator -- Holger Casselmann (talk) 09:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Maybe a noise reduction of the grey background would be a good idea? Not that it is terrible as it is. It just could be better. --Slaunger (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, but it's rather noisy given the size, and I don't think spot lighting, with that reflection and shadow, is appropriate here. Also, maybe DOF is a bit short, and maybe we see too much one face and not enough the others. I suggest reshooting with tripod and better lighting scheme - Benh (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The specimen could be cleaned. it is not a twinning of the dodecahedron, but the pyritoedron. The lighting is bad, the depth of field is too short. There is no scale or dimension in the caption. We do not know the origin of the specimen. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination For those who like minerals, it might be a suitable picture. It is a twin crystal which is called "Eisernes Kreuz". I made the "cross" visible by selecting spotlight + angle to get a specific reflection. The specimen cannot be "cleaned". More info in the file of the picture. --Holger Casselmann (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

File:20101227 USA embassy graffiti Tehran Iran.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2011 at 22:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- A similar image from the former-USA embassy in Tehran was nominated here [2]. Looking to the comments in the previous nomination.. I don't think nominating this image means that we (or me as a nominator) support any kind of anti-american propaganda. BTW I love also the other image with the antisemitic/anti-american message.. both have very high EV for an article like Iran hostage crisis. Recently (a few days ago) some protests.. that remind me the iran hostage crisis.. took place in front of the British embassy in Tehran [3]. [4] Ggia (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Highly valuable, and very good image quality. The lady in chador sets the scene nicely concerning the location. But the light is dull, and the composition as such is not that attractive in my opinion (I think the previous nom had more wow, although it does not set the scene as nicely as this nomination). I think the photo could be a good candidate as a valued image within a scope such as Grafitti at USA embassy in Tehran (in competition with previous nom and other candidates) as the grafitti at this particular location seems to be notable. I agree with you that nominating (or perhaps promoting) such an image is not equivalent with supporting anti-american propaganda. It is merely an educational and informative photo of a particular place where a particular POV is expressed. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Changed my mind, per Colin. --Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support As a photograph I think this is very good. I agree the light is dull and I'd be tempted to clone out the distracting bottom left corner of the pavement. But the diagonal lines are effective in leading the eye towards the woman, as does the image of the gun. As an image it is very powerful: an American gun pointing towards an Arab civilian. I can see it would be a useful image that illustrates some peoples' feelings towards the US. However that image is an artefact of the composition and not contained within the graffiti itself. It illustrates an emotion rather than captures a physical object. I was concerned this could be considered political art (rather than a photograph of notable political art, which would be ok) but think it has useful educational illustrative value. Colin (talk) 09:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Colin, you are right about the composition. I do not know if it was a deliberate effect from Ggias side, but it is quite "smart" element in the composition. Modified my vote above. --Slaunger (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose dull light, to grey. VI yes, FP: no for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment @Colin: please notice that Iranians are not "Arabs" at all...--Jebulon (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC) @Slaunger: maybe the persian word chador could be more appropriated than the pachto one burqa, for the description of the cloth of the lady. I know I'm maybe nitpicking, but I think it is important to be precise in this (sensitive) matter. As we say in french: "Le Diable réside dans les détails"...--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info in Iran the women usually (I am not sure to tell never) don't wear burqa. Look to my blog these 3 images to understand how the dressing look like [5]. Traveling to Iran for 20 days I didn't see a woman with covered face. A lot of young iranian women have half of the head uncovered. May-be this stereotype is from your experience with Turkey or Syria or arab countries, where you can find women with burga.. it is not the same in Iran. The problem is that in this image you get a stereotype that women in Iran are like Afganistan or like Arab countries (where burga exists and lot of women wear it). Ggia (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment @Jebulon and @Ggia: Thank you for educating me. I must admit, that I am not very knowledgeable about the different clothings worn in these countries. I have corrected my decription. As a pedantic I appreciate to be corrected when I state something, which is factually not correct. I am familiar with "The Devil is in the Detail". We have that saying as well, and I agree. --Slaunger (talk) 14:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Apologies if my ignorance caused any offence. You learn something every day. Colin (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh yes you are right, and thanks to "Commons" for that ! Sorry if you feel me a bit pedant.--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info sorry for answering late.. yes.. it is a mural.. this word describes better the drawing rather the graffiti! Ggia (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:2 Aguilas del Zulia vs Leones del Caracas 21-12-2011.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 13:18:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- The Photographer (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Good action shot with good timing. I think the intensity and concentration in the scene is expressed quite well. The mulitcolored background is quite ugly, unfortunately, and the colors appear oversaturated. The attempted noise reduction does not appear very succesfull, probably because some color "knobs" have been turned too much in the digital darkroom. --Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Epale pana!! En primer lugar un cordial saludo de mi parte y mi agradecimiento por ser uno de los usuarios que màs fotos de Venezuela ha subido, como voluntariado, cosa que no es fácil de encontrar. En cuanto a la foto, recuerda que por aquí son sumamente rígidos, tecnicamente hablando. Si quieres saber mi humilde opinión, la reducción de ruido de la imagen está demasiado forzada, bastante pues. No se que software usas porque no aparece en la metadata, sin embargo te recomiendo fuertemente el Lightroom, además te servirá para remover fácilmente esas molestas aberraciones cromáticas que puedes notar donde por ejemplo dice "camisas ROW". Aquí se requieren trabajos casi perfectos: tampoco te votarán positivo si la luz es escasa o si hay desenfoques mínimos o si por ejemplo la composición es mala o el fondo distrae, como ocurre en este caso. Sin embargo no dejes de subir candidatos de Venezuela, mientras más tengamos en la galería mejor, ya que no hay material actualmente. Saludos y un abrazo desde Caracas. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Dromedaris met de Bocht.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 13:05:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Suyari - uploaded by Suyari - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -I like the evening light with snow and water alltogether. - Basvb (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree the golden winter light and atmosphere is very good. Also good composition. But I am afraid that the technical quality of the photo is not good enough. Somewhat noisy, but worst of all too soft focus for the more distant elements to the far left. The f/3.5 explains the too shallow DOF. The 1/1250 s exposure time could easily have been longer and then a smaller aperture could have been used. --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lörrach - Villa Aichele5.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 10:07:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The yellow colors and the light on the tree to the right looks awesome in preview size, but rather dissapointing quality at higher resolution. Moreover, I do not understand the idea with the composition. Is it to show autumn colors of leaves (see, e.g., this FP of autumn leaves) or the building hidden behind vegetation (in which case the vegetation is distracting) - or is it the complete scenary? For me none of these ideas work very well. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mycena inclinata, Clustered Bonnet, UK.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 14:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Stu Phillips - uploaded by Stu Phillips - nominated by Stu Phillips -- Str Photo 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain As author-- Str Photo 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I love the specimen (I know nothing about mushrooms, but it looks nice) and the lighting. Maybe it wasn't necessary to stop down so much (f/22) but maybe author can justify ?. - Benh (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very stunning and great EV.--Paolo Costa (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 05:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - nice - Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks everyone. In answer to question, I used F22 to get as much DoF as possible, but maybe F18 would have been better. I think mushrooms on right are slightly further away. --Str Photo 15:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice Macro.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Miguel Bugallo 00:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Aperture leaves the sharpness lacking a bit, but there is plenty of detail and it is a really nice picture. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks to all for your votes and aperture advice. I hope to get a new lens soon also.Stu Phillips--Str Photo 21:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:St Spyridon's 002.2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 10:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Sardaka - uploaded by Sardaka - nominated by Sardaka -- Sardaka (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sardaka (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The moon shining thorugh the sky looks good in thumbnail, but low quality at higher resolution: Posterized sky, harsh spotlight illumination, weird looking towers (overprocessed/out-of focus?) and uninteresting composition, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Pope palace Avignon by Rosier.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Jean-Marc ROSIER - uploaded by Ampon - nominated by Sinuhe20 -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose The image resolution is by far below the acceptance limit. Otherwise great photo. Is no version in higher resolution available? --Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image resolution is significantly below the 2 Mpixel guideline. --Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Adi Holzer Werksverzeichnis 835 Abrahams Opfer.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 00:50:19 (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) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice to see more recent artwork nominated. Good image quality. Good composition. My immediate impression was "Not my style", but I have been looking at it for some time now, and I am beginning to appreciate its qualities and the notable topic (the sacrifice of Isaac), which it is depicting very dramatically. I did not know this artist, but found it interesting to read about him (I found out he spends half of his time in Denmark, but that is not why I am supporting ). The style gave me associations to Guernica by Picasso, albeit that painting has an entirely different topic. --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support-- Marie-Claire (talk) 11:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice art work!Trongphu (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - good quality reproduction, and a relatively unrepresented topic. --Claritas (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Caparica December 2011-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:11:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info Surfer at the beach of Costa da Caparica, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The "wall" of white caps in the back looks impressive, and in front it looks like the water is boiling. I like that part of it. The surfer stands out well, but he also appears "static" in the photo if you understand what I mean? As if the timing of the shot could have been better regarding the surfer, but probably not regarding the sea... Hmm... Can't make up my mind. --Slaunger (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Very nice, low-noise, but the lighting is not very good, nor the focus. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colours and good composition, but the face and the hand are too dark. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support As Paolo Costa--Miguel Bugallo 00:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Sphinx of Giza 9049.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2011 at 02:14:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded, nominated by Alchemist-hp
•  Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Ach, du warst zwei Wochen nach mir dort (und kramst jetzt mitten in der Nacht im Archiv)?. Das Bild scheint mir blaustichig zu sein, ansonsten pro. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Done color correction. Ansonsten: den Spaß musste ich mir doch einfach geben ;-) Viele Grüße, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Die 5DMII mal wieder. Schön zu sehen, dass es auch andere Perspektiven gibt, die feature-worthy sind. Regards, 10:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose good image quality, but that`s all, can´t see s.th. excellent here, sadly the eyes of the sphinx are in shadow, also the shadow edge at bottom left is disturbing --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Excellent technical quality, but I have to agree with Wladyslaw regarding the non-optimal light, and the shadows on the head of the sphinx, see, e.g., File:Great Sphinx of Giza - 20080716a.jpg for better lightning (but with other quality issues) from nearly the same position. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposePer Waldyslaw and Slaunger. This image is QI candidate, and I put it in "Consensual review" because of the shadowed edge I find disturbing...--Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposePer others--Miguel Bugallo 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Trafaria December 2011-1a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2011 at 21:10:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info View to Lisbon, across the River Tagus, from the village of Trafaria. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Marie-Claire (talk) 11:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose too much green, sorry ;) lighting is a bit dull, and I don't find the composition very eye catching (the boats barely break the monotony imo). Some unavoidable stitching errors as well (unavoidable because the boats probably weren't still) - Benh (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Some small stitching errors in the breaking wavelets and sea were corrected, sorry. But I saw none in the boats. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I noted the two stitching errors I spotted. Yes they are minor ;) - Benh (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - very attractive. Stitching errors are insignificant. --Claritas (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Květná zahrada - galerie.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 15:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but, really not sharp overall. When I looked at metadata I found out why; f/3.8 on a view with such depth is a killer I think. People look blurred. The lighting is dull too and I would have preferred a not so centered composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the centered composition for this particular subject. However, I agree with Paolo concerning the dull light and shallow depth caused by the f/3.8. --Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Grand bassin octogonal Jardin des Tuileries 003.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 02:22:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Moonik - uploaded by Moonik - nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Moonik (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very nice late afternoon/evening mood and light. Quality is quite good and I like the scene with the people sitting with their back to the photo. The composition is quite good, but not outstanding. I added an approximate NW heading to the geocode. Maybe the position itself could be refined as I get a marker right in the middle of the octagonal basin, I guess it is at the South-Eastern edge of the basin? A pity the editing software has removed the camera data in the EXIF. --Slaunger (talk) 15:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• I changed your vote template to {{Support|Weak support}} since the FPC bot does not recognise the {{Weak support}} template. (Nomatter how weak or strong you express your support, it counts as +1 in the vote counting). --Slaunger (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice lighting and atmosphere, very detailed image. --Cayambe (talk) 09:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry no, it does not work for me. I dislike the composition, something more centered and symmetrical would have been better for my taste. At the right, on the ground, there is something distracting, and the feet of the right chair are cropped unfortunately. At the left, the cut off fountain is disturbing too. The light is a nice evening light however. But I think it looks a bit random. I admit the major part of my oppose is due to subjective feelings.--Jebulon (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Well summarized by Jebulon --Norbert Nagel 17:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - I really like the composition and the mood of this photograph. Technical quality is acceptable. --Claritas (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Malta Mdina BW 2011-10-05 13-02-11 1.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 13:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Good composition and light. A pity with the presence of the (I guess unavoidable) cars and (I guess unavoidable) tourists. --Slaunger (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- Good lighting and good enough image quality. But the cars kill it in my opinion. Maybe it would result better if taken from a little further away. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• "Further away" was not possible, I was already sitting at the wall of a building. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good picture, but chromatic aberrations and problem with focus Cathy Richards (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Albi Palais de la Berbie.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 14:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by frozenn - uploaded by frozenn - nominated by frozenn -- Frozenn (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info The former bishop's palace (13th) is now the Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec Museum, famous french painter born in Albi. View from the garden. -- Frozenn (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question Is it downsampled? Canon model? --Slaunger (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• That's an assembling of several photos : 24mm on a 5D isn't enough wide angle to embrace all the scene, especially the garden. Then, the final image was cropped in order to optimize the resolution and the format. -- Frozenn (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, 5D and a stitch of several photos crammed down to 3 Mpixels. Uploading a significantly higher resolution version would be cool and preferred, as we are loosing a lot of information with the current resolution. I recommend to use the {{Panorama}} template on the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• The file is now updated in its largest resolution. -- Frozenn (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thank you, that was much more informative. The image quality is very good, with a high detail level and very little noise. I found a weird looking soft area (see annotation). Is it some artifact from the stitching process? It would be nice if you added some info about the number of photos used in the stitch and the tool(s) used in the process on the file page. Adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, it is. The slight blur of this area is due to the stiching process. It is why I had first uploaded a downsized file, more usable, where this defect was not visible. -- Frozenn (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Ah, but isn't it just because you have some bad control points/misalignment between two images? It should be easy to fix in a restitch. It does not appear to be a parallax problem which would have been harder to fix. --Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice setting - Basvb (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Je retire ma candidature - Without any vote in one week, it seems that the interest of this photo or its composition isn't enough attractive. Thank you for those who supported this image! -- Frozenn (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Henry V.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 20:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by unknown artist - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Claritas (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question It seems a little dark. Is the original so dark (I guess it could be considering its age)? --Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Request the image need a histogram equalization and a small perspective correction. Until then  Oppose --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support This is the update with colour changes and perspective correction by Claritas 22:37, 3 December 2011. The colours are ok, the image is very nice. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alt

•  support Alt --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Much better. --Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - I feel that, while an improvement on my original upload, this is not an accurate reflection of the colours - it looks slightly too bright. I've retouched the image myself and re-uploaded as File:Henry V.jpeg. --Claritas (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- on second thoughts, the alt. is simply a more attractive image. --Claritas (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Per Claritas --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Leaves in the forest after the rain.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2011 at 21:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Aesthetically pleasing, good colors, artsy, but I think the educational/informational value is rather limited. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Better try a nomination as QI --Norbert Nagel 17:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Calidris ruficollis - Marion Bay.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 00:39:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison -- JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--201.208.169.81 06:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• You need to log in to vote. --Slaunger (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very good technical quality, crisp and clear. Rather good light. High EV and good for a taxobox image. However, the composition is rather uninteresting in my opinion, thus my neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cute animal!Trongphu (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice portrait! SteveStrummer (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support High EV, well executed, good lighting. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 05:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Indeed good for a taxobox, but uninspiring compo for FP. EV has never been that relevant on commons FP, though it is a nice bonus. พ.s. 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Miguel Bugallo 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 02:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral as creator. -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportBruce1eetalk 13:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Wow such a beautiful landscape.Trongphu (talk) 19:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice crepuscular rays, there's noise in the bottom part. I believe it's artifact from exposures blending (or other tricks involving playing with curves) as the colours don't look very natural. The car trace is a real mood killer. And it's tilted. - Benh (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Lošmi (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose 2 much foreground, agree on the disturbing tracks   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 14:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - excellent sunset. I find the car tracks a positive addition to the landscape. --Claritas (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Because of the two annoteted issues.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
@Jebulon: take a look to the tree on the left side: it is vertical. The landscape has an uneven horizon in that area! The "small overexposed" area in the clouds: that shot is a shot against the sun! Think about it again. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
• OK, not tilted. But the clouds... even taken against the sun (obviously !). Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support It is true that there is a little bit too much foreground, but the proposed crop removes too much there. Seen that both pictures are a great work, I support this nomination. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC) I'd guess that the best cropping line originates where the vegetation ends on the bottom right side-

Alt: other cut with even horizon

•  Oppose per my above comment (except for the tilt issue). - Benh (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose On the contrary, the car trace gives a good mood to me. --Lošmi (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena
The chosen alternative is: File:Crepuscular rays at Sunset near Waterberg Plateau.jpg

File:Srinagar pano.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 17:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Katarighe - uploaded by KennyOMG - nominated by Katarighe -- Katarighe (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Katarighe (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment It is a pity that the forest regions in the foreground are so much darker than the rest. But the panorama is very detailed, has great visibility and deep depth of field, and is from an interesting place. --Slaunger (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, the forest is in the shadow, but this is a very interesting image from the town Srinagar with the houseboats. This image has high educational value: in the 18th and 19th century got no foreigner the permission to purchase a site for an building. Each foreigner lived therefore in a houseboat. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Yann (talk) 12:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  support Deserves FP status. It's useful, there'slovely light, position of camera is good, colors are nice, as the composition. I saw no major flaws, and it has SO many descriptions in its page. It is geotagged and there's wow. I would've liked it a bit more detailed, but quality is ok with me. What really is not so good is the darkness of the left side, which should be corrected a bit, and even more the "fisheye" distortion, which is usually corrected for FP status. I'll change to full support as soon as this issues are solved. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Torre de Sant Joan (Amposta) - 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 12:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Manel Pons - uploaded by Joancreus - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - A picture with a wonderfull foggy mood and a fisherman to finish it all. - Basvb (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose There are too many useless pixels, if you know what I mean. The main subject is very far away amidst some blown parts, and in the mist. This is very artistic and beautiful, but not a FP in my opinion. I would've also cloned the fisherman out, and there's some orange garbage among the rocks too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Small details like orange garbage and a fisherman are things that make a picture interesting! Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• I kno I kno, I said "I would've", it's not mandatory to remove them, it was just my opinion, since it's a pretty easy clone job. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the simple composition, which is interesting. I do not think anything should be cloned out, especially not the fisherman. Artsy, but in my opinion of limited educational and informational value. The green colors looks oversaturated to me, and too much fog for my taste. --Slaunger (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- A question of artistic taste, I would say... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support superb --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support I like the mood and the composition (including fisherman). The orange/garbage disturbs me though, might be better cloned out. --ELEKHHT 04:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Odle di Funes2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 12:27:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain As editor and nominator. -- Llorenzi (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info This is a nice image, but it is not perfect. Please make an update with 300 dpi, noise reduction, without vignetting in the corners, without the white lines over the mountains and without the blue and white sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. Each image in wikimedia commons needs 300 dpi for printing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Michael, where is this 300 dpi requirement? My understanding is that the the DPI field in a JPG is irrelevant. Colin (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand the 300 dpi thing either. The overall resolution is OK. --Slaunger (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I eliminate the white sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. For the rest I dont know how to do it (i.e. 300 dpi and white lines)--Llorenzi (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Request Please geocode.--Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment My immediate impression is that I do not understand what the informational or educational value is in this photo? I see two mountain peaks sticking out over clouds. Is it taken at very high altitude from the top of a very special mountain? The file description in Italian list some location names, but some links there would have been helpful.... --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info I made an update with noise reduction and without vignetting in the corners, without the white lines over the mountains and without the sun-reflexions on the Sass Rigais. I left the 72 dpi. Maybe there is no 300 dpi requirement. The overall resolution is OK like Colin and Slaunger said. I added Category:Fog in Italy. llorenzi, You can replace your version, if you want. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral For now, until geotag is added. - Per ora. Beh, a me piace abbastanza! Ed é anche illustrativa. Solo che non posso vedere dov'é il posto perché ci manca la "geotag". Cioé le coordinate del posto da cui é stata scattata la foto. Cambieró il mio voto a positivo se verranno aggiunte le coordinate nella descrizione (Vedi qualche foto mia ad esempio, quella dei caraibi, per capire come fare la geotag). Le coordinate le puoi trovare mediante google maps in internet. Saluti, --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I added geocode from the place where I took the foto. @ Michael, what you mean "You can replace your version"? --Llorenzi (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Llorenzi, in case my update is not better than your update be free to install your own update again. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I think you made a great job. Thanks again.--Llorenzi (talk) 10:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Paolo Costa (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose that's a lot of cloud/mist or whatever and in the end, there's not much to see here. I may have been great to be there, but I don't like too abstract pic. Personal taste oppose. - Benh (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support-- Looking mystery and show the beauty of natural to me. No reason to oppose.Trongphu (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose, too blurry--Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Fundort Luftmine 04 Koblenz 2011.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 11:45:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info nominated by Wikieditoroftoday -- Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Spurzem (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose All is very random. Composition is messy. People are showing their back, the bomb is partially covered by a man. Now, as for the technical part, cyan/red CA's are very strong, and noise is quite high, making the whole image look unfocused. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Fairly valuable image of an interesting topic, but many problems with the composition and technical quality. I had the same observations as Paolo above, when I scrutinized the photo. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Noisy, unsharp and chromatic aberrations Cathy Richards (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Where do you see “chromatic aberrations”? -- Spurzem (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose As noted, it's a good encyclopedic picture, but I don't see anything aesthetically that would make it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support try to bring your photo equipment in the near of an sharp blockbuster bomb and you will see why this is a featured picture ;) --Slick (talk) 14:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Image:Barco atravesando el Canal Beagle.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 05:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Banfield - uploaded by Banfield - nominated by Banfield -- Banfield - Amenazas aquí 05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Banfield - Amenazas aquí 05:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I like the scene but not so much the central composition for the, probably, moving boat. I would have liked if there was more space on the right side than there was on the left. Maybe the use of thirds would be useful in this kind of picture when it comes to composition. Then maybe the horizon would be positioned at the lower third of picture and the ship at the 1/3 from the left. Another problem might be the gray light which is why I'm not sure if the picture can stand out among the other FPs. I think I'm also seeing some chromatic noise which is a kind of a quality issue. --Ximonic (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose (edit conflict) Beagle channel is as far as I know one of the few straits/passages around the southern tip of South America near the border to Chile from Argentina. Not so easy to navigate through and narrow in some places. I do not understand exactly what the idea is with this photo? If it is to illustrate the channel it would have been more interesting at a narrow stretch, if it was geocoded it would be easier to understand exactly where we are. If it is the boat, which is the subject, it is way to distant and fills a too small fraction of the image area. Moreover, the frontal sunlight and haze to the background mountains is rather unfortunate. The centered position of the boat in the photo also makes it uninteresting to look at from a compositional point of view. The place in itself is interesting though, and I think it would be nice to have some photos from this area in our FP gallery. Just not this one, sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

File:La Compañía, Quito - 5.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:17:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Maros - uploaded by Maros - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S.
•  Strong support -- David C. S. 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Several small overexposed areas, significant perspective distortion and quite dark foreground (which could easily be cropped). Not even a Quality Image for me. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Norbert Nagel. --Cayambe (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - low technical quality and perspective distortion. --Claritas (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination David C. S.

File:Bartoleme Island.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:11:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Pete - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by David C. S. -- David C. S. 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support -- David C. S. 22:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Good image from a valuable place, with many positive aspects. But the camera with which the picture was taken is way below the average of FP's (and of course the weird spot in the upper left corner). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Paolo Costa --Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Spot, Vigneting (to me strong), blurry--Miguel Bugallo 20:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination David C. S.

File:Keri majakas.jpg (new version), featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 12:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Andrus Uuetalu - uploaded by Andrus Uuetalu - nominated by WikedKentaur --
•  Support -- WikedKentaur (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Trongphu (talk) 19:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting. Good composition. A liitle noisy, going to ISO 100 and doubling the exposure time would have been slightly better I think, but not a big problem in my opinion. Like the partially deterioted look of the lighthouse. And then it has a puzzle: What are the people looking for? --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Love the scene - Mvg, Basvb (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info I don't like the cropped bird on the top of the enlarged image. Please make a better update! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support ( Info the bird is now cropped out) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Speicher Spullersee Panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2011 at 21:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info Speicher Spullersee c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Beautiful scene. Very good quality. I feel that geometric distortions are not that bad, considering the extend of the panorama. The cross sets the scene nicely. --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice lighting, scenery, and composition with the cross. There's flare on the cross, but this can't be avoided and it's very minor anyways (but I mention this because I have a pic which I haven't yet uploaded because of that flare I can't get rid of). - Benh (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Love it --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Another wonderful panorama by Böhringer, very well done. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Raghith 05:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support some lens flares but over all a excellent picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support beautiful --Wikieditoroftoday (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Keep up the good work Böhrie!   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 14:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Karelj (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Yet another pano, this time with an unfortunate sky. พ.s. 00:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support 23:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Stryn (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Turbo reevei 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:22:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support wie immer! --Böhringer (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - great ! --Claritas (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good technique. How many more have you got in your collection? I hope all these get spread out well in time on POTD, such that we show topical diversity from day to day, such that we will not be nicknemaed "commonshells". Do not get me wrong: It should not be held against you that you persistently produce a flow of very high quality shell pictures. Keep'em coming.--Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Got to admit myself, they are the most beautiful shells i have ever seen!Trongphu (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support, it is one or five different shell? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info It is one shell seen from different directions. --Llez (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support very good Stu Phillips --Str Photo 13:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Caribbean sea - Morrocoy National Park - Playa escondida.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 23:05:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa - This is the closest I got to the actual colors. I think it's a pretty faithful reproduction of the Venezuelan seas. - Paolo Costa (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose It is pretty and the colours look great, and right now, being in a dark and cold country at this time of year, I would just love to dip in. However, isn't this how the sea looks many places in the Carribean? At least, it looks very much like the sea I saw, when I visited Guadeloupe in the Carribean last year. That is, I do not see anything particular informational or educational in the photo, which is characteristic of the location, except, "relatively close to the equator". That is, not very valuable, much like a pretty sunset. But it gave me a warm feeling, so thanks for sharing it.--Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• You may be right but: a sunset can be shot from anywhere around the world. The same cannot be said for the crystalline, shallow-water beaches of the Morrocoy national park (notice the extension of shallow waters, check on the geotag). Besides that, when I looked up for "Caribbean sea" and "Caribbean beaches" on Commons I was so disappointed by the lack of pictures and quality images that I wanted to share this one. I noticed South american high-quality pictures are pretty rare (compared to N.A. and Europe for example), not to mention images from Venezuela. That's where I saw the value. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral I agree with you concerning the low availability of such high quality photos of shallow-water Carribean beaches. You are good at arguing, and I have modified my vote to neutral, as I am still not entirely FP-convinced. --Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry but it's a bit too abstract for me (which would be fine as a desktop wallpaper), and I don't think it's as unique as implied by author. I've come across similar sceneries from other parts of the world. Also, the subject is said to be water, yet it accounts for only a third of the image. - Benh (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment -- I love minimalism and this picture is so much alike some others I have taken in Porto Covo! But, like Slaunger, I'm not fully convinced it is FP-worthy. If the community decides otherwise, maybe I will nominate this one of mine... Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support We see, there are different meanings. But I like this image. His minimalism shows only the Morrocoy National Park in the Caribbean sea, that is the subject and that is ok. I see this image as a German born in India. My grandfather and my father worked as German people over 20 years in India, and I traveled to several lands around the world. There is Fernweh in our family since 130 years. You don't find this word Fernweh in the Wikipedia, not even in the German Wikipedia. Fernweh: you need to go and see and live and work in other lands and you need to return later on to your own home, because you have (de:) Heimweh (en: homesickness in the en: Wikipedia) in other lands. In the Romantik had Fernweh the name (de) Wanderlust, (en) wanderlust, (pt) Wanderlust or (pt) desejo de viajar, you find this in the wikipedia. Fernweh is the modern word with global thinking. Paolo Costa, your image "Caribbean sea - Morrocoy National Park - Playa escondida" is a Fernweh-image for people in the cold Europe. But you feel even Fernweh in Venezuela, you traveled to Canada and Italy. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment That word will be imprinted in my mind for a long time. That's exactly how I feel about traveling. My parents were italian, I live in Venezuela, and when I travel I enjoy viewing other cultures and nature wonders. But eventually I get the need to return home and travel here as well! Nice info. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info "Fernweh" is the real, physical need to move. in french : "Avoir la bougeotte". Mes deux centimes. --Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Empty image, just air and water.--Sasha Krotov (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice colors, would make good widescreen desktop as noted (I may even use it for that purpose), but at bottom it's just a picture of the sea, with nothing special. Daniel Case (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• In the end that is true, there's little to see here so,  I withdraw my nomination --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• I realize it's been withdrawn already, but I would  Support such a lovely photo. Thank you for it. --Jonathunder (talk) 10:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• As Jonathunder I regret that this very nice image has been withdrawn. It deserves my  Support too. -- MJJR (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Chvalkovice kaple 1.jpg, not featured

Original nomination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I suggest correcting the CCW tilt. --Slaunger (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the image is not tilted. Terain there is sloping to right in that place so that the image seems to be tilted. --Karelj (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering at first whether my eyes were deceiving me due to the slope of the landscape, until I checked with a vertical line on a wall of the church... Try for yourself, and you will realize it is tilted. --Slaunger (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative version

•  Comment Corrected version. Is this better? --Karelj (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, it is better, but actually, it is still a little CCW tilted... Didn't you notice that by comparing with vertical lines aligned along the church walls, when you did the rotation? But maybe, I am just being overly pedantic now?? --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The truth is ... there is no difference that I can see between the two versions. Please check the details at the right and left borders. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• The two image sizes are also identically large by the pixel. Probably the same photo was uploaded by accident instead of the rotated one. --Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, I have uploaded corrected version with the same name and i gave it here. I don´t know, what is wrong??? Maybe the name should be changed???? --Karelj (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• It is not the same image, brightness was increased in the new one. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC))

File:Sint-Nicolaaskerk, Amsterdam, Netherlands IMG 1370 edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 20:10:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by 20:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support I am fascinated by the dark and dramatically clouded background combined with the light coming in from the side on the old buildings. It gives a lot of wow to the photo. The foreground elements are rather ugly and do not fit well with the main subject of the image. On the other hand, they are representative of the mixture between construction, infrastructure and architecture in any city, and thus adds a good portion of authenticity IMO. I appreciate the information rich file page. There is maybe a little motion blur (or f/10 DOF soft focus in foreground), and the overall image quality is not exquisite, but I think acceptable. --Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment/ Neutral. Faszinierendes Abendlicht, na ja. Die Stimmung hat was, dennoch empfinde ich das Licht mit den vielen Schatten als eher unschön. An der Qualität habe ich rein gar nichts auszusetzen. Die Komposition spaltet mich etwas zwie. Mir gefällt der Bildaufbau an sich sehr gut, man merkt, dass du dir darüber Gedanken gemacht hast. Die Brücke und die Steine passen sehr gut ins Foto. Dennoch hätte ich oben vom Himmel und unten von der Straße ordentliche Stücke abgeschnitten. Auch links ragt die Werbetafel nicht wirklich exzellent ins Bild. Das wollte ich mal loswerden. Viele Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment vielen dank für die blumen. abendlicht um 11:08 uhr ist mir neu - aber warum nicht. das mit dem plakat stört mich selbst. bin mir noch nicht sicher ob ich das noch wegshoppe. leider war vor ort nicht die möglichkeit die komposition weiter nach rechts zu verschieben (da hatte es eine messstation). croppte man an der linken seite, wäre mir der beschnitt der hinteren häuserreihe zu knapp. so läuft es einigermaßen gut aus. per kameramessung ist der turm etwa 291m entfernt. daher vermutlich die vordergrundunschärfe, obgleich blende 10 genutzt wurde. die aufnahme entstand aus der hand. regards, 12:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• I really love the 3 stones on the foreground (De barikaden op! gevoel) and the old city in the background, but the heavily overexposed bridge and the advertisement thing on the left which is cropped ruin that mood a bit. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 16:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment/ Neutral. Unten die Straße, sowie oben vom Himmel könnte wirklich etwas abgeschnitten werden. Es stört, weil es nichts wesentliches zeigt. Ich hätte da eher vom Stein rechts im Querformat, bei vielleicht 30-50mm das Bild geschossen. Ansonsten auf alle Fälle QI für mich. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Bonhomme coucher de soleil.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2011 at 07:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Roman.b - uploaded by Roman.b - nominated by Roman.b -- Roman.b (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Roman.b (talk) 07:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Request the EXF data missing, GPS tag for the place too.
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because resolution to small: minimum 2MP, a large part is overexposed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

,

File:Changhua Great Buddha Temple amk.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by AngMoKio - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Illustrative, well executed, detailed, colorful and valuable. It would require a slight perspective correction on the vertical axis though. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice colors! Ceridwen (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Itzuvit (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support thanks for the nomination --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Daption capense in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2011 at 21:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Well taken, high ISO unavoidable for a focused picture of a moving, distant subject. It is a rare picture also, coming from Tasmania. --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo&quality&photographer&camera. --Slaunger (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Looks good. --–Makele-90 (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  SupportBruce1eetalk 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Interesting pic, well executed. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I'm at a school computer at the moment and they aren't really reliable, but at this screen there's a (strong) halo around the bird... Am I right or is it the bad school equipment? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• If you see a strong halo in full res, I'd say it is a technical issue with your equipment. I do not see any halo, but I am not at an optimal screen ether right now, but a pretty decent one. --Slaunger (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• again and again, the differences between some screens are interesting. The quality at my one now at home is much better, but one problem is still there: the (very) well visible halo, in thumb and full resolution. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Llez (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose halo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Inacceptable halo around the subject is KO criteria here.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 16:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question -- What are you talking about? I have a quite good monitor and see no halo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• what can I answer to that? :-) As you can read above, I can see a halo effect exactly around the bird at two monitors, and I think at least my one should be quite good, too. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Same here - halo on HP Dreamcolor, Dell 2410, MacBookAir   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Yes, there is a halo though very slight. I just measured the RGB components of a series of points along a line cutting horizontally the bird. The extremes are: [120 159 202] (near the bird) and [100 149 197] (away from the bird). As we know the feeling of tone change in enhanced by the presence of a darker area. Now for the explanation: either the photographer created it in the digital lab (unlikely, considering who he is); or the camera sensor was fooled by the situation (?); or the camera increased internally the contrast in the jpg output (likely) Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Interesting. Home at a better LED screen now, and I see it as well now (although not as a strong halo). Not something which bothers me though concerning supporting the nominaion. I have asked JJ Harrison to comment here. Maybe he has a good explanation. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• It is there, but seeing a strong halo really just suggests only the thumbnails have been looked at - downsizing to thumbnails makes it much more obvious, or a badly adjusted display. It is very mild on my (calibrated) monitor. It the result of a small amount of highlight reduction, required to fit both the black and the white within the dynamic range available in the jpeg format and typical computer displays without blown highlights etc. One could shoot on a cloudy day, but then you'd have to use much higher isos to freeze the motion. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support JJ Harrison (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• @JJ Harrison:  Request I think it is only a small work to correct the halo effect. Can you try to eliminate it? I see it also "mild" on my calibrated monitor (U2711) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  weak oppose The halos are not only (be it faintly) visible, they are also a technical reality. พ.s. 14:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Excellent shot, with or without the halo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  weak oppose halo--Miguel Bugallo 00:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good work, this is not an easy picture to take.Trongphu (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - visible halo. --Claritas (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• This is great proof that you haven't even looked at the image. The halo was removed in photoshop a few days ago. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• I was about to say the same... I'm trying to find him mitigating reasons: MediaWiki (the soft behind wikipedia) had issues with thumbnails cache (though it seems fixed now). Also, user could be behind a proxy, and see an old cache of the thumbnails (happens to me when at work). But in any case, I don't think he opened the real image at all. - Benh (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
• Sorry, I was looking at an old cached version - I had opened the image previously and hadn't purged the page recently. --Claritas (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I looked at this image about 15 hours ago and I couldn't figure out what halo has being discussed. I wondered if my monitor calibration was off even though the tests patterns looked right. Now I understand why. Royalbroil 06:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Apologies to all for not stating the update in big blinking text :) JJ Harrison (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support Now I can't see the halo--Miguel Bugallo 20:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Hypholoma fasciculare qtl3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:49:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info Sulphur Tuft. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. --Quartl (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose It may have usefulness on encyclopedic wiki, but I don't like the flashlight, and point of view. - Benh (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI but no FP - I don't like the flashlight as well   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Benh and Richard. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Suricata suricatta qtl2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 13:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info A meerkat at rest. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. --Quartl (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose QI, but not FP IMO. For a zoo shot, I would expect a more interesting composition. --Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support--H. Krisp (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Nymphs and Satyr (1873).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 15:43:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–1905) - uploaded by Thebrid - nominated by Sinuhe20 -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Sinuhe20 (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Contains two overexposed areas and meets not even the criteria for a Quality Image in my opinion. --Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - fairly low resolution, some issues with exposure. We have many better images of paintings by this artist - see File:Gabrielle Cot 1890.jpg for an example. --Claritas (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per above.Trongphu (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Black Australorp rooster.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2011 at 16:56:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Boise State MSS 122 2 crop.jpeg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 20:24:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Claritas - nominated by Claritas -- Claritas (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- please note that the dimensions of the original (when the crop is taken into account) are only 9 x 8.5 cm, so the resolution is not reflected by the image size. Claritas (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good reproduction with historic and educational value. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose -- It is a beautiful manuscript. But nothing here seems to justify the FP status, either historically or aesthetically. I suspect that there are some other illuminated documents with exceptional historical relevance and/or beauty that could be brought here. On a side note, this reproduction looses much of its documental value without an explanation of its content. Yes, there are a few users here who can read Latin, but they are still a samll minority... Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest that it is of exceptional beauty - "wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art" are allowed irrespective of their notability (and I freely admit that Boise State MSS 122 is not a notable manuscript). If you'd like an illuminated document of exceptional historical relevance, please see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Henry V.jpeg.
I can read Latin, and I will provide a full translation with textual context in a day or two. --Claritas (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support You can't read it doesn't mean it is mean less. This looks like a very valuable historical piece to me.Trongphu (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - transcription and translation now available on image description page. --Claritas (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Good job with the traduction, and the scan. High EV. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very nice document Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Kenya09-Murang'a-progetto Aids-COSV.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2011 at 12:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by COSV - uploaded by [[6]] - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Slick (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment - I really like it as a photograph, but I'm unwilling to support unless the file page provides more information concerning when and where it was taken etc. Without a full description there is very little potential for encyclopaedic or other educational use.--Claritas (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Nice, but not enough dof to me (the zones unsharp are too big)--Miguel Bugallo 20:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it is fine that the DOF is shallow. It is reasonably sharp in the handshake area and thereby naturally draws the eye to part part of the photo, which is well placed. That is actually a positive effect, to help isolate the essential part of the photo. The tiny hand in the knitted sweater shaking the large adult finger is very powerful compositional aspect of the photo in my opinion. But I too, would like a more thorough file page with more information about where and topic. The file name indicates that the child has aids, but is that true? Is it staged? --Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Lisbon - Vasco da Gama tower.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2011 at 18:28:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Very good image quality and composition. Light is a bit flat/harsh, and there are distracting foreground elements in front of the building (sign, etc.). --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support One of the best of the current candidates. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral - Despite the high technical quality, I find the building work on the hotel next-door too distracting.--Claritas (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Orbiter main propulsion system.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2011 at 11:12:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Malyszkz - uploaded by Malyszkz - nominated by Fred the Oyster -- Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose There are many minor "errors" in this diagram in my opinion. Many parts look not like possible in real life (see annotations). This is a diagram, if it has to be FP, has to be close to perfect I think, and, no offense intended, this is far from perfect. And last, words are not well spaced, but a little too tightly placed one against the other. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with any of my notes please, and to remove them, but after a while so people can read them). --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• By the way, it should say tHrust, (The reactive force in the direction of the nozzle's exit) not trust... trust is another thing that has to do with faith :) --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• (Edit conflict) As far as I can see there are no errors, on the understanding of course that you are looking directly at the svg file rather than the rendered version. A couple of the points you raised are unfair really as if you look on the original 'official' png you will see that the illustration remains faithful to it. I can answer each point if you wish. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, no offense intended, and I never wanted to be unfair. But I have an advanced understanding of 3D graphics and can tell you for sure this file is not a good reproduction of reality in that sense (not the reproduction work, which is good, but the original work) (This was a mistake, I thought you had edited the first svg version, which I thought was the original file. Then I looked at NASA's file and it's ok. I still think the svg has many errors). I'm just saying, in my point of view, this shouldn't be a featured image because it has many logical errors - in the original file (I mean the original svg file in Commons with the typo, not the one from NASA which looks ok in 3D despite the lack of precision). No need to discuss any point. I look at the file and think: this is not among the best works in Wiki. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• You may or may not have a good understanding of 3D graphics, what you don't appear to have is a good understanding of illustration. The original from which this illustration is based is by NASA and it is faithful to that. An illustration is not meant to be photoreal otherwise a photo would do the job better. An illustration is supposed to simplify so as to make it clearer. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate in fact most illustrations aren't. It is interpretation of the original artwork and attempts to make that clearer which it does incredibly well. As an illustrator I understand that, you obviously don't and as such I don't believe you are in a position to properly judge this illustration's merits. Especially as you seem to want to argue with NASA's viewpoint. Bear in mind this is not my artwork but as a professional illustrator I see it for what it is, not for what you think it should be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Having gone through your points the only conclusion I can come to is that no offence was intended, but you just don't seem to have a clue about illustrative work. When you can't even recognise that the line on the top you think is a problem but is actually the rear edge of the far ceiling then I start to believe that you really aren't qualified to make the judgements you are making. perhaps you should pass on by and we'll wait for someone who does know what they are talking about. I'm just surprised you haven't passed comment about QA somewhere in the artwork. If you do wish to pass comment then I suggest that you look at NASA's artwork, then back at this artwork then pass judgement. The nominated artwork is a realisation of the original NASA artwork, nothing else. Not reality, not the image that's in your head, not what you may have seen in text books. perhaps when you can do that I will take your comments seriously. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Dear user, I can see you must have worked really hard on this. Your work on Wikimedia as an illustrator is pretty awesome, no doubt. Despite my oppose, I sincerely hope you get your FP status. You look very confident about the original artwork (I meant the first svg file, not the NASA file which is ok) and the fact that I don't have a clue, that I am not qualified, that my comments are not serious, etc: if the file is so good, my oppose should do no harm, and you'll get plenty of supports, it'll all be fine. Regards --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• Twice or three times I've mentioned it now yet you still don't take it in. This is not my artwork, I am merely nominating it. The only thing I have done to it is correct the typo and anyone with a text editor could do that. Looking through your contributions I see that there isn't a single vector illustration there, this just further solidifies my opinion. I am well aware that I cannot take photographs to your standard and as such wouldn't dream of critiquing them, I just wish the opposite were true. Unfortunately you are critiquing this artwork as if it was a photo, that's not how it works I'm afraid. I am nominating this artwork because as a professional illustrator I feel I am qualified and can see the level of expertise and artistry that went into this, hopefully someone else with similar abilities and experience will be along to give a more insightful critique. Thank you for your time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with Paolo that the illustrator didn't seem to get the correct 3D shape of the object he intent to represent (how could he have, starting with such a poor quality diagram?). Some parts also seem to be missing, but it's hard to tell what exactly. I can change my vote if I find a better version of the diagram before voting period ends. - Benh (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - per Paolo and the discussion above. --Claritas (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question What does the acronym "ET" in "ORBITER/ET" expand into? "External tank?". I don't like acronyms in text in figures unless they are very widely understood (IN. is OK as an abbreviation for instance). I think they shall be either expanded to full text or eliminated unless they are crucial for the understanding. Also, is LO2 standard notation for liquid oxygen in aeronautics? According to en:Liquid oxygen the most well known abbreviations are LOx, LOX, or Lox (although, personally, I prefer LO2 or ${\displaystyle \mathrm {O} _{2}(\ell )}$). --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment The lower right subfigure confused me for a while. I think it could have been clearer if the LH2 and LO2 compartments had been enclosed by a cross-sectional view of the well known shape of the external fuel tank (I suppose the oxidizer is near the tip end?). I am also wondering if there is a special point in going from 3D in the main figure to 2D in the subfigure. The connection is not immediately clear as it is I think. --Slaunger (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Polypedates leucomystax weissbart ruderfrosch.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2011 at 20:49:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info Looks like a nice picture of a sympathetic group of friends. But strangely, the 5th friend didn't come to the picture. Where is he ?
•  Support -- Citron (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 21:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment There are some dirt(?) spots scattered around, which can easily be fixed. I have marked two of them, but I believe there are at least two more. --Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Done--Citron (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Thanks. I have removed the annotations again. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support what does the rightmost holds in his mouth ? - Benh (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• could it be the 5th ? - Benh (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  !!! It's not good to eat his friends. --Citron (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support 21:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support I think there the frog on the left-hand-side is too dark, but this is mitigated by a most striking composition. This is an  Awesome!

catch. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• By the way, you could add some to the description (on the file page I mean) about the 5th guy. I had not noticed about the legs until I read some. But in the file page nothing is said. And I still am a little curious about the 5th friend! Is he dead? are they cannibals? Is she transporting a son in her mouth (some frogs do that, but it doesn't seem the case here!). Congrats for the awesome and intriguing shot!--Paolo Costa (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Done It's a case of cannibalism, of course. --Citron (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Look good but it should say five frog in line from big to small and the fifth inside mouth of the first.Tnt1984 (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Excellent. Just asking for a caption competition. Colin (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Great composition, just a shame the lighting let you down. พ.s. 12:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done--Citron (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment adding some more light the left part will enhance the image. Ggia (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Done It's enough ? --Citron (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
in my opinion too much... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support yes ;-) much better now Ggia (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - really great. --Claritas (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Amazing picture. I think moody lighting goes with the subject. So did the zoo staff come and rescue it?--Str Photo 15:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent image: well composed, educational and impressive. --ELEKHHT 21:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Great photo. --Norbert Nagel 17:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Can't ask for more!Trongphu (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support One more support vote can't hurt :) Great subject and composition. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Katarighe (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --MyCanon (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Improvable light: The left zone is dark--Miguel Bugallo 20:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good composition Ceridwen (talk) 12:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 28 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Amphibians

File:Big Wheel Rostocker Weihnachtsmarkt HBP 2010-11-30.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 04:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. Grand-Duc (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Quite good technical quality (relatively low noise, high DOF) given the circumstances. The subject is rather "kitschy", but nevertheless I kinda like it due to its unusual composition. And it is that season, so... --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - I don't like the composition -I would rather that the whole wheel was shown in context, and the text isn't easily legible. --Claritas (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Humboldt Alexander.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2011 at 22:09:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Church of St George - Kyustendil.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2011 at 12:02:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Abstain as author. -- MrPanyGoff 12:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Very good light and control of exposure. Good DOF and technical quality. Interesting architecture from a place where we are rather sparsely populated in our FP gallery (as far as I know). Interesting texture of the bricks. I was wondering for myself for some time if the shadows from the branches on the wall was distracting? I came to the conclusion that the shadows are so few (and probably unavaoidable), that it is not a nuisance, but rather underlines the environment (surrounded by trees) of this cute looking little church. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - very high technical quality - wonderful at full resolution ! Shadows of trees are a little bit off-putting but acceptable. --Claritas (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is a pretty subject and technically fine. But the branch shadows are distracting. Taking the picture over to the left might have made more of a feature of the curving path and less of the trees. The shadows are avoidable -- look at the other pics on Commons, such as this seasonal one. Colin (talk) 11:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose For sure quality is good, and I'm fine with the lighting and shadows, but basically, there's no wow to me (composition) - Benh (talk) 12:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose like Colin I prefer the composition with the snow --Moonik (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Neutral Beautiful church, wonderful colors, nice quality, but the shadows kill it for me. They were unavoidable imo, but that's not the point... they really are disturbing for my taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Come on pals, don't you think that these pale thin shadows actually add vivacity to the image!--MrPanyGoff 12:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• In this case, really not. Had the wall been unicolor, maybe. But in this case, with all those parallel, straight lines on the wall, those random shadows are very disturbing for my taste. But I think the image is pretty good in general, so I won't oppose either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support Nice -- Raghith 10:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Not a bad image and I'm not disturbed by the shadows really, given the rather monotonous façade. As Benh, I miss the wow though. I like this angle more, as it shows more of the main facade and less of the side one, and it avoids that ugly path. Also describing it as "medieval" when in fact it was "mostly destroyed, leaving only the foundations" in the 19th century, the present being a reconstruction, I find somewhat misleading. --ELEKHHT 13:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• OK, I specified that this is a reconstruction. After all, about 95% (and maybe more) of the world heritage of old times is a reconstruction. As for the angle which you suggest, you know, the both facades are almost one and same and it is completely visible here. No matter of the angle, the whole idea of this structure is presented well. Cheers ;) --MrPanyGoff 16:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC) I'm so sorry that there are no clouds to make the so called wow effect... :)--MrPanyGoff 16:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
• I wasn't thinking of clouds, I was thinking of a better angle (as explained), one which shows more of the entry (an important part of a church), and has a more dynamic composition. That "both facades are almost one and same" I must disagree. Sorry if my assessment is disappointing, please don't take any criticism personally. And thanks for improving the description! --ELEKHHT 04:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Weak support low wow, but still good enough. Tomer T (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - nice mood. Jonathunder (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support - Nice picture, and the shadows make it more alive. Achird (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Coimbra December 2011-1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2011 at 21:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info The University of Coimbra (here), one of the oldest in the world, was founded during the 13th century, under the Portuguese king D. Dinis. Its tower, an iconic building of the city, was rebuilt in the 18th century and restored very recently. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
•  Abstain as author. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose why a panorama? Of course it's your decision to make one, but here it ruins the picture, because all below clock is out of focus. The crop is very bad (too much boring ground at bottom, tight at top). The composition is centered as well. Nevertheless, I have to mention the excellent light, very nice. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  OpposeVery high historical and educational value indeed, but really the composition does not work to me, as mentioned by Carschten. --Jebulon (talk) 11:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I got it -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Cricetus cricetus 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 12:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Llez (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Good quality and useful -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Question -- White balance/Colors seem a bit off. Any alternatives?--Paolo Costa (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Info Some corrections done --Llez (talk) 06:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose Sorry, it looks to yellowish. The straws are to distracting in the near of the muzzle. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose - straw detracts from main subject. --Claritas (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
•  I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 14:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Valtu mõisa -Puraviku- tuuleveski.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2011 at 04:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

•  Info created & uploaded by Iifar - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
•  Support -- Tomer T (talk) 04:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)