Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2009

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


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


Contents

File:Thomas Bresson - Branchies (by).jpg[edit]

Fish gills

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is below the size requirements 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.

Lycaon (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apart from being small, the photograph is also not very well lit for a histological coupe. Proper description and categorisation are also lacking (which animal, scale, colouring method). Lycaon (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Christmas2004inMedellín.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 15:02:40
Medellín River during Christmas 2004

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info size + moving camera or blurred lights (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I usually do not ask to delist a file, but sorry: This file is pretty small and if we would nominate it now it wouldn't get a fp if it wouldn't get tagged with {{fpx}}. Even it's a nice picture, the tower (or whatever it is) and the lights around it are too blurred -- D-Kuru (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Simonizer (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--Avala (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --ianaré (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- as per D-Kuru Lucash (talk)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Karelj (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist (reluctantly) per nom. Lycaon (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC) (Too late --D-Kuru (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
result: 6 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --D-Kuru (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-10.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 01:03:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Church of the Convent of Christ, Tomar, Portugal. Detail of the round church ("charola"), built by the templars in the 12th century and decorated in 1500. Created & nominated by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain The main subject is out of focus and the photo suffers from chromatic aberration. Should make a nice valued image, though. Diti the penguin 10:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I see no chromatic aberration -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Umnik (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would have taken this picture in vertical format in order to get the balustrade complete into the ground.Even at the expense of cutting off the sides. Looks incomplete. Cropped too tightly up on top. Or back up or take it with a wider angle. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Georgez (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-9.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 00:19:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View to the castle and ruins of Henry the Navigator's courts, from the "Lavagens" cloister. Convent of Christ, Tomar, Portugal. Created & nominated by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The noise reduction process destroyed the image, moreover there is again an annoying chromatic aberration for the outside. Diti the penguin 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - No noise reduction -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Look at the ground, where it appears the most. Did you take a lot of photos right before having taken this one? Photographic noise (that removed by your camera, with losses —I've known that, but at higher ISO— is caused by internal warmth. Although the D80 has a great anti-noise algorithm, you'll notice that it, uh, blurred your photo quite a lot. Meh, maybe I'm too demanding. Passing my vote to neutral. Diti the penguin 11:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no visual appeal. No wow factor. Even if a historical building, no relevant characteristics that set it apart from like buildings. I photograph a lot of colonial churches in Mexico and I cannot but compare it to them. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Tomas. --Georgez (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically nothing extra, but I like the composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per Karelj -- MJJR (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor with this one. JalalV (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Convento Cristo December 2008-2.jpg[edit]

Original Alternative
Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 00:15:15 Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 14:08:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION SHORT DESCRIPTION

Original, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Helicoidal stairway. Cloister of King Jonh III, Convent of Christ. Tomar, Portugal. Created & nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice picture (as in technical skills), but no wow for me. Diti the penguin 10:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nicest of the series, but some technical flaws. Image is sharp on top, fuzzy on the bottom, can be seen at the door frame and first steps. DOF too much in the outside as well as too much light. In photoshop go to image > adjustments > shadow/highlights and play with the amount values. Maybe 5 for shadows and 20 for highlights. Don´t mess with other values too much. This adjustment gives the appearance of a larger dynamic range. Over use can lead to posterization like effect, however. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral a very nice composition. It only bothers me that it looks cut-off on the top. It would have been better to have the whole surrounding frame on the picture. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Alternative version, with more natural colours and better composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support much better, now it gets my support. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even better indeed. Lycaon (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors and composition. Calandrella (talk) 13:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colours and composition.--Miha (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow factor, previous image 2008-9 is very similar to this one and looks better for me. --Karelj (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Isuien Nara21nt3200.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 08:13:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by 663highland - uploaded by 663highland - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing in particular, composition (the person within the photo is centered and somewhat out of focus). Diti the penguin 10:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very nice composition and good enough DOF. The house and lake are the subject of the photo, not the woman. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It looks like a painting... It is not that wow... But it is good... Calandrella (talk) 12:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too green, objects are lost Lucash (talk)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Will you say too white, when I'll take pictures of Antarctica? ;) Diti the penguin 00:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Mmm...no, maybe I will says overexposed if too white :P Anyway, when said too green, mean that there are many same green objects which don't stress(?) Lucash (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition didn't seem centered or balanced. JalalV (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Brush for the lead2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 18:12:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ukiyo-e dragon 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2009 at 23:01:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Coca-Cola-Truck.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 04:07:33
Coca Cola Christmas Truck

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stengaard - uploaded by Stengaard - nominated by Stengaard -- Stengaard (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Stengaard (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo needs to be cropped. kallerna 08:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Posterization, unsharp and ghosts. Lycaon (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon. Cacophony (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - yes it has a ghost but it's not that much of an issue.--Avala (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Picture as a whole with a ghost. Gets my vote. Gordo (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is really cool. Calandrella (talk) 12:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing has happened after my comment. kallerna 12:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't support CocaCola culture... and photo isn't so good --Miha (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special. --Georgez (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karelj (talk) 09:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose there some very weird noise issues in the sky. The Canon EOS 450D at ISO 200 should not have this kind of problem with noise, even with a 4 second exposure. My thought is that this technical issue was introduced in post-processing and might be fixable if you can upload the source image(s) and ask in Images Workshop. J.smith (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Miha --Phyrexian (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Like Miha and the photo is little fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Guepe-3 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

A vespula insect is eauting.

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Chrysomya_albiceps_eating.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 19:56:29
Chrysomya fly eating

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 19:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 19:56, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please recheck id. Lycaon (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great --Simonizer (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice shot --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'am not shure if it's Phaenicia sericata because of missing bristles on the thorax . Please check at www.diptera.info then I will support :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I registered at diptera but its 36hrs now and they haven't activated my account. If you have an account could you check for me? Muhammad 12:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Register again, i did it 3 times ;-). A Diptera.info account is highly recommendet when doing insect macros --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok. The diptera identified it as Chrysomya albiceps. I have updated the image page. Thanks for the link to the diptera site. A great resource. Muhammad 10:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With a correct id I can support. Lycaon (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Then --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Keelung coast detail amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2009 at 20:27:30
A rock formation at the coast of Keelung

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A rock formation at the coast of Keelung created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 20:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with reserves. Interesting subject, good composition, technically very good, yet it seems to lack a little bit of contrast (although I understand that the greyish sky and dim light are part of the atmosphere). --JY REHBY (discuter) 17:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Abbax talk) 19:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Log-in to vote please (see history) and it would be nice to if you would state a reason for your oppose. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 20:02:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Katsushika Hokusai - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova, restored from File:Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg by Durova -- Durova (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good representation of Japanese art. Diti the penguin 22:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question - Before the obvious support to one of the most beautiful images of all times, I need some clarification. What is the date of this particular printing? And what is its relation with this other one? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The Library of Congress bibliographic notes were nonspecific about the date of the printing. To the best of my knowledge it bears no particular relation to the image you linked. Actually I located this version as a suggested replacement for the other, which is featured at en:wiki but failed FPC and VI here. If you review the VI nomination you'll see my objections. Was lucky to spot a very high resolution TIFF at LoC. Best, Durova (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture and could be featured, yet commons is not about promoting already promoted internationally known pictures, but about promoting a new work. Or unknown work. Simply contributing with new or not known well media. This is the same case like the guys having a break on a girder in NYC. --Aktron (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment FP is about showcasing the best available on commons, not necessarily promoting new/unknown work. QI fits your description better. --ianaré (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support one of my favorites, nice to have at this resolution --ianaré (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Aktron. --Karel (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kanonkas(talk) 11:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with the Aktron's principle, but this is an very high quality scan. We should really have a "fast-track" for technically perfect scans of internationally known artwork. We can't evaluate them the same way. Or should we try? Should we ignore the fact that this is a well known painting and try to evaluate it's effectiveness in illustrating the ocean? Or do we evaluate the technical quality of the scan? I think there should be an entirely different process then FPC for this kind of image. In the meantime, I will abstain from voting in this discussion. --J.smith (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually the scan wasn't quite technically perfect. That's one of the reasons I put hours into restoring this. On a file this size restoration takes a lot of labor. Ideally that labor should seem invisible to anyone but another restorationist, so I'll take that abstention as high compliment. Durova (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Haros (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As per J.smith. Abstaining on this one. I think a separate "historical" section might be good. Where more emphasis is placed on the quality of the scan, etc.
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Blind accordion player.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2009 at 23:45:59
blind accordion player

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Taken at Pátzcuaro, Michoacán, México -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Instrument could've been a tad sharper, but it's got the wow-factor. Lycaon (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --Simonizer (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --Georgez (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the colors but the tight crop and the centered composition isn't really exciting. The scene (which can be found in every pedestrian/shopping area - here we have a mexican one) looks flat when comparing to this picture, where some angle adds more depth --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive. --Karelj (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Richard Bartz. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 01:05:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova -- restored from File:Turkish trenches at Dead Sea.jpg by Durova. Durova (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite a good quality for a picture taken in 1917. --Aktron (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose we have quite a lot of high-quality pictures from the early 20th century, I think a fp needs more than that -- Gorgo (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Have to agree with Gorgo. JalalV (talk) 13:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As previous opposers. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sunset behind palm trees.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 03:02:04
Palm trees at sunset

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by bdesham -- bdesham  03:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the brilliant colors and patterns in the sky give this photo some “wow.” --bdesham  03:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WOW!Sh1019 (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is not a usual sunset. Calandrella (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good quality --Abbax (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp. kallerna 12:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wow? Not for me. Sunsets are inherently pretty. This one does not look special to me. --Dschwen (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per kallerna. --Georgez (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Latterly commons is barking like dogs - "wow wow wow" everywhere. Common sunset, sorry. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Colors are very nice. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Electricity Pylon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 13:31:24
Lattice steel pylon

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 13:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 13:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Miha (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What´s special about this one? --Georgez (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing special --Abbax (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not so good colours--Avala (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image of subject with a good amount of detail at full resolution but it lacks something special. Adambro (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others above. --Karelj (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A prime candidate for Quality Images. 203.35.135.133 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. D-Kuru (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC) (rule of the 5th day)

File:El sagrario.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 14:25:43
el sagrario church

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really the best use of DOF (very blurred towards the left) and quite a bit of CA. Lycaon (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flagrant chromatic aberration. Diti the penguin 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. --Georgez (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like this composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A commendable attempt to do something different with the lighting, which didn't quite work out, for the reasons outlined above. The setting itself does have potential though, I think. Perhaps a reshoot? 203.35.135.133 14:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Replaced the file with a copy of the RAW file, removed CA and corrected perspective a bit. Minor retouch. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. kallerna 18:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Barter.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 15:01:37
barter

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Every friday, local residents from the Pátzcuaro, Michoacán state of México gather to exchange goods in barter. Barter is the exchange of goods where there is no money involved in the transaction. It is interesting to witness the exchanges, the spirit or manner cannot be captured photographically, but it is done very quietly and amicably. People bring their own goods, put them on the ground and wait for others to offer something in exchange. Food, clothing, shoes and other goods are offered in small scale.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chaotic composition. --Karelj (talk) 09:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot composition. Looks like any other market. Bartering is an action which is not really easy to capture on photo. Little wow here. Lycaon (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I think this picture shows quite clearly what is in stock for financial markets in 2009. MartinD (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Convento Cristo Decemebr 2008-18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 16:13:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Manuelin pulpit at the church of the Convent of Christ, Portugal (c. 1510). The manuelin is a Portuguese architectural late-gothic style of the end of the 15th century and beginning of the 16th. Created & nominated by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The upper and lower parts of the pulpit are poorly cropped/composed --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the whitish square in the lowr left corner of the image? 203.35.135.133 17:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - A piece o paper with some info -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard Bartz - something missing. --Karelj (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Striking colors. JalalV (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct colors, details and DoF. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the crop and the composition are somewhat unfortunate -- Gorgo (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cropped at top and bottom, and has uncorrectred verticals. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ruta 60 Argentina Paso san Francisco.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 16:59:28
San Francisco Pass

  • So, you can tell me what do you thing is wrong with it... Lucash (talk)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I think the main subject (Ruta 60) is not well exposed here since the picture is dominated by the grass and the rocks. Besides, I don´t find it that special. --Georgez (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted & composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Kosiarz-PL 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition, dominate by the grass not the subject. Gnangarra 22:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per previous opposer. JalalV (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting colors and composition. Calandrella (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. I don't think it works with that rock on the LHS. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Couch-sol (by).OGG, not featured[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • ++ Support Obvious educational use, and nice sunset. Diti the penguin 17:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, not an image Lycaon (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • A video is a motion picture so technically it is an image. 41.222.30.20 10:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I transformed your {{FPX}} template into an {{Oppose}} template, since there are for now only support votes for this video. Diti the penguin 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why does the image pulse like that? Is that a result of the camera's exposure changing, or some astrological phenomena? J.smith (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • “It's not the autoexposure. I have only modified the Time Value (Tv) sometimes. --ComputerHotline 19:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)” (quoted from the “Quality images candidates” page). Diti the penguin 14:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a consensus that FPC will only judge still images (and animated gifs) untill specific guidelines are set up for assessing other type of media (video, sound, ...). Lycaon (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Can you link me to this consensus please? I don't see why the “image” word should design only still images (what about .gif files then?), moreover I'd like to know why File:Apache-killing-Iraq.avi.ogg shouldn't have been featured on en:Wikipedia:Featured pictures if it hadn't been by taking the definition that a video is a image set. Diti the penguin 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Not featured per out of scope (absence of guidelines). Lycaon (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Out of scope is something completly different. And why shouldn't we have a featured file here? abf /talk to me/ 22:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It is out of the scope for FPC. Do we really have to have the same discussion all over again :-(? Lycaon (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment made on Commons:Valued image candidates/Thomas Bresson - Couch-sol (by).OGG as well, this file being a video. I see “Not featured per out of scope (absence of guidelines)” above: does an absence of something automatically ejects them from a nomination, or, if we were logical, we shouldn't care about that? Like, I see no reference to the word “SVG” on this page, however SVG files were already nominated. Diti the penguin 22:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Premature nomination IMO. I provided feedback on COM:QIC. The jumps in exposure time lead to brightness jumps in the video. This could easily be corrected for. --Dschwen (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One-of-a-kind sunset file on Commons at this moment. Elfix (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 16:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Nothoscordum bivalve flower macro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 20:36:20
Simple and small grass' flower

  • Can you explain to me what is wrong with the background? Lucash (talk)
  • Sorry. Blurry background. --Georgez (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but as Macro definition in wikipedia: "On 35 mm film (for example), the lens is typically optimized to focus sharply on a small area approaching the size of the film frame". So, it's normal in macros to have an blurry background. (Spanish: En general, cuando se toman fotos en modo macro, el fondo esta totalmente borroso o fuera de foco. Eso hace que destaque el objeto principal, en este caso la flor). Lucash (talk) Lucash (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Though I don't know (yet) what it is, I'm not too happy with the current identification as Nothoscordum bivalve. The filaments of the stamina are too wide, the anthers should be yellow (not only the pollen) and also this plant flowers March to May, while the exif says November. Guess we need a specialist of North American Alliaceae. Lycaon (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The photo was taken in Mendoza, Argentina. I have asked my brother (Agronom) and he said should be this one as it's very often there. Anyway we should wait for another opinion.About date, March to May is spring in the north side of the world, while september to december is spring in the south part of the world. I believe that's why. Lucash (talk)
  • Ah, that would at least account for the flowering period (Giving a location (preferably co-ordinates) avoids these discussions ;-)). Do you have pictures of the leaves, did you notice the smell of the leaves, did you see the bulb? Answers to these questions could also help. Lycaon (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Mmmm...I'm afraid I didn't do anything of these, but I know the person which has seeds of it. I should wait untill april/may for them to flower... GeoLocation = done. Thanks!Lucash (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this kind of straight-from-the-camera filename is a no-no on commons. --Dschwen (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    Yes, I'm sorry, I have forgotten to change it. Should I upload it again and delete this one? 84.52.164.132
    No. I requested a bot to rename the image. This should happen automatically during the next few days, unless a non-admin modified the description page. --Dschwen (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks. It won't happend again :) Lucash (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. In any case the bokeh is very unappealing and the subject occupies too small a portion of the frame. --Dschwen (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Lophophanes cristatus Luc Viatour 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2009 at 20:55:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 20:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Luc Viatour: how do you do? Your images are amazing. I actually think this one could be the Picture of the Year. Calandrella (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. Diti the penguin 22:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very nice composition but the image is a bit noisy and unsharp. Compare pixels to File:Gymnopithys-leucaspis-002.jpg (admittedly an unusually sharp image, but I would like to see Wikimedia/pedia exceed their current standards) Tomfriedel (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
L'exemple est trop accentué et la lumière du flash est franchement moche, rien a voir avec la lumière naturelle du couché de soleil sur ma photo ;) --Luc Viatour (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Symbol merge discussion.svg Translation:The example is too marked and the flashlight is frankly ugly, nothing to do with the natural sunlight on my [Luc Viatour's] photo ;)Diti the penguin 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Je suis d'accord avec Luc, la lumière sur l'oiseau est très belle. A strong mitigating reason (comment on dit ça en français?) to forget the slight noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. Great light. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Tomascastelazo --Simonizer (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why are there no camera properties such as shutter speed or ISO settings with this photo? Tomfriedel (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Je teste un logiciel raw en phase de développement. Ce qui explique la disparition des exifs. Je viens de corriger les exifs sont là. --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Paisaje en Pampas-Tayacaja.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:26:05
Paisaje en Pampas-Tayacaja.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Paisaje en la provincia de Tayacaja-Pampas, Perú. Landscape in the province of Tayacaja-Pampas, Peru.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the images is below size requirements and lacks details 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.

Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Laguna artificial en Pampas-Tayacaja.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:32:10
Laguna artificial.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Laguna artificial en el distrito de Pampas - Tayacaja, Perú. Artificial lake in the district of Pampas - Tayacaja, Peru.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the images is below size requirements and lacks details 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.

Lycaon (talk) 07:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Incatrail in Peru.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 00:14:57
Caminos del Inca. Im Orginal erhaltener Teil des Incatrail nach Machu Picchu in Peru, selbst fotografiert.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pajaro - uploaded by - nominated by Digary -- Digary (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the images is below size requirements and is overexposed 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.

Lycaon (talk) 07:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • It should probably be noted the major problem is size: The over-exposure is used for interesting artistic effect, but the small size means this couldn't, for instance, be printed out and put on your wall with the needed detail to look good in that use. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

File:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2008 at 20:52:58
Lilac Breasted Roller

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image is small, not too sharp, and the bird is cropped (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Tomfriedel (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist small, noisy and heavy CA --Simonizer (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Common birds can and should be featured on Commons, but the quality of the pictures has to be good. If encyclopedic value (which should also be a factor here) prevails in your assessments, then FPC on the English Wikipedia is the place for you. Here we want quality especially combined with the hard to define WOW. Lycaon (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - still good.--Avala (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Result: delist = 3 and 1 keep = not delisted Lycaon (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per Simonizer. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per Tomfriedel. Lovely thumbnail, but too problematic at full res. We can do better. Could make a good Valud image while we wait for better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2008 at 17:56:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've started the process that I hope will end up with the delisting all FP taken by me. It is my way of expressing my strong disagreement with the FPC criteria as they written now, and with inability of some reviewers to follow very few right criteria that are there now. In other words I do not believe in the purpose of FP any more, and would not like my images to be a part of this. I'm going to nominate my images for delisting one image in a time in order do not disturb the order on FPC. Some people say the FPC process is working. Well IMO it does not.I hope the Commons community will agree that the images of a photographer, who does not believe in the purpose of FPC should be delisted. Thanks.(Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I dont think that the opinions of a photographer have any connection to the quality, value and wow-factor of a picture. This is one of the best pictures contributed to Commons so it clearly became a FP and it still is, imo --Simonizer (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - Though I may simpathize with your frustation in not recognizing in FPC your own values and criteria (I know what I'm talking about), I'm sure this is not the best way to deal with the problem, as it won't have significant impact and will cause to you further discomfort (to say the least). Why not go on trying to influence things from inside? We all know your talent and there is no doubt that you still have much to share. As for delisting your pics, I'm sorry but they don't belong to you any more... Cheers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as Simonizer and Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree you are not approaching the problem correctly. I don't know if you are saying the FP's don't have the quality they should, but I feel that is the case. I don't know they best way to improve the process. I just submitted one for delisting and uploaded another to replace a weaker photo, and hope we can all work together make this work. Tomfriedel (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess I need to clarify my position. Tom, I cannot care less about size and quality of the pictures nominated to become FP as long as the pictures have value.Sure, it is better, when valuable images are also of a great quality and of a big size, but IMO it should be not nearly as important as the value of the image. For example there's a very interesting nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thomas Bresson - Punaise mangeant une chenille sur des orties (by).jpg, which is getting opposed because of the size. I see everything that is there to see even in a thumbnail. Why in a world oppose a rare insect action shot only because the size is small? You just nominated a beautiful bird photographed in Botswana in a wild for delisting and nominated a very common pigeon for FP. The pigeon image is good, great quality (I do not like the crop), but it does not matter to me. FP has already one pigeon featured, and as far as I am concern it is one too many. In other words your pigeon might pass (I wish you good luck!), and it is precisely why I would like my images to get delisted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • While the argument that the images no longer belong to Mila is true, it is also true that they do not necessarily have to appear here or be featured. She is not requesting that the images be deleted from Wikipedia, but rather, to be delisted from this particular forum that she no longer has confidence in and is in strong disagreement with its policies and the opinions of certain individuals whose taste, or lack of it, have managed to establish photographic values that are contrary to photographic evaluation practices and criteria and who, in my opinion, are causing more harm than good to this effort. At the very least her wish as an author should be complied with as a courtesy and at the same time serve notice of the fact that a very valuable and quality contributor is being run out of town by what she considers unfair and rude treatment by some. Now, if people want to turn a blind eye to this, so be it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your understanding, Tomascastelazo--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree about value, and remember supporting Mdf's Trogon photo because it was a rare and difficult to shoot bird shot at 1000mm, but it was not selected because some said the branch was too big. Regarding the Lilac-breasted Roller, you can easily see with Flickr or elsewhere there is no shortage of photos of this bird. Someone we have to balance value, technical, and artistic considerations. And value is by far the most difficult, I think. For that reason I never comment on anything that isn't an animal photo, where all of whatever expertise I have is. Tomfriedel (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Tom, if you see a better image of a subject on Flickr and this image has a free license, of course you could upload it to Wikipedia, nominate an old one for the delisting, but if there are better images somewhere on the NET that are not free, IMO there's no point to mention them here. Tom, it is very good that you avoid commenting on the subjects that you feel you have no expertise about. I'm afraid that at least some reviewers here do comment on the subjects that they have never seen no only in the real life, but not even a image of the subject bedore they saw a nomination, yet they believe they could comment on the subject and on the quality of an image.For example here's what Lycaon said while opposing my image Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Anemonejelly.jpg :"It is a rare shot, because this is not the anemone's standard food, but a chance catch and so rather an anecdotical picture". How could he know that there is a time, when thousands of Velella on beach.jpg brought to shores by the wind and are caught by sea anemones. So my image is rare, but for sure not "anecdotical". One more example: what Benh, Sanchezn, MichaelMaggs,Beyond silence and others could possibly know about sunset mirages and green flashes to comment on my images? Sometimes it feels as some reviewers vote as they are robots, like they were programmed to oppose images that are less than 2 megapixels and they do, no matter what an image is about and what value it could have. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Commenting only on one of your points, I do think it is worthwhile to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo, because I don't think Wikimedia should work on a lower standard than the rest of the world. It might also help show some of the voters what they should be looking for. We have photos that are at the highest level of quality (however that is defined, some combination of value, or technical or artistic merit), and I would like for Wikimedia to only feature those. Since different people value these three criteria differently, maybe the photo must exceed in all three. And there goes the pigeon. Tomfriedel (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • IMO one should be careful trying to point out a superior commercial or non-free photo while opposing a nomination. I probably could find better images of many, many, many current subjects represented in FP now.BTW you reminded me a story: Once I nominated sunset mirage image on English Wikipedia. Of course it got opposed and I challenged opposes to find a better image anywhere on the NET. In few days user Pengo got back to me with a "better" image he found on Flickr. Guess what, it was another my own image, which was not better at all. To me this story proves one more time that one might be better off, if one avoids opposing the images he has no expertise about. I'd also would like to comment on one more of your points, please.IMO because Wikipedia is encyclopedia and not high quality photo contest, value of the image should be the very first criteria. I also believe that FP will only benefit, if there will not be so many similar, almost the same images as we have now. Sometimes it is getting really funny like for example with those two Aquila heliaca photographed by the same photographer in the same zoo on the same day.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Milla, keep your shirt on :-) Delisting is no place to get attention for solving problems/anger with FP as everybody more or less has. We have a very nice discussion page for this - or develop/create your own diligence badges like Slaunger has done with Valued Pictures. IMO - if you donate or nominate your pictures it's unpolite to backtrack this - cling together swing together I have to say. I can remember a time when you can't get enough in nominating lots of your pictures where a few justifiably gained consensus and you was happy with that - you should have considered it carefully before. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Richard. I agree it is not the right place to disscuss the problems, yet I believe we did have a nice discussion here. IMO to call me nominating my own image for delisting "unpolite" is a litlle bit too strong (besides I was not the one, who nominated this particular image on FPC in the first place, if you'll be kind enough to notice), but, if you believe it was unpolite, I am sorry. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I forbear from offend you personaly in any kind (you should know me, eh !), maybe uncivil is a more precise term - concerning backtracking of donations and awards without cogent reasons. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, Richard, there's no offense at all. As I said you are right, and besides you did so much good for me in my time of need that now, if you say something like "uncivil" or ""unpolite" (I believe the right way to say is "impolite"), I simply consider these as friendly remarks, and of course I do know you :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep   ■ MMXXtalk  07:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - I sympathise with Mbz1, but these images have been awarded a (deserved) high accolade by the Commons community and I think it would be unfair to withdraw it, implying that the author's vote/opinion is worth more than the rest of the community's. Anrie (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --ianaré (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I vote for keeping, even I can understand the feelings of Mbz1. I thing, that everybody, who is workig with wikipedia for longer time has somtimes similar feeling of frustration and inability to enforce his own ideas. For example, from the year 2005 when I have started on Czech wiki I stopped my cuntribution two times for some one, two monts. But wikipedia was stronger than my frustration and I came back. And this is, what I like to advice to Mbz1. Take some wikivacation. 2 weeks, months, its up to you. And you will see that you will be back. Your images are really good and valuable and I believe, that we shall see many, many others from your camera. --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep All I see is a good image. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep A great image. Whether an image is listed as a Featured picture is based upon the opinions of the community, not the creator, especially where the purpose of the delist request is to make a point. Adambro (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    From all our disagreements of the last few days I could say that I agree with you on this one only, Adambro. I should not have been making my point with this nomination the way I did. Sorry about this! Besides it was one of a very few of my images that was supported by Lycaon, and for this fact alone it should have been preserved for the eternity, and not nominated for the delisting :) I believed the nomination time has expired a long time ago, but, if it is not, I Pictogram voting delete.svg , and I'm sorry I took so much of everybody time, although I still believe that we had a rather interesting discussion, which involved some users, who usually do not go to the project talk page to discuss the issues.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

File:East Hempfield Township.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 08:32:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nicholas - uploaded by Dincher - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great colors -- Lucash (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition nothing extra, but beautifull sky. --Karelj (talk) 09:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Extreme saturation, heavy denoising and horrible clone job on the sky (on the RHS). Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice colors. Sh1019 (talk) 12:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose yes, cloning error and smeared details otherwise a nice picture --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with opposers --Simonizer (talk) 18:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unreal colors, artifacts in the sky and so on. --Aktron (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, far too unsharp. --Aqwis (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It looked sharp enough to me. Nice sky. JalalV (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposes --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure, real details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice photo, but per other opposes. kallerna 16:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per most other opposers ; extreme colours, oily look from the overdone NR, and the now famous clone mistake...--JY REHBY (discuter) 06:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks good as thumbnail, but the big image reveals too much post processing. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:335 place D'Youville Montreal.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 22:32:43
335 place D'Youville Montreal

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Anhinga.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2009 at 22:51:11
Anhinga

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Anhinga anhinga in Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wirklich geil --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  07:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Disturbing background Lucash (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ianaré (talk) 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --Kosiarz-PL 18:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, the background is a little disturbing, but it is also the background that makes the wow. Calandrella (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose subject lost in the background Gnangarra 22:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support 很漂亮Sh1019 (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice crane, but background too busy. JalalV (talk) 10:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ganz gut Daniel --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christoph.fr (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in spite of "rude wake-up call" :) Beautiful plumage!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per previous --Pom² (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Ice12 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ice on the ground in forest

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A very interesting image, and very high quality as well, however the bluriness of the top background does detract slightly. The sticks in front of the ice pillars are also a slight annoyance. Maybe I'm just picky, because I'm no expert. A great image nonetheless. 203.35.135.133 14:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry. kallerna 16:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per kallerna. --Georgez (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I like the idea, but it could have used a tiny bit of tweaking: removing some of the foreground distractions would have moved this from merely "interesting and neat" to "fantastic". I'm going to support as I presume the shot is essentially irreplacable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Alfeniques 5.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2009 at 21:29:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportTraditional figures of the Day of the Dead in Mexico -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gnangarra 22:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer this already featured version 41.222.30.20 04:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Georgez (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me. JalalV (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "No wow"? Please provide a real reason for opposing this image. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is very grainy. The DOF is good though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice --norro 00:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality issues (noise) and per 41.222.30.20. Lycaon (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Lycaon. --Karel (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good use of DOF --Mbz1 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Couch-soleil (by).OGG, not featured[edit]

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Roxy Theatre.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 13:03:04
Leeton Roxy Community Theatre

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Leeton Roxy Community Theatre was built in 1929 - 1933 and was modelled on the Roxy Theatre in New York[1]. created, uploaded and nominated by Bidgee -- Bidgee (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bidgee (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It is tilted and has visible barrel distortion. I suggest re-doing the perspective correction using hugin. --Dschwen (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI tried fixing it and gave up (which is why I uploaded the Original). Bidgee (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's special in this photo? kallerna 18:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's an historic building and one of very few left in Australia and New South Wales. Bidgee (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Very few historic buildings left in Australia? ;-) Diliff (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNothing. --Georgez (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would be nice if you could give a little more detail on what you would like to expect (IE: Feedback). Bidgee (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, sorry. Calandrella (talk) 21:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture is technically fine, but a Featured picture must have something more, that something is called wow. It's very hard to define, and even harder to capture; it's what makes an image stand out from the crowd, what elevates it into 'great' not just good. You'll know it when you see it. I can't give many tips on how to achieve it; I'm not a photographer, and it's the sort of thing you discover for yourself. Try shooting something uncommon, or perhaps an interesting or unusual shot of something ordinary. 202.12.233.23 10:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The building itself is unusual (Design of the outside is the one in New South Wales with all the other theatres built with a different design and look), Also and art deco design which not many art deco theatres are left in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's the ability of an image to create emotion and feeling in a viewer that elevates it to Featured status. Will members of the general public have any reaction to this image? Judging by the reactions of the viewers thus far, it appears not. Sounds to me like this picture would be more appreciated in 'Valued Images', which recognises images which are the best example of their kind.203.35.135.133 12:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No where in Commons:Featured picture candidates does it say that it's all about emotion and feeling. It's about value and there is no other photograph like this (Yes it needs some corrections) nor is there a building like this in the world or possibly Australia. Bidgee (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Like I said, I'm no expert, hell, I'm not even a registered member of Commons. But as as someone who has watched the ebb and flow of nominations, I can say that emotion and feeling do play a large role in the selection of some pictures. In Commons:Image guidelines, it states that pictures "must have a wow factor", that is, the ability to make the viewer feel something when seeing the image. Your image is unique, and technically sound; I don't deny that, indeed, it's a very fine picture, and you yourself state it's value. All I can do is recommend Commons:Valued images.203.35.135.136 13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How come are there some featured photos on Commons that have no WOW factor at all and were selected due to the 'uniqueness' of the image? Valued images is not the same as Featured pictures and don't seem to have 'Photo of the Day' rights. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow means differnet things to different people. If you think that some images should be moved to Valued Images, then start a discussion and see what others think. On a side note, I think we should move this discussion to our respective talk pages. It's getting rather long ;) 203.35.135.136 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is a well exposed and well composed valuable picture. However to make it featured I would first ask to correct the huge chromatic aberrations. Second point is mentioned by Dschwen. Thrird: Not enough wow factor for me. --Ikiwaner (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Broadway tower edit4.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 15:15:40
Broadway tower

Without the person, the left part of the picture is just useless, empty space that detracts from the composition. --Aqwis (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Without the person, the picture loses the sense of perspective that made it so interesting in the first place.202.12.233.23 10:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Scale is what makes the original picture so powerful. JalalV (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose simple crop, takes 10 seconds to do this. Image does not have any purpose compared with the other versions of the image, i simply uploaded it to save commons from a trash 640px version of the image of the year. This nomination is needless, close it and delete the image as it is superseeded by other versions and not used anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've already seen this tower somewhere on Commons (I mean a nomination). What is the reason to nominate it again? Are we going to estabilish a picturnality cult? ;-) --Aktron (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Bismuth-crystal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 16:44:30
Bismuth crystal

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Pom² (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Cigogne (by) (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ciconia ciconia

Storks are notoriously less sharp than penguins. --JY REHBY (discuter) 06:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --Georgez (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- no description Gnangarra 22:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Gnangarra : I writted it. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite unsharp at full resolution. — Aitias // discussion 02:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mostly for the reasons listed above, but also since the file name is inappropriate not very descriptive of the image. J.smith (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Grande-lune--20080213 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 17:28:12
Moon

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Georgez (talk) 21:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't we already have a featured picture showing looking like this? Calandrella (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and... Gnangarra 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is something wrong pasted in the middle and there is already one featured like this. Lucash (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose major stitching errors are the biggest problem in my opinion. With a subject that is always there, I am much less forgiving of technical problems. On top of that, the name of the file is problematic for me. --J.smith (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stitching is indeed not good. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ComputerHotline - Belle dame (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2009 at 17:36:47
Vanessa cardui

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support still on the small side for a FP but the subject is small, good DOF Gnangarra 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the file's inappropriate file name. I would also have liked to see the background blurred out a bit more, to bring out the foreground. This could be taken care of with a narrower DOF or even in post-op. J.smith (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I dont have an issue with including the username within the file name though I do prefer it at the end, its a good way to ensure unique names when uploading using tools like Commonist. It also make its easier to find off wiki uses, especially at some sites who are renouned for false copyright claims. Gnangarra 12:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The filename also completely screws up the sorting in categories and makes our internal search tools worthless. J.smith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Frozen pinecone.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 04:34:35
A frozen pinecone of the Pinus Strobus variety, or Eastern White Pine. The cone was coated in ice following an ice storm in the midwest.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Honestly? No wow? Please provide a real reason why you are opposing this image aside from "no wow". I've looked back on all your other opposes, and all you say is "no wow for me". IMO this vote shouldn't be counted and in the other images that he placed comments in because he does not provide a valid reason for opposing. --Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
a reason is not really required, fp is a vote not a consensus. Also English is not the first language for a lot of users on commons, some might not speak it at all and people might use simple phrases instead of well expressed sentences. -- Gorgo (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Although the subject is interesting, the colors are a bit dull. I too have some problems finding the wow-factor here. Luctor 11:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A very detailed and beautiful image, and a credit to you sir, but unfortunately it lacks the 'wow' to Feature.203.35.135.136 15:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, I seem to be the minority, but I think this is really an interesting and beautiful image. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Pom² (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Graffiti i baggård i århus 2c.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 11:10:55
Graffiti in a back yard in Århus

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "No wow"? Please provide a real reason for opposing this image. Redmarkviolinist (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, sharp, nice colors, good composition, and plenty of wow. --Lošmi (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horrible dimensions ratio of image. (And for Redmarkviolinist: No wow is real reason for opposing.) --Karel (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
What aspect ratio would you expect a panoramic to be? J.smith (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot of wow for me - and only a panoramic image can show that this place is really surrounded by graffiti. --Chmehl (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Moved support to color corrected re-stitched version. --Chmehl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Enough wow for me. Extremely sharp picture, very interesting subject. Luctor 11:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It needs proper restitching. The bands in the sky are too obvious. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. Otherwise very good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Restitched version:

Graffiti i baggård i århus 2b.jpg

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A new version that had restitched is uploaded. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This version is better stitched, the bands in the sky are not too obvious anymore. But I prefer the warmer colors of the original version. Maybe you can color correct this version a little bit? --Chmehl (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Color corrected:

Graffiti i baggård i århus 2c.jpg

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hope that will do, but my vision is not the best. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Re-confirm Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thanks for letting me know it was updated. Let this support follow for any other minor color corrections. --J.smith (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very Good. --Chmehl (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for informing me; this one is much better.   ■ MMXXtalk  22:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better now --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 12:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Lake Agnes.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2009 at 16:54:21
Lake Agnes

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henning Berz - uploaded by Henning Berz - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it but there is a huge glare spot in the middle of the image, it's not really that sharp (especially on the left) and the mountain is completely in shadow while the right part is sunny which distracts from the main object (the mountain). -- Gorgo (talk) 17:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Isn't the lake and the surrounding areas the important thing in this picture? Not just the mountain, but the overall look of the place. By the way, there was a FP, which was picture of the day less than a month ago, which had a glare spot. It was a panoramic view of a valley or something similar. Kadellar (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something is wrong with the focus. The camera has been set to "landscape mode", but the only thing in focus is the fir tree on the right hand side. The mountain itself is not at all sharp. Sorry. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Exposure. I like the composition, but the mountain is a bit too dark and the trees a bit too bright. JalalV (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Mostar, Stari Most at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Original
Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2009 at 11:07:49
Stari Most in Mostar at night

Original[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by BáthoryPéter -- BáthoryPéter (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BáthoryPéter (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karelj (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 15:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC) moved bellow --Acarpentier 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Something is wrong with this picture. Maybe its (un)sharpness, or the fact that almost half of the photo is totally black. Diti the penguin 16:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excelent image! Vanjagenije (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very nice -- Gorgo (talk) 17:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose All the buildings are leaning to the left, and there is a lot of posterisation in the sky. Images like this are more effective when taken at dusk rather than at night. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MichaelMaggs --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. -- JalalV (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - it is too dark.--Avala (talk) 15:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Rotated[edit]

Rotated
Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2009 at 02:25:07
Stari Most in Mostar at night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternative version, reduced leaning and brighter stones in the left bottom corner. -- BáthoryPéter (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- BáthoryPéter (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Umnik (talk) 15:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good light! Calandrella (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 04:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This picture should and could be way sharper. Nice composition though. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - too dark. Image of higher quality can surely be made.--Avala (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree about the sharpness. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Rather nice. It mustn't allways be downsampled gigasized panos but for a single shot the sharpness is insufficient. I assume it's caused by motionblur or an active image stabilizer while doing long time exposure. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI haven't image stabilizer (Nikkor 18-70) and I used a Manfrotto tripod. Noise reduction wasen't necessary, Nikon D50 at ISO200 is not noisy. For that matter in this picture I came to like this pleasant softness, its satisfying me ...but it seems disturbing for You. So I understand You --BáthoryPéter (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's the lacking border sharpness at open aperture f/3.8 @ 27mm on this lens which causing this effect. MB was only a assumtion as the exifs or lens details in the description aren't really expressive :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support terrific --Jeses (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. -- JalalV (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's too dark and maybe bit unsharp, but I like it. kallerna 19:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 19:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Geophagus brasiliensis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Young Geophagus brasiliensis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Christoph.fr - uploaded by Christoph.fr - nominated by Christoph.fr --Christoph.fr (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christoph.fr (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great job! Karl1263 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Karelj (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Georgez (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This fish rocks! --Aktron (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background and the scratches on the glass aren't helping. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Seems like a prime candidate for Commons:Quality images quality image. JalalV (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a good picture but the background is 2 distracting to separate the fish --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry - artificial environment is too distracting and prominent. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture! trop mignon le poisson ;) Pandora moteley (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh and weird coloured flash shadows and per MichaelMaggs. -- Lycaon (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => /not/ featured. JalalV (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2009 at 22:33:09
Black-crowned Night Heron

  • Absolutely. I was just waiting to see those feedback, thanks here's my withdraw. ;) Acarpentier 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg  Check out my other nomination here. Acarpentier 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Way to go, Alain!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
     ;) --Acarpentier 03:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Shakedown 2008 Figure 1a.jpg, featured[edit]

Original - Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 Alternative - Vignetting reduced
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 00:30:27
Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 11:05:00
Snowboard figure at the Shakedown 2008 Alternate - Vignetting reduced

Original[edit]

  • I think that you are seeing snow there - appropriate for the image - Peripitus (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it is snow. But since there are only a couple of small dots present, they are not functional in this picture and rather annoying. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the original, but not the vingetting effect of the alternative. JalalV (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI don't know who uploaded this alternative but it's really not realistic. I did not modify the saturation of the original, the sky was as I see on my computer screen (macbook pro). And I'm not going to remove the snow here, I want to keep the picture real. --Acarpentier 17:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Vignetting is a bit too visible to me. Vignetting is not "real", it's due to the lens and I think postprocessing that makes the image look closer to reality would not make the image less real. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, I've read about it and understand now. I'll try to fix it. --Acarpentier 21:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --norro 23:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: white spots distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you crop the picture? kallerna 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate[edit]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not realistic. I did not do any vignetting effect on the original. --Acarpentier 17:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vignetting seem to be reversed instead of removed. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The snowboarder is good, but the background is dull-- nothing but blue. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate 2 - Vignetting corrected

Alternate 2[edit]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've corrected the vignette from the RAW file into Camera Raw. --Acarpentier 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 22:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The vignette is not nearly as big a concern for me as the color. I actually find the vignette in the original helps focus on the snowboarder. The color of both alternatives, however, is painful to my eyes. If you really want to get rid of the vignette, is it possible to replace the background with a more natural blue? JalalV (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This version seems good. Diti the penguin 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very cool! :) --J.smith (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough wow, IMHO. Barabas (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's very dynamic, but the monotonous background ruins it for me. Sophus Bie (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I preferred the colour pallet of the first version (but without the vignetting). Lycaon (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect wallpaper :) --Lošmi (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pom² (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Pelican - barker inlet.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 08:55:17
Australian Pelican

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Peripitus - uploaded by Peripitus - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXXtalk  08:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. The Pelican looking out of the picture. Haros (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm most pleased that someone likes this one but the composition is ordinary and the subject common enough that a stunning image is possible. I was just playing with my new lens here - Peripitus (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image, but nothing seem extra special about it. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per creator. Composition is indeed a bit unfortunate with the pelican looking out of the picture. Sharpness (and general quality) is good though. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per creator --ianaré (talk) 03:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Wonder eye.png, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 13:03:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JalalV - uploaded by JalalV - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JalalV (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. --Acarpentier 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with Acarpentier. I wonder if an expert could find a better crop to improve it. --norro 23:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea is good, but the execution isn't. There is way too much noise present. --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSymbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's worth watching - but - not enough smashing --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why png format and as a result no EXIF? Lycaon (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Yes, why you converted this photo to PNG ? why you didn't upload the original JPEG ? is there anything in the EXIF that we should not know ;)   ■ MMXXtalk  21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lol, the reason I saved it as a PNG file is because my camera only saves jpegs (no raw file), and PNG was the most universal lossless format I could think of. This is a simple crop to focus on the eye. I didn't realize the original was so interesting to people! JalalV (talk) 02:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    ✓ Done
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Idea is lovely, execution is quite good, but not enough for a Featured Picture (reflection is not centered). PNG? --Javier ME (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't think the very minor flaws are enough to keep an artwork like this from FP. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Adam. --AlexanderKlink (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea Muhammad 05:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Massimo Catarinella. Lycaon (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Black soldier fly.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 21:30:57
Black Soldier fly

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and- nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 21:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 harsh fl lighting and a lot of sensor dust --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, indeed, too many dust spots. --Aqwis (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question If I were to clone the spots out would that make a difference to your votes? Muhammad 17:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Without the d-spots the lighting remains very harsh - shortly said - its wrecked by flashlight --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg , thank you for reviewin my image --Muhammad 14:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Catedral de Pampas.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 22:40:08
Parroquia San Pedro de Pampas

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your answer would be cut from the side?--Digary (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Correct exposure and details. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Would need perspective correction and probably a better crop on both sides. --JY REHBY (discuter) 22:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

file:birdsniper.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 10:04:41
birdsniper

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by loki11 - uploaded by loki11 - nominated by loki11 -- Loki11 (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Loki11 (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  10:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, nice snapshot but very small size.   ■ MMXXtalk  08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a snapshot --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 14:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice snapshot. --Karel (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support timing --Jeses (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image should have been FPX'ed for size (twee megapixels is de onderlimiet voor foto's) and the staged snapshot is indeed too much snapshot to be eligible. No mitigating circumstances. Lycaon (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose but funny and worth watching --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It made me laugh when I saw it, and I'm really glad it's been uploaded here. Unfortunately it fails our min size requirement of 2mp. --J.smith (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Size --Simonizer (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 16:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Octopus marginatus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 17:52:09
Octopus Intelligence Octopus marginatus.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Nhobgood -- Nhobgood (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nhobgood (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is it upsampled ? I'am asking because Oly C8080WZ has only 8mpx --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose formerly FPX|the image is upsampled (max resolution for your camera is 3,264 × 2,448 pixels and it is not identified. Lycaon (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's heavily upsampled (factor 4) and losts it's details --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks great at the medium preview but not in full size. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christoph.fr (talk) 10:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Identification is normally needed for FP, and upsizing is not helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would support if the original is uploaded. The image is awesome. J.smith (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThanks for the comments. I am still dealing with determining optimal resolution when saving a JPEG for quality printing. I will try and resample this image without compromising quality. --Nhobgood (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have re-sampled the image with a less aggressive crop, straight from the original. Does this alternate meet the criteria ? --Nhobgood (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it! --J.smith (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nhobgood, please do not forget to vote yourself on your alternate.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Nhobgood (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sophus Bie (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christoph.fr (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Re-sampling is rarely an option. Upsampling is taboo, downsampling is seldom justifiable. The aim is to post as large as possible, but of course without upsampling. Your image looks good at this size, but lost a lot of information in the downsampling process. The oppose is for the downsampling (7,990,272 pixels → 2,116,800 pixels !!!). In any case, you have uploaded some of the best underwater pictures on commons IMO. Lycaon (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks Hans for the guidance and encouragement. Frankly, I am still trying to figure out how to crop the image to best represent the subject while not compromising the resolution/quality. Tips welcome! - Nhobgood (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful picture! But I have to agree with Lycaon. Resampling means that the picture doesn't look so good when it is printed, or under high resolution monitors, etc. (You begin to see the pixels.) Why not just upload the original you have (direct from the camera), and ask the wiki community if they have any ideas? JalalV (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Even though this is featured, I would still recommend uploading the original and asking for suggestions. A higher resolution picture would benefit all of us. If you can get a better quality version, it is easy to "delist and replace" with your new version at a later time. JalalV (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:SilvrettaNova 11.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 17:51:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by JalalV -- JalalV (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JalalV (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but I do not see any reason for nomination into FP. --Karel (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I noticed this on the Quality Images page and was surprised it was never nominated for FP. I really find it striking. JalalV (talk) 01:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, definite wow, quite strong technically as well. Freedom to share (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It does the "wow" for me. -- Klaus with K (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the encyclopedic value is given see: Avalanche control --Böhringer (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:George Washington Carver2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2009 at 19:48:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Centruroides infamatus 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 04:57:26
Centruroides infamatus

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This scorpion is about 1.25 inches in length. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would have though that this type of image belongs on Quality Images. But, I could be wrong. 203.35.135.136 15:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor field depth (paws are blurry), plus lighting issue in the right of the background: it is turning violet (an homogeneous and clean background would be appreciated). --Coyau (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poorly done background and insufficient DOF. Chelae are OOF. Object is not (yet) clean. Lycaon (talk) 10:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear Lycaon: Just for your information. Body from head to beginning of tail: ½ inch… baby scorpion… Shutter speed: ½ sec, aperture: f16, 50mm macro lens. So, if an observant photographer/critic adds up that information, the conclusion is that additional DOF is difficult to get because 1) macro lenses inherently have shallow DOF, it is plain physics, you should know, you claim to be a scientist; 2) f16 is a very small aperture that will yield DOF, however, due to the fact that for illustration purposes, a diagonal plane (so not paralllel to the chip lane) was chosen as to render the most complete information about this bug, so macrolly speaking, even though the distance between the front part of the subject to the furthest part is small, in macro terms it is large. 3) In macro photography DOF is always sacrificed at one point. What really matters is the sum of the elements. 4) Finally, you really must be joking about the bug not being (yet) clean! And BTW, this is another bug, not the previous one. Other one died… :o( --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dof. You could use focus stacking like this other scorpion macro Cercophonius squama.jpg which also has a much cleaner background. However that one also failed FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Daniel, yes, much better photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral =>not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Eichenberg 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 09:07:34
Eichenberg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Overlooking the St. Bernard Parish Church at Eichenberg, Austria, of Lake Constance and the Swiss mountains of Alpstein. Right in the picture: Lindau Island. created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 09:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Christoph.fr (talk) 10:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  22:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its tilted a bit horizontal or am I wrong? --Simonizer (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info no, I've often checked, but I saw the same. mfg.--Böhringer (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 16:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Burrows (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Du solltest anfangen Postkarten nebenbei zu verkaufen :-)) --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
ja, ich weiss es grenzt oder ist fast schon Kitsch :-)) --Böhringer (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Kitsch ist doch was schönes. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. JalalV (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:2009 Anti Israel Protest Tanzania.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 16:21:29
Anti-Israel protest

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Tanzanians protesting the Israel bombardment of Gaza. Created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad 16:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lycaon (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - there is no clear focus ie. too many distracting components.--Avala (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great, good use of DOF --Simonizer (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Acarpentier 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality. --Karel (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality, distracting. kallerna 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Whats wrong with the quality? If established FP contributers like Lycaon and Simonizer support, assuming good faith, I hope the opposes are not biased due to political reasons Muhammad 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'm sure that some people will not support/oppose for political reasons... and in my opinion comments here are most non sense for this kind of picture... --88.208.235.52 02:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I find this a very poor reaction, I dont read much in the way of good faith and suggest that the nominator leave such observations to uninvolved parties, if there are any concerns about any review I suggest you ask for someone at COM:AN to have a look. Gnangarra 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no problem with this being promoted at COM:QI but for a self made image 2000px is small its half the camera's actual image size at full resolution. The smaller the image the more significant the image needs to be, FP is about being our best work. Gnangarra 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - on composition grounds. As Avala put it there is no clear focus ie. too many distracting components.-- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Take away the signs and that could be the local shopping center on a Saturday...=)202.12.233.23 13:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow, what an inteligent comments! Yeah remove the signs, remove all the people, and remove everything else, then put a beautifull sky background and it could be the picture of a sky!!! --88.208.235.52 20:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment *Sigh* What I meant was, it's not a very emotive picture. Take away those signs, and you wouldn't know it was a protest. FP is the home of media that "speaks” to people, and "has the capacity to evoke emotion". So far as emotions go, most of the people in that photo look bored. Not exactly inspiring. 202.12.233.23 12:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Cheb mažoretka 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 20:59:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karel (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice colors, but there is not sufficient information to determine the value of this image. Could be anywhere. Faces of two other women are obstructed by pompoms. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Added informations about name of dancing group. --Karel (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose She looks bored. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Anexo de Pamuri-3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 21:45:39
Paisaje en el anexo de Pamuri, provincia de Tayacaja.

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photo was taken this time, only that the camera was outdated and did not report the actual date. --Digary (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Anexo de Pamuri-Becerro.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2009 at 22:13:49
Becerro en el anexo de Pamuri-Pampas.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Digary-OSMIC.SRL - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The hills are unsharp, but I like the rest of the photo. kallerna 16:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is the point of this picture: calf or valley? Calf is deformed by wide angle and cut by he frame; valley is out of focus and noisy. Plus no wow factor. --Coyau (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose :-) Indeed a bit unorganized, nevertheless a sweet cow and a nice view --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:La compania.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 01:18:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support VII century Jesuit Church in Patzcuaro, Michoacan. A sober baroque style typical of Jesuits. At right, El Sagrario. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A beautiful and detailed image, with a subtle, yet intriguing composition. After seeing it, I want to know what happened to the church in the past. There is a noticable leftward tilt though, so you might want to correct that. By the way, is that the subject of your previous nomination I spy in the background? =} 203.35.135.133 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Dear 203.35.135.133, a few things: I did a little of perspective correction in photoshop but it is hard to get all vertical straight due to lens distortion, etc.,. I tried to get the center tower straight but if I abuse the perspective control the image starts to get fuzzy at places. Another thing is that not all lines are vertical! Second, yes, what you see in the background is a church from a previous nomination. Also, later on I will try to find information for you on the church. You can read interesting things about Patzcuaro at #REDIRECT [2] and #REDIRECT [3]. Thank you for the comments! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not very good light. I believe, that one could find better conditions in other daytime. Main part of building is in dark. --Karel (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The facade of the building faces north almost exactly, maybe 2º-3º off (you can see the sunlight direction and determine the sun trayectory on the towers) which for an observant photographer means: 1) The facade will never be illuminated by the sun, no matter what hour of the day, always in the dark. 2) At high noon, if there is stray sunlight, it will cast very long vertical and high contrast shadows, which in this case would not be pleasing. On the other hand, one of the things about photography is the use of light and the management of the tonal range. This particular scene will see an increase in tonal range (thus contrast and further loss of detail in the shadow areas, compounded by the short dynamic range of digital cameras) as the sun comes up and decrease again in the afternoon. In this particular case, I visited the church under early morning noon and late afternoon light and chose the subtle and low contrast morning light. I did not bother to photograph it at noon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Main subject is leaning right (Door and RHS wall are not vertical) also some quite visible blue Chromatic Aberration on the RHS of the stone crucifix. I think that the photo point could be better (higher) and though it is a nice shot it doesn't compel me - Peripitus (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, not that much because of the leaning towers (the building seems to be actually crooked...), but rather because of the odd composition. The main focal subject is cropped by the low wall in the foreground, the large cross seems disconnected from the scene... --JY REHBY (discuter) 01:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Compositional flaws as mentioned. Lycaon (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. JalalV (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Despues de la cosecha en Pampas.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 22:28:56
Campo luego de la cosecha.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Digary - uploaded by Digary - nominated by Digary -- Digary (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Campo después de la cosecha en el distrito de Pampas - Tayacaja, Perú. Field after harvest in the district of Pampas - Tayacaja, Peru.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Digary (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - depth of field to short (wide aperture) and image is tilted. No real FP WOW as well - Peripitus (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, tilted and lacking wow. Lycaon (talk) 07:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. kallerna 20:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice view. Actually it's very tilted --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Parque Etxebarria.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 17:57:43
Etxeberria Park, in Bilbao, Spain.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Fernando Pascullo - uploaded by Fernando Pascullo - nominated by Fernando Pascullo -- Fernando (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Fernando (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No es tan nítida como las imágenes destacadas de este o de mayor tamaño. El contraluz hace que la chimenea o los árboles no se vean con suficiente detalle. Me encantaría que Commons destacase imágenes de Bilbao, pero una Imagen Destacada es algo excepcional. --Javier ME (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Astounds in two kinds. Has the touch of a fisheye aesthetic but isn't. I like it - but - the picture has a low quality - looks a bit like handycam but isn't. Sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Silver Spoon (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 18:06:58
Quad-Core AMD Opteron processor

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AMD - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kozuch (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable image, but for FP it's just above the resolution limit and might go below if the white borders were removed. It does not look very sharp. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'am wondering why AMD is releasing such poor visuals. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I suspect that with a subject this tiny it's difficult to get a good, high-res shot with color contrast that makes it interesting to look at. --J.smith (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, interesting it is but in macro dimensions this CPU isn't really tiny. I assume a dimension of 3x3cm which is larger than a APS-C sensor. Would say you need less than a 1:1 macro. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:New Forest lone tree 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 00:17:19
Lone tree

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by R J Higginson - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The sunset is not the subject, only the lighting for it. I just happened to see this after photographing some New Forest ponies. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yes, nice. I don't like the composition with the cropped center tree and the distracting undefined boughs in the lower half. Silhouettes of trees can be very nice and impressive but this picture hasn't a surpassing expression, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I have several variants, but the uncropped tree is too dead-centre. Also with more dramatically red sky, but this is darker and loses some foreground detail which is present in the lighter version in what comes over in the thumbnail as an all black foreground. The tree was amongst gorse, on which the ponies were grazing. I will replace with uncropped tree and invite comment. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Now done - difference is very slight - I have one with the tree looking more distant, but I thought the higher definition on the branches would be better. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Panorama da Atessa 02.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2009 at 21:30:57
Panorama of the Val of Sango and of the surrounding hills (province of Chieti, Italy)

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is small. Please read guidelines before nominating. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This photo is clear, sharp and informative, and the light is attractive. If a higher-resolution version is available, it would increase the value as an illustration of the area. Fg2 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

File:ZenitBC.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 23:34:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of the 5th day).  Lycaon (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Hitterdals Church, Telemarken (i.e, Telemark), Norway- (LOC).jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 17:37:42
Hitterdals Church, Telemark, Norway

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by The Library of Congress - uploaded by Dybdal - nominated by Dybdal -- Dybdal (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dybdal (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is watermarked 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.

Lycaon (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You can only remove an FPX with a support!. Lycaon (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fact that it is an old photo does not excuse the poor lighting. Also, FPCs should not have a watermark. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:View thru the E river from the bridge.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 22:44:06
E river through Edam town in Netherlands

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is tilted 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.

Lycaon (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Swan for a stroll in Sunny weather.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2009 at 23:19:14
Elsinore Swan, Denmark

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is overexposed 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.

Lycaon (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ship coming 2 dock at Elsinore Denmark.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 00:00:50
Ship, Helsingborg Dock

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That was my idea of covering more of the sky to get the prominence to Ship. Thanks for the Comments. If you look at the flag post, I presume its not tilted that much. Madhurantakam
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. kallerna 16:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is tilted 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.

Lycaon (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Sound helsingborg.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 22:14:10
Sound_Helsingborg

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is tilted 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.

Lycaon (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower view Canal.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2009 at 22:22:10
Eiffel Tower _Paris

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is tilted 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.

Lycaon (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With that amount of tilt it could be a purposely stylistic device, don't know if FPX is fair here. --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • you're free to support it and remove the fpx -- Gorgo (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
By the way, what is called a canal is the Seine River. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for spending sometime pondering over this picture guys. I did it purposefully to have it in that manner. I hope its fine and I really dont want to make it straight as well. Madhruantakam

File:Punch - Masculine beauty retouched1.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 07:27:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by en:George du Maurier - uploaded by Adam Cuerden (talk) and Durova. nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The magazine Punch, at least in Britain, is widely regarded for its stable of top artists. At the period in question, these included John Tenniel, who did the illustrations for Alice in Wonderland, George Cruikshank, (Illustrations to The Ingoldsby Legends, en:Oliver Twist, etc), and, the creator of this George du Maurier, probably best known for his cartoons themselves, and for writing the illustrated novel that both named the "trilby" (a type of hat), and which inspired The Phantom of the Opera. This is one of the aforementioned cartoons from Punch. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Funny and very well done. I love the contrast of the characters and how du Maurier manages proportion. In the overall image, the comparison between the main subject and the delicate lady in the back is great. (and how about more Dore?? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good scan and retouching of a famous cartoon. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Has been nominated before, I can't see that anything has changed so I'll reoppose. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • People asked for context last time, which they didn't have, and opposed because it was missing. I thought I'd try it with the context they criticised me for not providing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as previous oppose. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it very much. Barabas (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only copy of some old ilustration. And also as Daniel78. --Karel (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose => not featured. Ö 20:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose--Musia! (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Gustave Doré - Dante Alighieri - Inferno - Plate 9 (Canto III - Charon).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2009 at 16:31:52
Charon in the Divine Comedy

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gustave Doré - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Charon, in Gustave Doré's illustrations for Dante's Divine Comedy.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A version of this was nominated before (same file name, I just uploaded over) - it nearly passed, but then I noticed that the modern edition was cropped, and couldn't in good faith leave it to be promoted. However, since then I have been able to find a cheap (as rather beat up) Victorian edition of Doré's illustrations of the Inferno, which has the full images for all 76 engravings. Adam Cuerden (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support, support!!! Really nice scan job, and of course, a deliciuos engraving by a Great Master!!! The detail is so rich and imposible not to appreciate it. Thanks Adam! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just wonderful. Nothing else to say. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support One of the better old images. It also tells a story while being thumb sized. Job well done. Lycaon (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support He certainly knew a thing or two about engraving!! Rotational (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Doré a fine choice for quality restoration. -- JalalV (talk) 13:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose => featured. Ö 20:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Musia! (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Blackbird female.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 09:32:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful, crisp and thick --Böhringer (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Umnik (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice birdy! Diti the penguin 17:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd expect a bee-eater with your name, but this is fine too ;-). Lycaon (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great. --Leyo 23:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I hope I can achieve as good. Slight criticism - brown bird against a brown background. But you have to take the photo when you can - can't wait for the bird to arrange itself like in a studio. Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In thumbnail the background looks a bit distracting but in full res the bird stand out very well --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice - Silver Spoon (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose => featured. Ö 21:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Crocodylus acutus feeding.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 14:05:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably great for a printout, but less as an FP. Colour of the water is too similar to that of the reptile, which renders it almost invisible on a standard thumb. It is also very noisy (ISO 1600) and rather unsharp (1/125s for a moving object). Maybe you should have used a flash with a diffuser? Nevertheless, although I cannot support this for FP, it is a nice capture and it has considerable wow when viewed full size. Lycaon (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear Lycaon, Wow! That was a fast oppose! There is just no satisfying your ever changing criteria, quicker than quicksand. A competent photographer and critic would have a totally different interpretation of the data that you just happened to mention. Technically speaking, a choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed of 125 and capturing a moving event in its natural environment (not a zoo, like some) with the level of detail is quite a feat. Granted, not the prettiest of subjects, but crocs are crocs. Some people around here, including you I believe, call that “mitigatng circumstances”. But your oppose is ok with me, cannot expect anything more. Happy New Year! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Tomas, please try not to attack whenever Lycaon makes a critical judgement that you disagree with. Your implication that Lycaon is not a competent critic goes too far and is in my view a very unnecessary personal attack. Your choice of ISO 1600, shutter speed 125 to get enough light is a valid option, but has the disadvantages (noise/motion blur) that Lycaon mentions. Those disadvantages must have been forseeable to you when you made your choice of camera settings, and I see no reason for you to become aggressive when those same obvious issues are mentioned by a reviewer to justify an oppose vote. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok so if I understand: Tomas cannot comment on Lycaon Oppose BUT Lycaon can comment on others support has bellow? And that because he his an admin right? --67.159.50.131 19:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Michael, It really amazes me the "selective identification of implication" attributed to my comments, and the blindness granted to the implications of comments of others. But come on Michael, you know that this is not about just about disagreeing over an oppose vote. There is much more depth to that. On another hand, I have a proven track record on the real world of photography (I say this aware that it may be interpreted as tooting my own horm, but I don't care). And as a person with such experience, my opinion is (I've said it many times) that the selection process is fundamentally flawed (and it is a shame) and one of the consequences is that it runs talented people out of here, to the detriment of a larger good, which is the pursuit of knowledge, etc., etc. So this community can keep on tooting their own horn and believe that this is the greatest photography on earth (reserved to a few participants) or take a hard nosed self critical look and take steps to improve. Believe me, any serious photographer would laugh at the process and be dissapointed by many rejections of good, solid work. I really wish this could become a real and serious forum that attracts talent and work to share for the greater good. In Mexico we have a saying that says: "There is no worse blindness than that of the person who does not want to see." --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning picture which I would probably ask for printing if I had the money for it. Thumbnails of photographs are not really useful, people usually look at the high-res version to vote. :) Diti the penguin 17:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's not very realistic, isn't it? An FP on the Main page is hardly larger than a thumb. That's our business card. But which such a gloomy gray picture... ??? Lycaon (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do you review the images here simply for their appearance as an one-day Featured Picture, or for the quality of the image for other uses, including printing? (Note: This is not an attack, just a real question, since I review images mostly because I feel they suit to this particular use). Diti the penguin 23:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, Dear Diti... you hit the medular point... There is, in my opinion, no real set of criteria of what a FP should be. Much like travelling without a map. However, as such, choose your own road. I would like for this place to choose FPs based on 1) Encyclopedic value 2) Aesthetic qualities 3) Technical merit. 4) Photograhic skill. But these criteria are no match for the Wow-O-Meter, that elusive measuring instrument guarded in the darkest corners of the subjective world of the FPC priests. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Commons has diiferent criteria and I feel your plea for enyclopedic content over aesthetic and technical merit will probably be appreciated at the rnglish wikipedia FPC. Muhammad 11:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Muhammad, I think that the core objective and therefore the first criteria should be encyclopedic value, and from that platform other values, such as aesthetic, cultural, artistic value can be approached. However, here, the aproach is a hocus pocus approach, sometimes refering to the pixel values, sharpness, noise, etc., etc., variables that have absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopedic value of images, or even the quality of them. Encyclopedic value, context, history, relevance is all thrown into the waste basket in order to make room for the Wow-O-Meter and historically-recent technological developments in digital imagery that negate the accumulated value of just about anything done prior to the year 2000. Commons is a repository for all Wikis, and all wikis are encyclopedic, so why should Commons be out of tune? You make the shoes to fit your feet, not grow your feet so as to fit the shoes. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can't see the reptile, because colour of the water is too similar to that of the reptile. kallerna 20:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment LOL!!! Neither could the fish!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support; great example of camouflage. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Jon Harald Søby. Also great demonstration why camouflage is useful. Durova (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This has absolutely nothing to do with camouflage. Water is colourless. This is just a case of poor lighting. Or do you really think that this crocodile has this colour so that photographers from the pool side won't notice him?? Come on people, be serious. Camouflage is a biological characteristic which increases the rate of survival of an organism by blending in its environment, whether as a predator or as a prey. It is not a feature that evolved for wowing FP assessors. Claiming EV for camouflage is close to ridiculous. Lycaon (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Lycaon you're an admin here: just edit others vote has you want... Why bothering telling people their opinions are ridiculous when you can dictate things in here? --67.159.50.130 19:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear Lycaon, of course water is colorless, in its pure form... hardly the conditions you find in the wild. Problem here is the particles suspended in the swamp water, or as in the case of some zoo photographers (you should know), in the pool, they are not transparent. Lighting is natural, and it plays on the water surface, and the way it does helps hide the crocs, for the texture of their skin blends in with the waves, etc. In anycase, the color and texture of the skin blends in with other elements of the environment anyhow, plants, reflexions, mud, etc., etc. Poor lighting? Well, of course it is not the light one gets in a cozy lab, out here we call it natural lighting. --189.187.132.1 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Second Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As the result of the above post, which I inadventently failed to sign logged in, but for which I take full responsibility, Lycaon blocked my IP address thus preventing me from participating and censoring my comments, an act that I consider unfair and an abuse of administrator power. I am accused of implying certain traits about some people, yet nothing is said about the implications that can be derived from Lycaon's words. If Lycaon can critize my photograhic work and my opinions, why can't I do the same with his opinions? Criticism is welcome, both ways. I know my demeaor may turn people off about me and my work, that is ok, that is their prerrogative, but this is not about me or my work. This is about encyclopedia, about art, about knowledge. To stiffle opinion is a coward act of censure. Period. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This is un unfair and malicious comment that I can't let go unnoticed. I wonder where it is coming from and if the author has the courage to sign it! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dear Alvesgaspar, I sig my name to my posts and do not hide neither intent nor opinion, and for that I get blocked and censured. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not important who's behind, what's important is: will it help admin to realize they cannot act on Commons like they would own it, they cannot be treated differently as other users, I'm not sure it is not the goal on Wiki's... --67.159.50.130 21:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, could we be more mellow please? Water is colorless, of course, but these creatures live in shallow slow-moving waters. They are very well camouflaged in silt and mud. Durova (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If this image should demonstrate camouflage I think it would be better without the fish. The fish was hardly caught due to the color of the croc. But as a plain croc image it feels too dark, noisy, unsharp and hard to see the main subject. (though I like the dynamics with the catch). /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture is that of a croc, with a fish in its mouth, in dirty water... Judge on its merits. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As above. Was the fish given to the croc by somenone outside? That would explain how the photo was made. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentSo an unclear understanding about how a picture was done is grounds for opposing??? I tell you a secret... I just point and push a little button until it does "click". As to the above reasons, which one? There are soooo many! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing action shot!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A very cool picture, but the lack of contrast between the subject and the background makes it difficult to tell what is going on at thumbnail to post-card sizes. I wonder if some selective post-processing could fix that? Anyway, I won't oppose since it's much less of a problem at full resolution. --J.smith (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree with Lycaon -- Gorgo (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Prefer croc nominated above (File:Crocodylus_acutus_close_up.jpg). -- JalalV (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I also agree with Lycaon - Silver Spoon (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And another low quality image of some crocodile. --Karel (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:PakistanConsulateHouston.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2009 at 20:08:21
The Consulate-General of Pakistan in Houston

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by WhisperToMe - uploaded by WhisperToMe - nominated by WhisperToMe -- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like the lighting and the landscaping in this shot - plus I haven't heard of a consulate getting a featured picture - WhisperToMe (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Composition (too much tree, not enough consulate) Snowwayout (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I agree with Snow somewhat, but that's a pine tree, and we can't really rewrite reality, and it does give a pleasant atmosphere to the scene. It would be nice, however, if the tree branches in the upper left weren't there, perhaps by photographing from a couple steps forwards of that point, or kneeling down, to get it from a lower angle. The technical quality of the photography looks good to me, and I'm sure that our photographers will chime in if there's problems that my eyes are not trained to see. Frankly, all these really big, multi-layer images of architecture look a little blurry to me at full view in some areas, but I've always presumed that that's because the extra resolution which helps them print better puts it beyond the optical limits of the camera to focus on all areas of the scene at once. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition; where is the WOW? kallerna 19:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 21:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 04:04:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Currier and Ives - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Currier & Ives Brooklyn.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kozuch (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I have one question... The engraving was sketched and cut by CR Parsons, but the copyright is Currier & Ives, Who is the artist? It would be nice to have that distinction. A beautiful print, a picture of times gone by. A valuable document. A good example of an image as social/historical documentantion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I listed as much information as the Library of Congress provided. Thank you for your support. Durova (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was a little worried that this might be too parochial for Commons' international flavour, then I checked and saw that Brooklyn has an entry in approximately 30 Wikipedias. Can't argue with that. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Très bien --Acarpentier 23:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing coincidence that this image is on the same page with File:Manhattan00.jpg above. How many more of these detailed city maps were done during that period? Rotational (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Many, mostly in North America. Local civic associations used to sponsor this type of lithography to promote economic growth. Not all are done to this quality or curated this well. Durova (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kosiarz-PL 20:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning! -- JalalV (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 21:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Ijazah3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 10:06:12
Ijazah

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by 'Ali Ra'if Efendi - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Saw this when looking something up in En-wiki's FPs, was shocked to see it wasn't an FP here. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You get shocked too easily. But it is worthy of FP though. Lycaon (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, so I'm a little prone to hyperbole. It's still a lovely example of a major type of Islamic art, and I don't think we have much, if any, Islamic art as an FP yet. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Restored version of Image:Ijazah.jpg. Hard work, that was. Durova (talk) 16:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Then where is your "support"?--Mbz1 (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Dunno. Maybe I'll abstain. ;) Durova (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Then again, I may be biased :) Muhammad 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not get what is special about it. Crapload (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's an important type of Islamic art - representation of the prophet - and I believe later all people - was considered taboo in religious decoration, so heavily decorated words became important instead. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Islamic art highly under-represented on Commons. But I am surprised that there is no "support" from Durova. Are there restoration issues still pending with this? --JalalV (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Nah, I think it's some sort of personal ethics issue: Durova doesn't like supporting my nominations because we work together so much. However, I didn't actually notice it was her restoration when I decided to nominate it here, nor do I see nominating good work I find by anyone as a problem, so, you know. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Adam is correct. The pool of restorationists is very small so he and I do work together frequently. About half a year ago I began to worry that someone would construe mischief so I began to back off from Adam's nominations. He thought that was being too cautious, but a few months later someone actually did come along at a sister WMF site and accuse us of corruption. That episode made me very glad I had pulled back as much as I did. Someone on this site has been difficult toward me for over a year; I endeavor to maintain polite distance which is why you don't see me so often. The nomination is flattering and a pleasant surprise, but I already have plenty of featured credits and would rather not run into strife when I do content work. So, recusing. Durova (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support (+1 late), 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Christopher Reeve MIT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 11:34:27
Portrait of Superman actor Christopher Reeve

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mike Lin - uploaded by Maddox/Angr - nominated by Jon Harald Søby -- Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Shame about the distracting background! On the other hand, Christopher Reeve is dead, limiting the possibility of new photos, and this photo captures a lot of the dignity with which he faced the results of his accident. If it doesn't pass here because of the background, this is definitely a Valued image contender. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support Definitely a valued picture, but not really featured. kallerna 13:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Adam and Kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose (+1 late), 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Aeronautics2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2009 at 15:59:24
Balloons

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ambrose William Warren (1781?-1856) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden. Special mention to CarolSpears for the initial by-and-large excellent cleanup of dirt and scratches. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A rescue of an en-wiki FPC that I did: The paper tone of the older version was criticised a bit unnatural, and I know a few tricks for engravings, so I thought I'd try an edit. See what you think! Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nomination. Durova (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Encyclopedic value plus the benefit of great aesthetic execution. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My (initial) opposition to this image comes from my knowledge of the process. The layer I have here which was cleand but not color modified would have been gladly provided. (I know where my knowledge begins and ends and I know nothing about what color sepia prints should be.) In the process of image editing, each color edit reduces the amount of color information contained in the image data and this version is an edit of a color edited version when it did not have to be; all that the user Adam Cuerdon had to do was ask and I did not even need to be asked politely. "Your color corrections suck" would have made me laugh and I would have found it difficult to argue with this. Good goals before my fragile feelings. -- carol 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) as promised carol (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Once again, in an attempt for improved communication: I would have respectfully given access to the cleaned and uncolor modified layer of this file had I been asked. It is interesting how an internet and the ease of editing provided by a software seemingly does little to enable an ability to communicate at those times it would have been good to communicate for the purpose of collecting images and the best version of those images -- that is the purpose of this wiki or do I not understand again? This image and all of the contributors deserve thoughtful, positive and knowledgeable management. My support would be for a future with more collaboration towards the stated goals of the interface. -- carol (talk) 23:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know you had your originals for this far back - I didn't even know it was yours until I went to upload it. At this point, I did some somewhat major cleanup work to one small area you missed, and, while I'm happy to redo that, I'm not sure that in this medium the paper matters as much. I'm sorry if I upset you, my intent was to thank you for your good work. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well then, here is an "I am sorry" where the "You are welcome" should have been. I will thank you when you upload your further repair and color adjusted version into the namespace that is occupied by mine right now and get your administrator friends to delete the version that is nominated and being approved here. The repaired only layer from my attempt is here. If you have the confidence and ability to use a different software, my eight-layered file contains a layer which was supposed to isolate the print from the background and perhaps you could more easily create and upload a sharper grayscaled version to the namespace for that here using that eight-layered thing I saved here.... -- carol (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Right. I've redone it. I don't think we need redo the votes - the only major change is a smidgen more sepia, and a bit more sharpness at 100%. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Shoemakers holiday at English wikipedia knew that the edit was mine and is claiming to have made these new files. It isn't the sound of one hand clapping is it? -- carol (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great work, but not impressive enough for FP. Crapload (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Only copy of some old ilustration. --Karel (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Original image by Warren doesn't seem so wow-ish. --JalalV (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Katowice - Katedra - Drzewo fatimskie 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Leftside altar in cathedral in Katowice

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lestat (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like the very warm look with the influence of candlelight but isn't the picture not a bit 2 reddish ? P.S. It's a pity that the altar is unfortunately cropped --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sophus Bie (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadows are too deep, overall color balance is not pleasant. And the subject with all my due respect is fine, but not a great example of art. Crapload (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly oppose. Picture quality is poor, subject is a mess (with respect!) the madonna does not fit at all with the rest of the sculpture from the srtistic point of view, the altar in front and the flowers cover part of the sculpture: guidlines are not followed!.--alpinus5 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • FPX|Flowers, altar, candles and benches on the side are too strongly distracting elements--alpinus5 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • FPX cannot be used when there are already several supporting votes. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Bihoreau Gris 3.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 01:49:41
Black-crowned Night Heron

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Acarpentier - uploaded by Acarpentier - nominated by Acarpentier -- Acarpentier 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Acarpentier 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just one question.... Did somebody feed the fish to the bird or did it catch it? ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I was trying to feed my fish by trowing him a bird but it turn out that the bird was the hungriest one... ;) --Acarpentier 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not asking where birds find the fishes, but I'm asking where you find all those birds?--Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Not so far from where I live, just near where Battle of Saint-Eustache as taked place in 1837. --Acarpentier 19:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 06:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg QuestionWhy we should feature this bird twice ? --85.181.27.173 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Merops (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 12:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The old version should be withdrawn, we dont need it twice --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Agree.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    Done. ;) --Acarpentier 18:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    A very nice picture. Congrats. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. Lycaon (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support vivid --Javier ME (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, but I like the other one as much. Calandrella (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 04:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is the white (looks like a noose) thing going from the neck to the wings ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    It is a sort of feather from this species, you can see it better here: File:Bihoreau Gris 4.jpg. It is really special... ;) --Acarpentier 00:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah! --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. Also glad you chose this version over the other one. Love the fish's mouth! :-) -- JalalV (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not required, but I feel this image deserves all the supports it can get. Muhammad 16:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Ö 12:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:J accuse.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 01:49:23
w:Emile Zola's famous public letter "w:J'Accuse" to the president of w:France in protest against the mishandling of the Dreyfus Affair, 1898.


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Émile Zola - uploaded by Schutz - nominated by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This introduction was written by user:Durova for the nomination on English Wikipedia:
    "This might qualify as the most famous newspaper editorial of all time: Emile Zola was France's leading writer, the w:Dreyfus Affair was its most famous scandal, and Zola published this public condemnation of the government in order to force his own prosecution for libel, so that he could raise evidence in defense of Dreyfus that had been suppressed from Dreyfus's case. Sounds convoluted? It was, but it wasn't a passing scandal either; the affair was a landmark in the history of antisemitism and Zionism. High resolution legible file; English translation available at Wikisource. The headline reads I accuse...! Letter to the president of the republic from Emile Zola"
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image is FP on English and Turkish Wikipedias
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just my cup of tea!!!! Support with pleasure! (And before I am blocked and censured again!) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WOW! (I just got myself a Wow-O-Meter). I just reread this beautiful essay. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as last time (jpg quality - there are clearly visible artifacts in the text). /Daniel78 (talk) 18:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing has changed for this nom since last time. Lycaon (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as I see it, one purpose of FP is to help wikipedias of all language to find high quality things they may want to use. This seems high-quality, and, if not traditionally pictoral, is certinly an important part of history and literature. A primary document, no less. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 14:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose again --ianaré (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Silver Spoon (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support historical importance outweigh minor quality issues for me --Jklamo (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pom² (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As aboove. --Karel (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Ö 12:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2009 at 02:37:47
Two Phalacrocorax auritus and one fish edit

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Just to add to the current FPC collections of the birds with fishes. :)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But I do need to ask if the fish came with an order of fries... that would give me an explanation as to how the photo was made. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    As a matter of fact from all the fishes in birds and croc mouths that are present on this page, mine is the luckiest one. First of all it never got eatten, while the birds fought it escaped with its life, but the most important thing is that this particular fish image was edited by Hans. I know it will be really hard for him to support the image, but I hope that at least he will not oppose his own work :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)