Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/July 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:Phaon iridipennis.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 13:42:36
Phaon iridipennis

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Already featured on English wikipedida. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and very interesting --kaʁstn 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO looks bit underexposed. Could you upload new version, maybe with bigger resolution? kallerna 17:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it.--David Perez (talk) 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This suffers from a combination of minor issues that add up. The DoF could be higher or the camera better positioned. The lighting is very flat and lacks sufficient contrast. The crop is a little tight or the composition is wrong with the dragonfly pointed "out of the picture". If this were a high resolution image, I might support, but at the minimal resolution, there are no mitigating factors here. Richard Bartz has many dragonfly images that do not exhibit these issues that make good references for what I prefer. -- Ram-Man 01:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 15:58:40
Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees, 1944

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jack Downey, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very bad quality --kaʁstn 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a 65 year old photo. Did you read the descripton? Yann (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I read the description. Okay, it's a little rash. I've delete the FPX, but I think, that this picture has no chance --kaʁstn 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, my thinking war wrong. Sorry --kaʁstn 18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image meets the requirements, doesn't look too bad AND is 65-year-old. Diti the penguin 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Considering the big resolution and age, quality is atleast enought. It's very strong photo! kallerna 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good picture from 1944... Otourly (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It is not possible for me (HDSL, but low flow) to load this image in high resolution. I suggest to make a derivated work in medium resolution. --Barbetorte (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — one of the finest images of the liberation. Of historical value and of good quality for the time. Booksworm (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp -- downright blurry in the corners, really sharp nowhere ; colours all wrong ; vignetting. Nothing special -- it's a trivial shot of passing mecanised grunts, composition and PoV are not breathtaking. No wow factor. Rama (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 03:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Incidentally, it might be appropriate to rename this image in a way that does not blindly parrot propaganda from the 1940s. Rama (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting, but not FP per Rama. Lycaon (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing fellow on the bottom right corner. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Changed my mind ; this isn't FP for reasons above, but overall white balance, which could be corrected. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – per Rama --Ernie (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Pro2 (talk) 11:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you please explain why you oppose? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Rama is right. I know that this image is very old, but there are better images of this age. -- Pro2 (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Better images of this event? Could you show them to me please? Yann (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
1) He said "better images of this age", not "better images of this event"
2) We would not feature sub-standard photographs for the only reason that they'd be the only ones of their event. That is Valued Image, not Featured Picture. Rama (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - A good picture, there must be very few images of this quality of such an historic occasion. The technical quality of the image is not one hundred percent, but given its age and rarity (a freely licenced colour picture from this age), I definetely support.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is not very good (the sky is uneven). --Estrilda (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support great historical value --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo male female.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 18:35:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by   • Richard • [®] • 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info For me this pictures is a tiny sensation with lots of value - It shows a male (left) and a female (right) of the Beautiful Demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo) in a direct comparison.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   • Richard • [®] • 18:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is she chasing him?  ;-) Switch to oppose due to errors. Maedin\talk 18:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Not really. She was laying eggs before and he watched/observed that very carefully. Every once in a while they took a rest, mostly not together - but in a rare moment ... "click"   • Richard • [®] • 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Aw, :-) That does sound like a tiny sensation with lots of value! Maedin\talk 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the best, but very good --kaʁstn 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful indeed. Focus stack? --Muhammad (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- RBID (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Reason? -- Pro2 (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Probably for the many stitching errors. File:Beautiful Demoiselle Calopteryx virgo male female errors.jpg --Fir0002 www 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Not another case of the loving wrens? File:Superb fairy wrens mark 2.jpg ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- as per RBID --Lucash (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- per Fir0002 -- Pro2 (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- per Fir0002 - good catch. --Yerpo (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to stitching errors. -- Ram-Man 02:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- per Fir0002 --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is this real? --Estrilda (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's a 3d rendering   • Richard • [®] • 22:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunate stitch errors --ianaré (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mercat de la Boqueria Sant Josep 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 18:51:12
Fruit in Market

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Special thanks to Nillerdk for the translation. Also, as Lycaon noted, the fruit layout resembles the flag of Belgium.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's rembering me at this, again a good idea, mean quality, but imo not featured --kaʁstn 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting concept, but I'd have expected the quality to be better. Diti the penguin 19:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not special. Downtowngal (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now you can die happily ;-). Lycaon (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Changed my mind per Diti. Lycaon (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sadly, I'm not surprised. Disappointed, yes, but not surprised. I've been expecting this for several hours. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Chrysanthemum sp.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 22:59:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good. Maedin\talk 19:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not nearly sharp/detailed enough for a static flower image of this resolution. -- Ram-Man 00:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Canna sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2009 at 23:19:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Like usually by Muhammad Mahdi Karim --kaʁstn 14:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - When I see it as a beautiful flower growing amidst the dead foliage of its species, the ugly dead foliage doesn't bother me any more. Downtowngal (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful indeed. kallerna 17:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral great quality and colors but I'm not convinced by the composition : the space in front of the flower should be greater than the space behind it. --ianaré (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in my opinion the composition is a bit cluttered. Quality is good though. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. The flower is pointing the wrong direction. There are also no mitigating reasons for the minimal resolution (to quote the requirements "it is important that nominated pictures have as high a resolution as possible"). Certainly a QI, but not enough wow for FP. -- Ram-Man 01:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Mitigating reasons are required if the image is below the 2mp requirement. --Muhammad (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Mitigating reasons are required whenever an image violates any of the basic requirements, not just when an image has too low of a resolution. This allows us to accept images that are special but violate the rules (too low resolution, too much noise, unsharp, etc.). We feature pictures that are most useful. Intentionally downsampled images are intentionally not as useful and thus violate the rules, as quoted above. There is no good reason for this. -- Ram-Man 11:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gray1095.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 16:34:22
Clear vectorization of Gallblader illustration from Grey's Anatomy. Description in English, Polish, Germany and Latin

Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request I retuched this "overlap". I think, that transparent colors look good. But if you consider that should be change - isn't problem. --Michał Komorniczak (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe it's educational, but not impressive. Featured pics should be.--Tired time (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above + vector version seems to be autoconverted from PNG one, what makes this file pretty heavy and not very "neat". Masur (talk) 03:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kashan to Qum heights.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 08:12:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hamed Saber - uploaded by Diaa abdelmoneim - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low value. “Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that […] almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others” —Commons:Featured picture candidates. Diti the penguin 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question to Diti: How about the quality? I mean the file is only 500kb but also with 2,490 × 1,512 pixels, how come? It is special in that it's not about a sunset but about a rare footage of mountains in Iran. I don't believe we have many images of that area.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it is about the mountains than the problem is that they are way too dark. As guidelines say "Every important object on the picture should be sharp, considering the idea of the image." Here they are only a black spot. Mountains photographed in this manner wouldn't make the photo valuable, even if they were in Pluto, because you can't really see them--Tired time (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it's in some way special! --kaʁstn 13:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The image is pleasing to the eye, but there are a lot like it. Given that it is not really posible to tell where the image is by the photo, there are no decript landmarks etc, then it is just a picture of a sunset, and there are many like it. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, no encyclopedic value. kallerna 18:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Diti--Tired time (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Moneda Venezolana de 5 Bolivares de 1919.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 15:23:24
Coin of Venezuela (Fuerte 1919)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good use for documenting, but not special & of medium quality -- H005 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Alternative, not featured[edit]

Coin of Venezuela (Fuerte 1919)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Isn't the coin supposed to be round? These images look oval. Downtowngal (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's the real size --The Photographer (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better. :) Diti the penguin 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support see my vote at the orginal and per Diti --kaʁs tn 14:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detalied, coin of 90 years old -- The Photographer (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow for me, should be eye catching. And 90 years is not that impressive--Tired time (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No WOW is ever a ridiculously subjective justification, since one image can be extremely useful. --The Photographer (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Well it is in the first paragraph of the guidelines: "Featured pictures candidates should meet all the following requirements, must have a “wow factor”". Yes, "wow factor" is subjective, but featured pictures do need it. If you think it is valuable, maybe it should be nominated in valued images. But could you tell me please, how it is valuable, in what sort of article it could be used? (No sarcasm. I am asking because I have a collection of old coins myself and after seeing your nomination I wondered, if I should photograph some of the for wikipedia too, but I couldn't think of an article, where it could be used.)--Tired time (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Best preserved is the currency for the time. At the moment I'm developing material for inclusion in a detailed article. Thank's --The Photographer (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above -- H005 (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Aletschgletscher mit Pinus cembra1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 16:13:56
Aletsch Glacier with Pinus cembra

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

image:Larvae of Neurotoma flaviventris.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2009 at 23:51:23
Larvae of Neurotoma flaviventris

Uhmm yes, frustration sometimes can have odd excesses   • Richard • [®] • 12:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good! --kaʁstn 10:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad focus, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Late vote. Lycaon (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:F5 tornado Elie Manitoba 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 09:00:35
Category F5 tornado

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Justin1569 - uploaded by Gump Stump - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 09:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Matasg 09:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quite spectacular but not mitigated by bad quality and lots of noise (no pun intented). Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • per Lyacon, but Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --kaʁstn 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per Lycaon. Diti the penguin 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a life threatening situation, so I consider that as mitigating circumstance. --Lošmi (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Lošmi --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Marten253 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Quality is not good enough, which doesn't take away the EV of the image. Try FPC in en:WP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Definitely has the WOW-factor, by far outweighing any technical flaws (not that I see any, actually). MartinD (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overburnt, noisy, dark on some areas. kallerna 14:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive quality given the circumstances. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If those opposing wish to go out and take a better picture, they are more than welcome to. Until that time, however... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Precisely. :) When you have an EF5 tornado bearing down on you, the quality of your image is the last of your worries. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but I wish the foreground was less dark. Downtowngal (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not perfect but best tornado picture on commons. MadGeographer (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I looked through the corresponding WP article to verify the F5 in the description since it doesn't look like an F5 at the time of the photo. Confirmed, so no problem. It's a privilege to have such contributions here. Ikluft (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Splash 2 color.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 12:42:55
Watersplash

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pro2 - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportnot bad --kaʁstn 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is already featured. kallerna 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, there's a similar FP already, but this has color the other one lacks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kallerna. This is the absolutely standard subject for macro photographers (Flickr has 33.849 of it), for that I expect a more aesthtical approach to make it somehow special regarding the subject. What I don't like the most is the plastic bowl with the handholds and the cramped composition as well the tight crop (top + right side). Rudimentally good in technical terms but not exceptional in an aesthetical respectively compositional manner.   • Richard • [®] • 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Value? --Ernie (talk) 10:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Richard --che 09:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Richard said what I meant. :) kallerna 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I concur. Lycaon (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've seen a lot of water drop images that blow me away, but this one lacks that wow. -- Ram-Man 00:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The handle is a turn off, and what Ram-Man said. Maedin\talk 16:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard--Tired time (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per others --ianaré (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Leucanthemum vulgare Kaldari.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 17:12:27
Oxeye Daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kaldari - uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Kaldari -- Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kaldari (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too ordinary, no wow--Tired time (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support: Good photo, but the black background is very unnatural --kaʁstn 06:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The current FP (Disclosure: My image) for this species is superior mainly due to better white petal detail (from the lighting choice) and slightly higher resolution. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree that the black background is detracting from the image. Maedin\talk 08:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-Man --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:AUS Student Center.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:17:36


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:BDS2006 - uploaded by Gikü - nominated by User:Gikü -- Gikü (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gikü (talk) 18:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Tired time (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Overprocessed, way too sharp and so. Diti the penguin 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose confusing (with the black line in the middle) and bad quality --kaʁstn 06:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is far too low. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality. kallerna 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Could be a good example of overprocessing, though. --Yerpo (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, sorry. It's the second time I nominate a picture on FP and the verdict is the same :D Will be more attentive in future. --Gikü (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ambigram - Muhammad and Ali2.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2009 at 18:25:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info original image created by Juzer; vectorized by: Gothika - uploaded by Gothika - nominated by Gothika -- Gothika (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gothika (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried too create a vector myself some time ago. --Muhammad (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Ambigrams are fascinating and I'd gladly support this one if it weren't for the kitschy border and background colour. Also, the border should be symmetrical in respect to a horizontal axis. Finally why is the text (apparently) rotated ccw? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
This "kitschy" border is an arabesque, an element of Islamic art.--Gothika (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Would anyone object if I move this from candidates for removal to current candidates? ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done Ahh, it was already listed here too :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:London Victoria Station by Toni Frissell 1951.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 08:06:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by American photographer Toni Frissell - uploaded by User:Mu - nominated by User:Aylaross -- Aylaross (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Aylaross (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much dust spots and fibers/hairs and annoying color tint. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support At the resolution you could make a nice big print and the dust spots would be barely noticeable. There is some posterization but I don't mind as it's a quite beautiful picture. --Calibas (talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Strong support, if there is such a thing here.;) MartinD (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Aesthetically fine, very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Daniel78 on the technical points. Maedin\talk 12:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - weak quality, not special enough aesthetically. Downtowngal (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe it's not perfect technically, but aesthetic impressiveness overcompensate that--Tired time (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. It doesn't have just a little posterisation, it has extreme posterisation. Probably as a result of a poor scan or poor processing. Diliff (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Daniel and David   • Richard • [®] • 21:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Greina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:46:37
Passo Greina, Switzerland

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tici23 - uploaded by Tici23 - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No bad, but Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question what's this point top right? --kaʁstn 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots, noise and vignetting. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just found my new wallpaper. --Sushiflinger (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice landscape, I agree. The Vindictive (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would have problems voting for this image as a QI due to serious vignetting issues. So is it valuable enough for FP? Not to me.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it and would consider supporting, but not while there are dust spots that should be cloned out. Maedin\talk 11:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Stiftskirche St.Gallen.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 15:53:12
The Abbey of St. Gall

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Petar Marjanovic - uploaded by Ikiwaner - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted --ianaré (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good motive, but mean quality and tilted --kaʁstn 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good motive --Marten253 (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted, perspective, otherwise good --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is either tilted (as above) or just needs a good distortion correction. I'm too lazy to figure out which it is, but if it were fixed I might be able to support. -- Ram-Man 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice shoot, but poor quality Wladyslaw (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Piazza Communale Poschiavo 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 16:09:17
Piazza Communale Poschiavo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support definitely not the best, but a good photo. I like the snow hills in the background --kaʁstn 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate choice of projection spoils it for me. I can't tell what's straight or curved... Lycaon (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The verticals are perfectly vertical (as they should be), the horizontals are curved due to the panoramic effect: no problem for me! Nice picture, good composition. BTW: the 'snow hills' in the background are rather mountains, I presume. -- MJJR (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Lycaon. My first impression is "Are those roofs really curved?", rather than "what a beautiful/interesting scene." I know it's easy to criticize; I don't have to go out and make a better picture. Sorry. Downtowngal (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI agree with Lycaon--Tired time (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reason. -- H005 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Borago officinalis (flower).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2009 at 21:33:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Borage flower (Borago officinalis L.) near Font de Tita, el Perelló (Catalonia), Spain. all by Lycaon (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow--Claus (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, too busy and blurred. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good: the quality - bad: too busy --kaʁstn 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But please add bit brightness into photo. kallerna 14:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, this is a compelling composition. -- Ram-Man 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --David Perez (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. There are a lot of featured micro pictures already, I think we should only feature the very best of them --Tired time (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kalanchoea (talk) 2:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice but nothing special and too blurred MadGeographer (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, really wonderful composition, fresh colors and high DOF. -- Ra'ike T C 11:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Changdeok palace(east place).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 02:30:23
Changdeok Place of Joseon Dynasty in Seoul, Korea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Unknown man - uploaded by Ryuch - nominated by Ryuch -- Ryuch (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ryuch (talk) 02:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work has to award --kaʁstn 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great work, but technically just under minimum size. Can it be gotten any larger? The larger we can get it, the better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Adam Cuerden. should've been FPX'ed on size. Lycaon (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Mischocyttarus flavitarsis Head Closeup.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 07:18:10
Paper Wasp (Mischocyttarus Flavitarsis) Head Closeup

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 21:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:2007 Matterhorn.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:11:19
Matterhorn from the train to the Gornergrat

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Alps - uploaded by Alps - nominated by MadGeographer -- MadGeographer (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MadGeographer (talk) 12:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like the train in the top. I tried to cropped it here --kaʁstn 13:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like --Marten253 (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 13:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like the composition a lot, but the extra-dark sky is artificial. Downtowngal (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Downtowngal. It looks like a polarizing filter used the wrong way. --Ernie (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't care for the composition and I am missing the EXIF. It looks like a polarizing filter possibly used at too wide an angle.
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please login, anonymous votes will not be counted. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral great compostion, but sky really is unnatural --ianaré (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great sky (Over 2000 meter the skye often look so dark!) But next time less JPG Compression! HBR (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As opposers. Lycaon (talk) 07:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Buckingham Palace, London - April 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 12:24:27
Buckingham Palace

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Matasg 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit tilted and I think not the best photo of Diliff --kaʁstn 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't think it's tilted, it's just distortion due to the focal length. --Aqwis (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks tilted and I feel the white balance is a bit off. Would also be better without that airplane. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good image, the presence of the aeroplane is really neither here nor there. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a main flight path in London, so seeing aeroplanes there is standard. Like Aqwis, it's not tilt, it's a small amount of natural distortion. Maedin\talk 15:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Aqwis and Maedin --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral If the plane was removed, I'd support it. Should be a nobrainer with GIMP. -- H005 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Squirrel Scratching the Armpit with its Hindlimb.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 16:35:45
Squirrel scratching armpit

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Wingchi - uploaded by Wingchi - nominated by Valenajarro -- Valenajarro (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Valenajarro (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sweet, it would scraping itself. But please the next time take a photo with the tail --kaʁstn 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unidentified and badly cropped. Lycaon (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute but the lighing is very dull. Can't say it's underexposed but it could do better with a tad more photons :-)   • Richard • [®] • 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2008 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 17:00:41
Marbled rock crab (Pachygrapsus marmoratus).

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by George Chernilevsky - uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support: A very good photo with good quality, but the backgound... In thumb I can't really see the motive... --kaʁstn 19:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --High Contrast (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice quality. The background is too distracting for me though. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The background looks natural to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Background are inshore, breakers zone. This crab protected by the Law in Ukraine: animal Red Book list. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per La Révolution des crabes : "Les crabes même pas beaux, les crabes même pas bouffables, ceux qui puent et qui donnent des maladies." --Romanceor [parlons-en] 23:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It does look confusing in thumbnail, but it's very clear at full size. I don't see why its thumbnail should detract from its worth as a featured picture. Maedin\talk 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Maedin. Lycaon (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Daniel 178 - background. --Karel (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Definitely a QI. Valuable enough to become featured? Not to me. --Ernie (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Grand Palais.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2009 at 19:33:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by amymichon (Flickr) - uploadedand nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral We can see a bus and a car at the bottom of the picture --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
    Edited. I hope it's better.--Paris 16 (talk) 05:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    Edited. Now pict is just a photoshoped one : I can see part of the bus --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
    Edited. Correction look better --Olivier Jaulent (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Mbdortmund --kaʁstn 13:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Pretty but not special. FP guidelines state, "Our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Pictures should be in some way special, so please be aware that almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others." Downtowngal (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Downtowngal --Ernie (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Downtowngal Cacophony (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the sunset "rule". -- Ram-Man 01:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downtowngal really proved his point. It becomes even more obvious, why there is such a guideline, when you look at other sunset pics--Tired time (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This does not mean we must not support any sunset pictures anymore. This one I find indeed special due to the open glass roof skeleton and the extraordinarily clear rays. -- H005 (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Real Alcazar Siviglia.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:47:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Marten253 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Marten253 (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but no wow and not the best quality --kaʁstn 15:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, overblown right side. --Yerpo (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Tower top 2007 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 16:04:04

The old water tower in Vinnytsia, Ukraine.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The vertical lines are not vertical. I'd also prefer to see the clock face-on. It is awkward the way it is now. Architecture can be rather dry, so any defects take away from the "wow". -- Ram-Man 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ram-man ; unfortunate framing/point of view. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:BolivarReconsFlag - 22809(40).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:30:27
Bolivar Peninsula Reconstruction

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by DaFoos -- DaFoos (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- DaFoos (talk) 18:30, 28 June 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, underexposed and unsharp. 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) 18:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image is not tilted and the brighter, more colorful flag is meant to contrast against the background in the setting sun. This image was taken after a day of reconstructive efforts on the peninsula (due to Hurricane Ike), so forgive the amateur camera.--DaFoos (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tilt is 1.05° CCW. Lycaon (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
The flag-pole itself has been tilted from the excessively high winds of the area. That tilt was meant to be reduced. --DaFoos (talk) 19:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
That was for the horizon, the flag-pole is tilted 1.34° CW. So wind tilt is probably 2.39° CW. Lycaon (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Santorinisunset.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:17:58
Sunset in Santorini

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MehmetBilgen - uploaded by MehmetBilgen - nominated by User:Mbilgen -- Mbilgen (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbilgen (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is it tilted? --kaʁstn 12:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry i don't understand the meaning of tilted, but this photo is not modified by any program. I took it by placing the camera on a level surface and set the shutter speed to a couple of seconds as i remember and f to around 8 so the info on the photo is not correct.It was almost night when it was taken so the scene was not as bright as it seems here.. Mbilgen (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As i understand, this is taken during the evening. Most of these kind of panoramas are taken ether at night, or during the day and I think it is so for a reason, because this picture just doesn't do the trick. A bit too dark for me. And looks good only when zoomed a lot. Close call though--Tired time (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose regretfully. Shot a little too late. Agree with Tired time. Downtowngal (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Sunset in Santorini

Alternative2, not featured[edit]

Sunset in Santorini

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but just adding some light isn't sufficient, it's overall too dark and, to me, simply not special enough. Also, the horizon ist not horizontal. -- H005 (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:LeedsSkyBanstead0409f.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 15:22:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chemical Engineer - uploaded by Chemical Engineer - nominated by Mtaylor848 -- Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Nominated this image, as I have tried to take a similar image of the same landscape before, however it can be quite dificult to get an unobscured picture. This I think is a very succesful attempt.Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low quality, grainy, especially the sky. Too much jpeg compression I think--Tired time (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. kallerna 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna --kaʁstn 13:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Smoldering charcoal briquettes.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 21:15:14
Smoldering charcoal briquettes in a barbecue grill

  • How is it nothing special? It's a high-quality and useful image that satisfies all the criteria as far as I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It barely shows the smoldering parts of the briquettes. A more colorful image would be better. Downtowngal (talk) 16:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Set Candidate - Henry Holiday's Illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 00:05:53
Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 1.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 2.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 3.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 4.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 5.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 6.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 7.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 8.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 9.jpg Lewis Carroll - Henry Holiday - Hunting of the Snark - Plate 10.jpg

First off, I apologise for this formatting: It's hard to set up 10 plates simply and cleanly when they switch between landscape and portrait.

Right. These are the original illustrations to Lewis Carroll's The Hunting of the Snark, a sequel of sorts to "Jabberwocky". Full descriptions below. These have been the subject of at least some critical comment (see en:The Hunting of the Snark, for instance), since they were approved by Carroll, and he specified some aspects, such as the snark never being distinctly seen. This set is pretty much complete: I believe there may have also been a cover illustration, but I don't know if it was by Holiday, and mine lacks it. I'll try to pick that up at some later time.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Henry Holiday - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, no provisions are made to feature sets on commons. As always, it would have been nice to have discussed such nominations before putting them on FPC. Lycaon (talk) 04:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ummm...Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw that announcement, did I miss the discussion? Lycaon (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • It was discussed in advance, and a set has run successfully before. It's a bit late to store up your complaint for after the person has spent days cleaning up and preparing a huge set of images, and then to suddenly object when the work is done, and the nomination runs, particularly when you specifically say you saw the announcement. As the FPX template says, "Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support." - I would appreciate that being done as soon as possible. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Can you point me to that discussion? The previous nom is irrelevant for me as I was out of the country that time. Lycaon (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#Upcoming set nomination, as you were linked above. You indicated you were aware of this thread. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Nonono, You know what I'm talking about, that's the statement, not the discussion :-(. Lycaon (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
              • I specifically asked for how people wanted it to run, and asked for any comments. I cannot force people to comment, but you say you were aware of it, so why did you wait until after this went live? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done on the restoration. And yes, Lycaon, you should have raised any concerns when Adam asked. Very bad form to wait until now. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can't remember you approving at that time? Bad form? Lycaon (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I had no problems with the set being nominated, and no suggestions to offer, seeing as the last set went so well, so I didn't see too much point in commenting. In effect, we gave our implied consent by not objecting. There is no rule that states I have to comment on a proposal, but if I am given the chance to do so, as you were, and do not, then it is bad form to object later. I trust Adam, and while his subject matter may not excite me as much as some, I appreciate the effort he puts in, and consider your actions and manner an insult to both him and his work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is an obvious support. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova. A fine contribution to our project. Also per ShockwaveLover. Durova (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportJuliancolton | Talk 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - as supporters. Downtowngal (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain As for videos, I think the guidelines/information should be updated and approved for new formats before voting. /Daniel78 (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment agree with Daniel78. I often said that the guidelines should get updated before we nominate restorations here. In my opinion those pics here are a QI or VI, but a FP?! We don't even know how we should judge restorations. I often saw restorations here that lost a lot of details compared to the original, still many users voted with 'pro', which can't be the right way imho. So i think we have to set up guidelines otherwise it makes no sense to nominate restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
With respect, we've had restorations here for about three years. I'd happily write up guidelines, but we also don't have guidelines for a lot of things, like diagrams and illustrations. This seems irrelevant to this specific nomination. In any case, the restoration work here was minor and limited. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't the place to propose a sudden halt to a practice that Commons has routinely done for years. Durova (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some are good, others are (very) plain. One is amost white, one is almost black. And trying to get so many image to be featured at once is not very fair IMHO. --Estrilda (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's a complete set: I think it gains value for being complete that it doesn't have alone, as it makes Commons a really strong resource for The Hunting of the Snark - which it wasn't before this, and wouldn't be if it wasn't complete. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GerardM (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great work!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for closing my own nom, but I was told it'd be alright, and I didn't want to cause the extra work for anyone else, so...

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 abstain =>  featured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Gymnadenia rhellicani (spike).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 07:27:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Rhellica gymnadenia (flower spike is 22mm high), close to Gletschertafel, Lötschental, Switzerland. Everything by Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Marten253 (talk) 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --kaʁstn 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yerpo (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This has a very pleasing composition, which is why I am not opposing. Taking photos of saturated reds like this is extremely difficult to do without blowing out the color as in this picture. The DoF is a tad on the shallow side as well and it could be sharper. -- Ram-Man 01:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ram-Man   • Richard • [®] • 20:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Ciucas stanca1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 08:38:59
Eerie landscape in the Ciucaş mountains, Prahova County, Romania.

Anonymous votes not allowed. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good composition and exposure, but not very sharp. Would support for QI without reservations, but FP... not so sure. --Yerpo (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - bad qualitiy -- Pro2 (talk) 12:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Quality, value, white balance, shadows could be better exposed --Ernie (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scenery is beautiful, but not special enough. Sharpness is good, but some areas too dark. Also, the fog in the background is hiding too much to see the mountains, but is not enough to be impressive. -- H005 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Montjuic2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 12:07:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:20090129 paris manifestation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 14:12:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info People watching a demonstration in Paris on january 29th, 2009.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, it's an interesting photo, but fuzzy and no really Wow --kaʁstn 15:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find more wow in this type of pictures than in insects' macros... but I very well understand it's just my opinion (of course not for the context which I don't care, but for the subject : people). --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support an interesting photo--Claus (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Interesting people on the stairs. Well chosen. --Dereckson (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The photo doesn't tell us anything about the manifestation except that some photographers were tired. Well-composed but not valuable. Downtowngal (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is because the subject is not the demonstration ; it is the public of it. Am I the tired photograph ? --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - No, you're not the tired photographer. The people in focus look tired, or maybe just cold! Actually, I disagree that the people in focus are "the public" of the demonstration. But that's another discussion. Downtowngal (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the picture, which tells a story --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Really interesting and I would feature it, but the noise reduction dropped all the details away. :( Diti the penguin 08:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diti. kallerna 16:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not ideally technically, but it is pulse of real life --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Downtowngal. MadGeographer (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ziga (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Cherry_tree_blossom_2007_G1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 18:12:22
Cherry tree blossom

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dangling swamp-lover Helophilus pendulus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:03:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mdf - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Dangling swamp lover (Helophilus pendulus)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   • Richard • [®] • 23:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LC-de (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Top level. -- Ram-Man 00:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support shure --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Helophilus species are resembling each other quite a bit. H. pendulus is a hoverfly occurring in Central and northern Europe (incl. Iceland) ([1], [2]). It does not occur in North America. H. groenlandicus ([3]), of which I unfortunately didn't find an illustration yet, and H. hybridus ([4]) at the other hand are holarctic species, also occurring in Canada. You should re-evaluate your identification. Postponing support until then. Lycaon (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Read this, please.   • Richard • [®] • 10:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the PDF: an old but interesting key. I'm even less convinced now ;-). These flies are difficult, and the distinguishing features (face, hind femur/tibia) are not clearly visible on the picture. I think we need the opinion of a syrphid taxonomist here. Lycaon (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In progress   • Richard • [®] • 13:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, as it is a very worthy image. Lycaon (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I know. M. hybridus could be excluded [5].   • Richard • [®] • 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But a wrong ID is far worse than no ID at all. I would appreciate it if you could investigate! Maedin\talk 07:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 09:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, fantastic. --Aqwis (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb quality. -- MJJR (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, whatever species it is. Nice composition. Daniel Case (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Created by Mdf, uploaded Richard Bartz. Why and how? kallerna 19:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename issue Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 14:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Sympetrum vulgatum LC0168.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Jul 2009 at 23:50:55
Vagrant darter

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All done by Jörg Hempel -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Male Vagrant Darter (Sympetrum vulgatum)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wings not so good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment EXIF-data is lost. Could you add it? kallerna 16:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • no, I couldn't add it anymore for this pic (see comments before the TOC on my discussion page). --LC-de (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 19:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Enallagma cyathigerum (by).jpg, featured[edit]

Enallagma cyathigerum

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 08:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 10:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support really good --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As I said. kallerna 15:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Detail is excellent.RandyKaelber (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At f/6.3, the DoF is way too shallow and there are no mitigating reasons. -- Ram-Man 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral you've definitely gotten better but DOF is still a bit shallow. --ianaré (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO DOF is ok --Muhammad (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Sheepskin hats.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2009 at 08:47:09
Sheepskin hats

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Morten Oddvik - uploaded by Geagea - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Matasg 08:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would say a QI-image, but not featured --kaʁstn 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not impressive enough--Tired time (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the content, and quality is xcellent. -- H005 (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Zuch dziewczyna.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 07:16:29
Scout

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, imo not featured --kaʁstn 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - agree with Carschten. Undoubtedly useful, but doesn't have the FP wow. Downtowngal (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like it really much, but it's just too noisy & crop is slightly too tight. kallerna 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hamburg-090612-0163-DSC 8260 retouched.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 00:00:34
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund retouched by user:AlMare -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice --kaʁstn 09:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! --Sir James (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special IMHO. Sorry. kallerna 16:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, have to agree with Kallerna. --Aqwis (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Aqwis. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Architecture is very static and often very dry. This does not have any real wow. Most high quality architecture photos like this should be QIs. -- Ram-Man 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but the subject is not interesting enough--Tired time (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not only the architecture in a Baroque taste matters. For me, it is valued view. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thx, George. This building is IMHO an important view for Hamburg because its directly over the "Landungsbrücken" in St. Pauli, the central place of the port of Hamburg. But next time I will prefer to propose a macro of the tiny little fly on the third window of the second floor. *g* --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Touché. Macros and landscapes. It is simple though: nature's creations are more often beautiful than human creations. Downtowngal (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One of the tasks of Wikipedia is to show the architecture of our cities. The answers here are not only critizising my picture what would absolutely be OK and I wouldn't have said a single word, but general contras against any picture of the real buildings in our cities are IMHO a problem for our project. --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can sympathise with you Mbdortmund, insect pictures seem to occupy most of the limelight in this section. I enjoy them, but I wish we could have an 'Insect Free Month', so that other pictures could be concentrated on. As for your picture, sadly, I don't find a view like this particularly exciting; photos of buildings need something unusual (for example, perspective, colour or setting) too really stand out. This one is a real example of what I like to see. If you like, I can show you a couple of others I think are great; maybe they could inspire you? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1. We need more of the great macros, too. 2. The picture you named is great. --Mbdortmund (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 18:28:21
Boulevard du Temple, by Louis Daguerre

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Very very old photo created by Louis Daguerre - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Was probably OK when he made it and has undoubtedly some historical value, but time has destroyed it for FP I'm afraid. Lycaon (talk) 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is Louis Daguerre's famous "Boulevard du Temple": the first photograph to successfully record a human being. 1830s technology required exposure times of over ten minutes; the shot captures a man at lower left who stood still. Durova (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg strong supportJuliancolton | Talk 01:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Obvious support. This is a great image for its time. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable, but lacks in almost every other area. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral For 1838 featured, but imo not featured --kaʁstn 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for its extraordinary value. Downtowngal (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Strong support A famous photo, the quality is good.--Claus (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposers. kallerna 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm a bit wary to oppose here as I don' want to be shouted at as too often happens with the oppose for certain images these days. But this image is too far gone to become FP. I agree wholeheartedly with /Daniel78. Estrilda --Estrilda (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per other opposers. Maybe it should go to valued image.--Tired time (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Historical value, and it looks artistic to me. --Lošmi (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Lošmi. MadGeographer (talk) 09:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Had to think this over a couple of days. Occasionally the historical importance of a photograph makes it unsuitable for restoration. This is one of those times. Yes, it's rough. Yes, it's decayed. Yet envision this as cutting edge technology for 1838-1839, and it's stunning. One of the landmarks of photographic history. Durova (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova. Yann (talk) 21:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova. Another classic where the notion of FP just do not cut it. GerardM (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding exhibit of both early photography and the before-Haussmann Paris. --Mylius (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per durova --ianaré (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured.--Paris 16 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Wojciech Kilar 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Jul 2009 at 19:46:30
Wojciech Kilar

result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Canary Wharf Wide View 2, London - July 2009.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 14:56:25
Canary Wharf 360° view

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by kaʁstn --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - There are some stitching errors, fix them please. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed them by hand - uploaded over the original. This was shot hand-held so unfortunately minor stitching faults resulted. Hopefully they've all gone now. Diliff (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

    • They're fixed... bit hasty to withdraw, isn't it? Diliff (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There still some errors left, but hard to spot, and the overall quality is great. Just that sun reflection to the top right looks a bit artificial - I suppose this has been added through some piece of software? -- H005 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • No, it's just an actual reflection of sunlight on the glass building. I don't willingly falsify my images. Diliff (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Connecticut Yankee4.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:47:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Daniel Carger Beard - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Connecticut Yankee.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info From Mark Twain's novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. Frontispiece illustration to the 1889 edition, scanned from the original artist's drawing.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Has lots of value. Looks good as a thumbnail and is of high resolution. -- Ram-Man 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Drat! I was going to do this, but ended up helping someone else try, who never quite finished. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good quality, image is interesting --ianaré (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality and historic value --George Chernilevsky (talk) 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Purple Milkweed Asclepias purpurascens Head.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 00:50:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Flowers of the Purple Milkweed (Asclepias purpurascens)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 00:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --kaʁstn 13:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, a bit too ordinary--Tired time (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well done, but just one of too many well-done flower pictures -- H005 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support countering previous oppose. I don't think 'too many well-done flower pictures' is a valid opposition argument. Lycaon (talk) 14:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Restrictive license. Lycaon (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You complain about an invalid opposition argument and then you do this? The GFDL v.1.2 is not only an acceptable license, but has been the "preferred" license for many years. I know you've read Commons:Licensing, but perhaps it bears a reminder. There are no licenses allowed by the Commons that should bear this type of reaction. -- Ram-Man 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow, bit ordinary and bit low DOF --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Black Swallowtail Papilio polyxenes Closeup.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 01:49:33
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, and nominated by Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A mature black swallowtail (Papilio polyxenes) caterpillar on its host plant.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 01:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Diti the penguin 09:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Peripitus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good! --kaʁstn 13:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful 144.32.2.205 14:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Please log in for voting --kaʁstn 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background. Could be edited in photoshop. kallerna 19:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral noise prevents my suppport --ianaré (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca [re] 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 00:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this one is actually stunning --che 07:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Restrictive license prevents me to support. Lycaon (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • There is nothing wrong with the GFDL 1.2 and the fact is that it is one of many acceptable licenses allowed on the Commons (Commons:Licensing). This comment is nothing more than a personal opinion that does not belong here and has nothing to do with the rules for evaluating FPs (and could potentially sway other voters incorrectly). If you don't like the license, don't vote. -- Ram-Man 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • My vote is per de:Wikipedia:Lizenzvorlagen für Bilder. Images on Commons should be usable on all wikimdia projects. I didn't oppose because of the good quality of the image, though I can't support for said reason. Lycaon (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • That's totally rediculous. There are hardly any images here that qualify under your overly restrictive terms. Since Wikinews uses the CC-by-sa-2.5, only those images that use (or explicitly allow) creative commons licenses (of the correct version) would be acceptable for your standards. Creative Commons licenses are too weak copyleft and they do not adequately defend the rights of copyright holders and provide too easy a way for abuse in violation of the whole purpose of copyleft, which is to increase the number of works available under free licenses. Why don't you just oppose and say "Not a Creative Commons copyleft license or weaker". It has never been the mission of Commons for all images to be useful for all projects, as that is extremely difficult since not all current (and future) projects must conform to the same licensing terms, nor are all images even useful for all projects due to their specific content. The fact that you site a German Wikipedia article has nothing to do with the Commons and further supports my position that this is not a valid argument to make here. Until Commons policy changes to support your opinion, I ask that you withdraw your comments. This is not the proper forum to push your own personal philosophical and/or political opinions on which licenses are the "best". You show great disrespect to those of us who believe in the standards of copyleft and free images but don't happen to agree with you. -- Ram-Man 00:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It might have been totally ridiculous if I had opposed. I didn't, I just can't support. Please next time react like this to real opposers. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A little noisy at high-res, but not fatally so. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Lotus Nelumbo 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum' Dried Seed Head 2000px.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 02:53:03
Lotus seed head

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, nominated by Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lotusen (Nelumbo en 'Mrs. Perry D. Slocum') dried seed head.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ram-Man 02:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bottom half should be cut off, as it not in focus. Composition error. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The composition is intentional. The particular choice is more "dynamic" than the suggested crop. -- Ram-Man 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per George Chernilevsky, but if it's cut, I will support --kaʁstn 13:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it as it is. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. I disagree with George Chernilevsky. kallerna 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Claus (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition and colors --ianaré (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Could be a shower head for those who play with lysergic acid diethylamide   • Richard • [®] • 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • due to its organic nature, I figure it would be better for eaters of psilocybe ... --ianaré (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Or fans of David Lynch   • Richard • [®] • 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. Durova (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely!--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An alien! --Estrilda (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Keswick, Cumbria Panorama 1 - June 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Jul 2009 at 13:23:34
Keswick, Cumbria (England)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and upoladed by Diliff - nominated by Carschten -- kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 13:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, great! --Aqwis (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • what a wonder ;-) --kaʁstn 14:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture, hard to get one like this as it seems to be always raining in this part of England. Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blimey, kaʁstn, this was only uploaded yesterday! Maedin\talk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw the nomination at the German Wikipedia ;-) --kaʁstn 13:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support of course. MadGeographer (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I've been experimenting with panoramic pictures a bit, but it will take a long time to get them as good as this, if ever! MartinD (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zuffe (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wordsworth would be proud. Although I am having trouble getting it to open at full size. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Dunas Fiambala Argentina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 05:49:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lucash - uploaded by Lucash - nominated by Lucash -- Lucash (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Lucash (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is good, but the theme is not very fascinating. -- H005 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Drink Up.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 17:01:49
Drink-Up. Tel-Aviv, Israel.

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Amstel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Jul 2009 at 20:36:06
A panorama of the river Amstel in the city's centre of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Visible are the famous Skinny Bridge and the theatre Carre.

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Nycticorax violaceus (at beach).jpg, featured[edit]

Nycticorax violaceus at beach

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Coreopsis Bud.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 09:53:04
Coreopsis Bud

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Twdragon -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Twdragon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I will support if the background will be normal --kaʁstn 13:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the bud is closed only at night ?   • Richard • [®] • 14:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, this photo was taken at the daytime. --Twdragon (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Is it possible to identify more than the family of this species ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
      • No, it's impossible for me because of knowledge absence --Twdragon (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I declined this at QI not only because of the black background but for the overly-tight crop and the blurriness at the edges. Daniel Case (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing Qualiti Image, bad crop, bad sharpness in front and end of flower. HBR (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentiana verna, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 10:16:43
Gentiana verna

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Spring Gentian (Gentiana verna) is a species of the genus Gentiana and one of its smallest members, normally only growing to a height of a few centimetres.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thou crop could be bit tighter. kallerna 19:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Bufo_bufo_2009_G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Jul 2009 at 16:39:16
The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The common toad (Bufo bufo). Example of an excellent camouflage.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't want supprot but I can't oppose. Very good photo, but the background... I can't really see the animal, but it's just the normal background. So Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral --kaʁstn 09:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The description says it's an example of camouflage. The animal and background contrast aren't a problem for me because it does what it says. It's a good photo. Ikluft (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good example for camouflage --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness and object are excellent, but lightness is not balanced, very dark on the left side. -- H005 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've spend some extra light on the left, much better now IMHO, but I have to revert that sharpness is excellent; it was just too dark before to see the blurry part at the toad's rear end. -- H005 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As Ikluft. --Lošmi (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support camouflage showing good--N.Nych (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Cladiona2 (Terre de Feu).jpg, not featured[edit]

Cladoniaceae (Tierra del Fuego)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Butterfly voyages - uploaded by Butterfly voyages - nominated by Butterfly voyages --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Butterfly voyages (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A little bit to low DoF, which makes none of the presented individuals clearly visible. + not sufficient species descriptions, but that can be easily fixed. Masur (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --kaʁstn 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Masur. Lycaon (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As others opponents. --Karel (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting picture but imperfect execution. DOF, crop, lighting (some eroded parts)   • Richard • [®] • 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Dionaea muscipula flower 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 07:37:06
Venus Flytrap flower - 20mm in diameter

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image:Melanargia galathea 01 (MK).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:22:20
a Melanargia galathea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Leviathan (talk) 08:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --kaʁstn 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but bad quality. What kind of objective do you have? kallerna 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The overall quality and DOF isn't that bad - it's a good solid shot. It's a pity that the wing tips are blurry - I assume the wind has blown towards the wings.   • Richard • [®] • 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I took this picture with my old Tamron AF Aspherical LD 28-200 mm (15 years and really lackly so its everytime a fight to get a nearly sharp picture). Unfortunately i don't have any other objektives yet. At the top of my wishlist stands the Tamron 90mm Macro. But the money... ;-) Richard is right, it was really windy that day... Greetings --Leviathan (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, money ! :-Y   • Richard • [®] • 13:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:European hornet 090621.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 09:38:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Aconcagua - uploaded by Aconcagua - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In my opinion a very authentic close-up of a hornet. -- Ra'ike T C 09:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Funny, good quality --kaʁstn 09:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What do you mean with authentic close-up ?   • Richard • [®] • 17:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Hallo Richard, mit "authentic" meinte ich lebensnah (oder auch lebensecht). Damit wollte ich ausdrücken: Als ich das Bild das erste Mal sah, hatte ich das Gefühl, diese Hornisse ist noch mitten in der Bewegung, kommt jeden Moment aus dem Bild gekrochen und berührt mich mit dem linken, ausgestreckten Vorderbein ;-) -- Ra'ike T C 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    Understand Face-smile.svg Before I did wonder about the term authentic because of the wood lath where the hornet is resting. Being a hobby biologist recently I had liked seeing this animal resting on a plant or the hornet nest like Alves Gaspar supplied us once with his fantastic poster of Wasps - but on the other hand hornets meanwhile are a synanthropic species so the lath should be ok. I like it and indeed it's an impressing picture but must give a Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral because of low DOF (f/2,8) ,the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. Nice going!   • Richard • [®] • 20:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low DOF (f/2,8), the missing crispness at that size and the addressed environment. (Per Richard Bartz) kallerna 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    The DOF maybe is a bit too low, but in this way it imo assists and reinforced the action of that animal. -- Ra'ike T C 10:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Kallerna, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like Ra'ike --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dislike leg on foreground and low DOF --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Low DOF. Lycaon (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aconcagua (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Panthera pardus close up.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 13:20:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image features a Panthera pardus with a very high quality. Very sharp image, the warm colors contrast to the actual nature of the beast. Very good depth of field with clear and sharp distinction between the foreground and background. I don't think we have such a good picture of a Tiger on Commons. created by tropicaLiving - uploaded , nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the composition makes the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Simpledot (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Aqwis. Diti the penguin 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -Words in sanskrit (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop on bottom right. kallerna 16:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Here kitty kitty kitty! Daniel Case (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i agree kallerna, but overall very good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - per kallerna -- Pro2 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reasonable quality for a zoo shot, but unfortunate crop of the paws. Lycaon (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add information on the zoo to the description. Lycaon (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
done.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Lycaon (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop could be less tight, but pic is good nevertheless--Tired time (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree that it would be improved by showing more of the paw in the corner, but the animal has so strong a presence that I support it anyway. Fg2 (talk) 12:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Calibas (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In general, only very few zoo images deserve the status of FP, imho. I don't find this breath taking. Samulili (talk) 21:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unfortunate crop --ianaré (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (weak) for his legs. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps I am more tolerant of cropping than the voters above me, but it does not seem to affect the composition in any major way. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too tight crop --Chrumps (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I updated the image with a wider crop. Tell me what you think.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is better, I don't understand why you submitted the cropped version in the first place though? Lycaon (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Curnen (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Image updates should be uploaded as seperate images and displayed separately on this page. This adds confusion. I support this version though. --Tom dl (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kanonkas // talk // CCD // 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support full version. Downtowngal (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Argiope sp.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 20:40:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An Orb-weaver spider, Argiope sp spider sitting on a web decorations at the center of the web. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Umnik (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Durova (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Restrictive licence (not best practice and contradicts the note at Commons:Licencing). Minimal resolution (it would be great to see more detail on the spider's body).--Commander Keane (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova --kaʁstn 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good and uncommon view --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Did you know that 1.2 only pictures are banned at german WP.   • Richard • [®] • 13:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Good for us this isn't the german WP Face-smile.svg --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Rather sad, because it cannot be used at that project. Why that restrictive license ?   • Richard • [®] • 16:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • In what way is it more restrictive ? /Daniel78 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I am also interested why you use this restrictive license? --AngMoKio (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very interesting shot, but rather small. A crop of the real action would leave the image below size requirements. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC). Restrictive license is not helping, but not the main reason for oppose. Lycaon (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I have ten other featured pictures with the same resolution and license. What has changed since then? --Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • The visibility of the license issues has changed, I'm sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • There are at least two (1, 2) other images currently on the candidates' page with the exact same license and none has received any oppose based on "restrictive license". For what it's worth, you even supported one. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I can see no changes to the criteria and 1.2only is still considered a free license per commons. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Muhammad, somebody said: "Soap and water and common sense are the best disinfectants". Too bad not everybody knows how to use them :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Mainly because of licence & resolution. kallerna 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You too kallerna? :( --Muhammad (talk)
      • Sorry :(. Why the licence? It would definitely be FP with better licence & resolution, and you can make both of them better with new upload. kallerna 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
        • If this passes as an FP, I will probably upload a higher resolution once I get faster internet in a month or so, but I am afraid the license will remain the same. --Muhammad (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
          • just out of curiosity: how did you get your 9mb panos uploaded? This pic here in the original resolution wouldn't even have half the mb-size of your panos. Furthermore I'd be really interested why you insist on that license? Many of your photos are really great, also this one, but with all those restrictions it is really getting difficult to support. ..and as Richard mentioned on german WP those 1.2 pics aren't welcomed anymore. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Hehe, I spent hours uploading those and I had faster upload speeds then. Seriously though I spent more than 6 hours to upload this. I like this license because most of my images are also available for sale as stock images and a completely free license would render my sales ineffective and thus I would be unable to buy more equipment and upload better images. This is a win win situation for wiki and for me. --Muhammad (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Why we should feature commercial pictures and pictures which can't be used in a associated project (deWP) ?   • Richard • [®] • 20:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Wikimedia is a separate entity from deWP and there are different rules. It was deWP though that decided not to use 1.2only images. In my opinion, they are losing quite a large amount of pictures for a crappy rule. --Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                • That license issue is a bogus reason IMO. Equipment is not that expensive. I made 950€ from my pictures which are all on commons under cc-by-sa in the last two years. I'm not using stock sites. You are better than me so you should have even better chances with free licenses. People use images all over the net when the license is not too restrictive (and with attribution → e.g. see here). This is publicity and the odd sale follows. I don't advertise my pictures, but interested parties still find them. Lycaon (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • I don't want to whine but I've already spent app $1500 on equipment and for a student living in a third world country, that is a lot. (Average Tanzanian earns that much in 4-5yrs without expenses). With a restrictive license, rich companies who can afford to spend money, are prevented from exploiting photographers. Attribution is good but at the end of the day I am not gaining anything (apart from a little exposure). For the few earlier images I had released under the cc-by-sa, sure people use them but not one person has been willing to pay, and quite rightly so. If a single line of attribution allows you free use, why not? Sounds like slave labour to me--Muhammad (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • In 95% of cases, my CC-BY-SA images just get treated as public domain for use. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mainly because of arguments against license and resolution. :) Diti the penguin 08:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great EV, good quality and per Diti. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • You're back Face-smile.svg --Muhammad (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, Muhammad, it is not me. It is only only 1/4 of me , 1/4 that the African Wild Dog has not finished just yet.Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ignoring the license debate (it is a valid license, after all); I look forward to seeing a larger resolution version of this lovely picture, so it can grace my desktop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can someone explain to me just why the (perfectly valid) 1.2 license is not accepted on the German Wiki? And why this picture (and every other wiki) should suffer because they've made that choice? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • The question is answered by Muhammad already. If 1.2only were just as free as the other license on commons there would be no reason for him to cling to it to protect his commercial interests. --Dschwen (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The focus of some people (not only) in the German Wikipedia is set on free commercial use, an idea which got strong in de since the cooperation with de:Bertelsman, Spiegel and de.wikipedia in the biggest lexical portal in Germany. Since then some of our Wikipedians struggled successfully to forbid the upload of GFDL 1.2 pictures on de.wikipedia. That does not mean, that it is forbidden to use 1.2 photographs from the commons as far as I see. Hundreds of them are used to illustrate articles of de. GFDL 1.2 is a free licence and is only a problem for commercial printers, as far as I see. Another problem for the opponents of 1.2 is that it is not possible to change the license without the allowance of the author/uploader of the pictures. --Mbdortmund (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose low resolution on the main subject. And argiope is not a satisfactory id (or are we getting the full id also after this gets featured?). --Dschwen (talk) 05:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Id has never been a FP criteria (though some think it is), this is not QIC --Tony Wills (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The id till genus is acceptable and we have numerous FPs id'd only till this level. Expecting a complete species id from a picture is impractical and impossible for the majority of the uncommon species. Re the low res on main subject, the whole image covers the subject. And as I mentioned, a larger version will be uploaded in max a month --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)--Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
So what is the rush in nominating this now? --Dschwen (talk) 14:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Dschwen. --Estrilda (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Muhammad will upload a version with higher resolution I oppose this one. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I will upload the higher resolution over this one, and that too only if this one is featured. --Muhammad (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
      • So should we make a deal here: you get a little FP sticker for all you pictures to make you happy, and in turn you upload full resolution for all your pics? Sorry, but this has a bitter aftertaste. --Dschwen (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I won't have much time later (presently on vacation). Once I know which of my pictures are the "best of the best", I can upload higher res of these only effectively using my time. FWIW, I think your tone could do with some practice. --Muhammad (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The licence issues don't belong here. The licence is valid and accepted on Commons and is not part of the FP criteria, so there really isn't any more to say on the matter here. As for the ID issues, we recently had an FP promotion for a completely unidentified cactus. It is not an FP requirement that there be a species ID—that's a QI rule. Now, with those two things out of the way, I support because it's an excellent image and satisfies all of the requirements. Maedin\talk 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - the crop is ok, because it shows that the interesting weaving is not throughout the entire web. Downtowngal (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - as Downtowngal. A lower crop would hide the seemingly ordinary outer web, which presently adds to the photo. 72.173.26.4 22:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(please login to vote --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support License sufficient, crop good as outer area of web needed, size within guidelines, can't deny just because a better one might be uploaded. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 20:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Christina Aguilera - Back to Basics Tour - Ain't No Other Man.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 21:28:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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 below 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.

Diti the penguin 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 19:45:15
Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It is not an easy task to clean one tail, if one is a Pavo :)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Beautiful. Acablue (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I cannot recognize anything in this picture (except that it's one of these birds.). And not bautiful at all, sorry. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1, withdrawn[edit]

Pavo cristatus (male) in San Francisco Zoo

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as above. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What's this for? It's hard to distinguish the pavo from the background, and it's in a weird and untypical position. -- H005 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI am not sure I understood your question " What's this for?" What is for? The image? It is for Commons and wikipedia. The position is very ttypical for a bird that is grooming his tail, and it was what he was doing. I wish I were able to turn my head as he does Face-smile.svg.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 20:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:02 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 12:03:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n   • Richard • [®] • 12:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lamps hiding in the gras
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   • Richard • [®] • 12:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very cute image, but IMO not sharp enough. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Mbz1. kallerna 13:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the same reason, also light is too diffuse. -- H005 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, x neutral => withdrawn by nominator not featured.   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:01 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2009 at 12:00:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n   • Richard • [®] • 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Domestic Sheep (Ovis orientalis aries) portrait
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   • Richard • [®] • 12:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, crop, composition. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Mbz1, also too tight DOF. -- H005 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, x neutral => withdrawn by nominator not featured.   • Richard • [®] • 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kluft-photo-fireworks-Cameron-Park-June-2009-Img 2951c.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 08:43:36
Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Ikluft - uploaded by User:Ikluft - nominated by User:Ikluft -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nom -- Ikluft (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the best crop, decent quality. I've seen better fireworks-photos. kallerna 19:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Those long exposures (5 seconds on the link provided) are actually easier shots to get - but they're entirely a different style and result. This one with 7 shells exploding in a 1/40th of a second exposure is far more difficult to get and takes a fair amount of luck as well. Also, what specifically didn't you like about the crop? I cropped it with intent to preserve the widest shell and aspect ratio. But cropping can be adjusted (such as not worrying about the aspect ratio and cutting more off the sides) if it makes a difference. Ikluft (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
      • With the crop I meant that the whole firework isn't on the photo and there's too much of black area on the sides. kallerna 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Uhmm yes, I have to say that it's not exeptional enough   • Richard • [®] • 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this as it is. I think it is high-quality, high-value, and has impact. Maedin\talk 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Fireworks in Cameron Park, California on June 27, 2009

OK, I shouldn't have bothered trying to retain the aspect ratio of the original photo. Fair enough - this alternative addresses that. I also encourage reviewers to observe that this is not the same kind of photography as a long-exposure shot of fireworks. As I mentioned above, this is a 1/40th sec exposure with 7 shells in various stages of exploding. The illumination of the smoke clouds from earlier shells shows there is focus and detail. It's in effect an action shot, which is very difficult to get with fireworks. Submitted again for your review... Ikluft (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This is an excellent encyclopedia illustration of 'simultaneous fireworks'; the smoke clouds contribute to the effect. But for FP a more beautiful (but less accurate) long exposure is more appropriate. A good and useful photo, just not FP. Downtowngal (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know it was a difficult shot to get. But fireworks pics need color, which these shells just don't have. There's no wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • FYI, when I downloaded the photos from the camera into the laptop after the show, one of the leaders of the fireworks crew was watching as I stepped through them. For this one, his one word was indeed "Wow!" That was what led me to submit this one. Ikluft (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since there obviously are white fireworks, color isn't a requirement on its own - the different types of fireworks photography are not better than the others. It distracts the issue to say it isn't a different style. The guidelines say the value of a photo is enhanced by how it adds variety to the collection. I recommend a look through Category:Fireworks to see exposures of more than one second are very well represented, and are the ones that should hardly be considered special. They're analagous to photos of sunsets, which the guidelines address specifically. Ikluft (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks too ordinary. No wow. --Afrank99 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:2Heißluftballons.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Jul 2009 at 22:34:42
2 hot-air balloons

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- H005 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting idea, good lightning, sharpness, and overall image quality but I think the composition is weak. For me there is not a clear idea with the composition and the cropped text distracts. --Slaunger (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger. Good effort. Durova (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral just the cropped text is bad --kaʁstn 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Durova. kallerna 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually I have virtually the same pic showing the entire balloons with all the text, but I find that perspective boring, whereas this one draws some tense out of its incompleteness, which I liked very much. But well, that's a matter of taste, and taste is undebatable, so of course I'm ok if you all think otherwise. -- H005 17:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
@ Slaunger, The "idea with the composition" is that these balloons are so huge that they are even larger than your field of vision, impossible for the eye to catch them completely. But never mind, if this idea doesn't come across to you, it has probably not been a good one. ;-) -- H005 (talk) 21:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi H005, I see your point, and sometimes I also like unusual crops, be it of a face, or some object, and this one is close at getting to me, it catches my eye somewhat, but still leaves an impression of being messy and point-and-shoot-like. I agree with you that just capturing one balloon or two together can easily lead to a quite uninteresting composition as well, so some amount of creativity in capturing it is called upon.
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:California island Vinckeboons5.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 00:34:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:12 foot pipe installation s.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Jul 2009 at 17:17:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated and sold by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting composition, but just too noisy + quite lot of chromatic aberration. kallerna 18:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Right with the chromatism, but it's very interesting and value --> featured! --kaʁstn 20:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not unusual or rare enough to overcome the technical flaws. Downtowngal (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice but would it not be better as a square crop (or at least symmetical)? --Estrilda (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Egyptian paratrooper.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 11:57:01
An Egyptian paratrooper.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Staff. Sgt. Aaron Allmon - uploaded by mo7amedsalim - nominated by mo7amedsalim -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- mohamed salim (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Good quality, but cropped too tight on the left and right, and the other soldier is disturbing. -- H005 (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree about the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe removing the background completely would be an option, but otherwise I don't see how the problem tight crop vs. disturbing other soldier could be solved more satisfactorily than this. Furthermore the most important things - face and accouterments are clearly shown. --Curnen (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The other soldier is indeed problematic --Tom dl (talk) 11:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor crop. Lycaon (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good otherwise, but the crop kills it for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Buteo swainsoni (Calibas).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 13:58:40
Juvenile Swainson's Hawk

I'd love to but "Save for Web & Devices" in Photoshop seems to remove the EXIF. Not sure if there's an option to disable it. --Calibas (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Err, why don't you use the usual "save as" diealogue then? -- H005 (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The way Photoshop translates jpegs into the actual image is different than the way web browsers translate the image. There's no standard way to read a jpeg file, so the brightness, contrast and color can vary. The "Save for Web & Devices" option writes the jpeg in a way that web browsers will "see" the image in relatively the same way Photoshop does. So "Save for Web & Devices" usually creates something that looks a lot more like the picture you see in Photoshop than "Save As" does. Compare the two, often they vary quite noticeably. --Calibas (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'save for web' also uses higher compression, resulting in poorer quality. I understand you are worried about how it looks in browsers, but our main concern should be in providing the highest possible quality. --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure it's lower quality? The file size at maximum for "save for web..." is actually larger than "save as". I don't think a higher compression would have a larger file size. And even if I did lose a tiny bit of resolution, is not correct color and contrast an important part of image quality? --Calibas (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I noticed my images look better on 'save as', but on closer inspection it was other settings that affected them ... In looking at the manual, the only difference is in Exif info being removed in 'save for web'. Both types allow you to embed the ICC color profile, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Added exif. The "convert to profile" option basically does the same as "save for web" without tossing the exif data. --Calibas (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And just save in sRGC color profile, it is intertionnaly readable. Diti the penguin 23:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll do that from now on. --Calibas (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Owl-Flying-against-a-Moonlit-Sky.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 14:27:58
Sepia drawing by Caspar David Friedrich

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Basilique St Maximim La Sainte Baume.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 18:32:24
Interior of the Basilique of St Maximim la Sainte Baume, France.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Esby - uploaded by ? - nominated by Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yann (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too distorted (see the top of the image). Also quite noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great lighting, really impressive, but unfortunately the front part is far too distorted, and the center lacks sharpness. -- H005 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness, noise, stitching, ... everything has become much better since the previous version. -- H005 (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did two new versions, I changed the projection angle a bit and I added a colored version to show how the panorama was made. Enfused images were also used to make both new version. Dunno if this might be enough or not, now this might be ok for making the sets as 'VI' (since it explains how the images are stitched together).
    See template:St Maximim - Hugin for more details about that. Esby (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distorted, overburnt. kallerna 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Just a silly question, but how do you do a 210x180° indoor panorama without distorsion? Esby (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    With DxO or Fisheye-Hemi I guess. But there are people to dislike distorded images, I personnally prefer distortion, more aesthetic. Diti the penguin 23:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    Trying to put half of a sphere on a plane will always show up distorsion, rectilinear images just can't be achieved in such case. For those who don't understand what I am saying, take a world map (usually with a mercator projection), looks at the greenland and at the artic area, and ask yourself if there is no distorsion present, now takes another one, centered elsewhere, with another projection, you'll notice there will be always one or several area that appears as distorted. Esby (talk) 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    So spherical distorsion should be replaced by cylindrical distorsion? Esby (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A lot of work I appreciate. --Curnen (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: Voters may not have been aware of the new version.  If it may change the outcome, please consider nominating again. Maedin\talk 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Kalapana May 2009.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 Jul 2009 at 23:26:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was cropped not downsampled--Mbz1 (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Few years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. There are no paved roads, no any utilities, no even cell phone services in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg, yet the trees have no problem in growing up and even blooming in Kalapana, and few people came back and rebuilt.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wonderful allegory of hope after a catastrophe of a volcanic eruption. -- Ra'ike T C 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 03:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - anonyme vote --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent view! Bit small... I strong support this photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 09:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition --ianaré (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO it doesn't have enough wow, quality is just decent. kallerna 02:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What happened? Nothing is sharp. --Estrilda (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Vote cancelled after first closure as a follow-up on this checkuser request and following discussion and overall consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Is this photo of a part of the town that used to have houses? Are the houses on the beach the last remaining houses? In other words, is the site special? Downtowngal (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your question, Downtowngal. More than 100 houses were destroyed by the lava flow in 1990 in Kalapana. The town used to have streets and gardens. They had their own church. They are there no more. The church was moved to a safer location. The streets and gardens were covered by lava. Some kids went to school, and came back to see their houses on fire. People tried to make a desperate bargain with Pele ,the goddess of fire. They threw bottles with wine to the approaching lava in hope Pele would have some pity on them. It did not help. There were many heartbreaking stories. One young family had volcano insurance. Their policy was canceled with no reason, few days before the lava was about to destroy their home. Their friends helped young couple to move the entire home to a different location. Today some people came back to Kalapana. There are few houses here and there. I do not think there is a beach there, but I am not sure about this. I've never approached any of the houses. It is a private property, and they do not like tourists to come around. I understand them very well. IMO this site is very, very special. I hope I answered your question, but if I did not, please feel free to ask me more. If I am still around by that time, I sure will respond Face-smile.svg.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Thanks, Mbz1. I wish the photo were sharper, but the composition symbolizes the meaning of the site so well I make an exception. Downtowngal (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support =^ Downtowngal --Böhringer (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The composition is awesome! Diti the penguin 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Diti! Is this a comment or support? I am asking because you said "support" in the edit summary, but I see no support in the nomination Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a support, I forgot to use the template. :) Diti the penguin 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry. Lycaon (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is a nice composition...but for the quite easy conditions I also wonder why it isn't really sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There was strong wind at the site. Here's the image that was taken at the same day and which shows a steam devil at volcanic plume w:File:Steam devil.jpg. Steam devils form, when strong wind is present.So "conditions" were not easy at all.@AngMoKio. I believe now, when you learned more about the contitions, you could safely change your weak oppose to weak support Face-smile.svg --Mbz1 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
really a clever plant there...it simply doesn't care about the wind. Face-smile.svg --AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure I follow you. You said the image "isn't really sharp" under "easy conditions" . I said the condition were not easy because of the wind, and now, if I understood you right, you say that the plant "simply doesn't care about the wind", which to me means that you believe that the plant is sharp enough. You see, no matter what it is time to change your vote for "support" Face-smile.svg.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
You know I just wondered why the plant isn't affected by the strong wind? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understood this. I am asking what does it mean "the plant isn't affected by the strong wind". Do you believe that the plant is sharp enough?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No, unfortunately I don't think that the plant is sharp. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
But if it is not sharp, how do you know that it is not sharp because of the wind?--Mbz1 (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg You said it is not sharp because of the wind, not me. I don't know why it is not sharp. I just wanted to say the plant doesn't look like as if there is a strong wind. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Face-smile.svgI have never said anything was not sharp at the image. I said the conditions were not easy because of strong wind, and I proved strong wind with another image. On the other hand, when you say that conditions were easy, and the plant is not sharp, but not because of the wind, it is what is called "speculations" in the court of low, and speculations they are.Face-smile.svg--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Maedin\talk 14:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One oppose vote has been cancelled as a follow-up on this checkuser request and following discussion and overall consensus at the administrators' noticeboard. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Revised result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Spout Falls, Liffey, Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 02:27:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Orange Spring Mound at Mammoth Hot Springs.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:24:28
Orange Spring Mound

result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Odocoileus hemionus (Calibas).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Jul 2009 at 15:37:50
Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Calibas (talk) 15:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cute ! (if possible, re-upload with Exif) --ianaré (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Face-smile.svg kallerna 11:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Please add EXIF. Lycaon (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Wildfire in Yellowstone Natinal Park produces Pyrocumulus clouds.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 02:58:47
Pyrocumulus clouds

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much post-processing --AngMoKio (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose slightly, also my impression is that the photo gains most of its unnatural atmosphere from image processing, but of course I might be wrong. Would love to see it in a RAW format.-- H005 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Pierre-Auguste Renoir 007.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 Jul 2009 at 12:00:43
Painting On the Terrasse by Renoir

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, uploaded by Olpl, nominated by Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Huge size, great colors. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous. -Calibas (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The colours are great, but as I assume the picture does not look this way anymore, do we know that they ever looked so bright and saturated? -- H005 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know the real painting. But I like this image for all the above reasons and also because we can see that the faces have several simultaneous expressions. --Zyephyrus (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If this is to be a faithful reproduction of the real painting, then i believe the colors are unacceptably too vivid and saturated. Jeez, they are supposed to be sitting in a scenery of greenery, and now the overall yellowish-greenish hue of the painting has been so strongly removed that they are left against a pinkish-white background. I'm sorry to say that this, imho, makes no sense. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Maurilbert. Lycaon (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per my question above and until someone provides sufficient evidence that these colours depict the actual painting. -- H005 (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course the colors don't represent the actual painting, any painting this old is going to be quite faded. This is probably a far more accurate reproduction of what it looked like right after Renoir painted it, than what is currently hanging up in the museum. We touch up old photographs all the time here, why not paintings? --Calibas (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • With "actual painting" I did intentionally not exclude how it looked right after it had been painted. I just fear that if through image processing you e.g. simply make everything red that today is brown this might be far from what it looked back then. E.g. all the branches in the background look orange, not brown, I'm not convinced that Renoir made them look that way. -- H005 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's any way to tell precisely what it's supposed to look like. The lighting and the camera are always going to alter the colors. If the whites look white I'd say it's close enough. If somebody wants to drop the saturation a touch I'll vote for that too, but this version looks fine to me. --Calibas (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here, a knowledgeable contributor on wp:fr pointed me to the zoomable painting on the Art Institute of Chicago website. This should be assumed as reflecting best the way it looks today. It is far less yellowish than usually seen, yet far more subtle and muted in tones that the candidate. This contributor also mentionned that "Impressionists didn't paint in oils but in spirits and they would not varnish their paintings, so those don't become yellowish with age. Linseed oil and varnish cause yellowing." Thus, i'd guess that we are used to see old photographs of these paintings, and that the photographs yellowed way more than the actual paintings... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Also, here is the original version from the .torrent with a color card, converted to JPEG format but otherwise unmodified. The TIFF version is too large to upload to Commons, but if anyone wants it, just open the .torrent in any modern BitTorrent client and tell it to only download that file. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Seeing Ilmari Karonen file, I will nominate the other file. Yann (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Hibiscus-syriacus.jpg, not featured[edit