Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2010

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

Contents

File:28-090504-black-headed-bunting-at-first-layby.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 11:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A black headed bunting
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mars S. Jobling - uploaded by MJOBLING - nominated by Flawmore -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Useful, good quality, no disturbing background : bravo ! Trace (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition.  fetchcomms 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avenue (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - valuable located wild origin photo - MPF (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background a bit noisy. --Eusebius (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good quality, background noise is negligible. DOF is a bit on the low side and the actual resolution on the bird could be higher. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me --AngMoKio (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It works for me too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iadrian yu (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File: Lower Manhatten from ESB.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 01:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

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's very small, reading the guidelines before submitting might have helped. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:bluebeardtongue.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 20:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue Beard Tongue in natural prairie environment
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 most part of the subject it is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Molybdenum crystaline fragment and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element molybdenum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High EV, nice quality --George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trace (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love Alchemist-hp's white background shots. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Whites are blown, greys are posterized. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • They are indeed and I still can't understand why... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Are we looking at the same image? I see no more "posterization" (by which I assume you mean color banding) than is pretty much inevitable in an 8-bits-per-channel image, and only a few direct reflections of the lights (about 0.1% of all pixels) exceed the dynamic range. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what I mean. In this case I very much doubt it is inevitable as the tone difference between adjacent bands is quite large. I wonder if the original picture shows the same effect. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • @Alvesgaspar: "greys are posterized": yes, it is a conversion effect: from 16bit TIFF (my RAW format) to 8bit JPG. Only the background is additional "Gaussian blur" corrected. The background looks allways stained if I use focus stacking. I hope the info is helpfull for you. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I still don't understand. The picture has only 5 tones of grey which have the approximate values: 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250. How can that be that a 8 bit image is not capable of a much better tone resolution? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I think I see what you mean now, but you're surely exaggerating the situation. The histogram of the crystal itself is indeed multipeaked, with 5 major peaks at approximately 20, 95, 152, 203 and 248 and smaller ones around 62, 111 and 238 (and at 255 due to clipping). However, many of these peaks are quite broad and have substantial overlap; I assume they simply correspond to different parts of the surrounding scenery reflected by the crystal. (Incidentally, the histogram of the cube is even more clearly peaked, with four peaks around 26, 63, 96 and 126; the lowest mainly corresponds to the top face, the second to the darked part of the front face, the third combines the lighter part of the front face and the darker part of the side face, and the last comes from the lighter part of the side face.) There's nothing artificial about this, it's just a natural consequence of specular reflection combined with a setting with sharp color differences. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
              • @Alvesgaspar: if you are interested then I can linked you the 11 each original images (raw:Canon CR2 = 250MB, or JPG =20MB or 16 bit TIF = 1,5GB.) for the focus stacking job and for your comparison. Please mail me simple. This sample molybdenum looks like in real-life! You see simple a reality sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
                • But I believe in you, just can't understand the reason. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case, blown highlights are called specular reflextions, normal for this type of subject and way out of dynamic range. Nice rendition of tones and texture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to be unsharp at high resolution (outlines). --Jebulon (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems to be unsharp, but it isn't. This molybdenum sample is a high reflective, glossy and greasy lustre item with no realy sharp edges. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overblown whites aren't really bad in this case - these reflections give it more of a realistic look to it, which is what we want. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Ostrea edulis 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ostrea edulis cross section of the shell
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose interesting subject, but the lighting and floating in blackness makes the picture confusing. Took me a while to realize that the blurry part is not the front face, but the inside back... --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is not so pleasing (maybe this type of cross section would work better in an isometric view). Top has blown parts and the bottom is a little too dark. You might want to try this with multiple light sources and maybe a focus stack. ZooFari 23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks to me like a poor picture. Blurred underneath, and presented in such an odd angle that it's not immediately clear what it is. Unhelpful and technically bad. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for an image with >50% only black. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, but the composition is confusing. It took me a while to work out what this was. Jonathunder (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 12:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The chemical element Tungsten
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info the cube isn't dirty or with fingerprints. You see the macrocrystalline structures. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. Composition-wise this is even better than the Molybdenum picture, but it looks like the focus stacking didn't work out quite as well: I see several parts that look slightly unsharp, and in one place there's a weird "halo" around the crystal. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The "halo" around the crystal is corrected. A derivate work with one small step more sharpeness is new uploaded: Tungsten (new). Do you prefer it? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- smial (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Would give my support, but I prefer your sharper alternative :-) -- Ra'ike T C 10:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    The sharper alternative is for me only an artificially alternative, not a reality. It is simple for everybody to sharpen it if needed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's more than only an artificially alternative. The higher sharpness emphasizes each detail somewhat more better and shows each elevation, every "crystel crumb" still more vividly. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another excellent picture of a chemical element. --Tintero (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The other one looks a bit oversharpened to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Elekhh (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /ianaré (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Zarokê karker.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Working child near Batman, Kurdistan, Turkey.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dûrzan cîrano - uploaded by Dûrzan cîrano - nominated by MikaelF -- MikaelF (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MikaelF (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, just barely under size requirements. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose interesting snapshot but no FP quality and composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - also badly off horizontal (needs rotating about 4°CW). Shame as it is otherwise an interesting pic - MPF (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - abri-caverne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground troop shelter. Roppe fortifications.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a particularly distracting peice of trash near the lower left.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The lighting here isn't bad, but these pictures of walls just aren't FP quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A compelling image with considerable depth. The bright trash on lower left adds interest for information about use and abuse of the building. The clarity of the image allows close inspection of the construction technique as well as the damage and decay that the building has suffered. Informative, eye-catching, aesthetically and intellectually engaging. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the old plastic bottle--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Regarding the bottle, I might have kicked it away... but on the other hand, it is authentic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose best of the recent nominations, but too similar to the already featured image. --ianaré (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I also prefer the present FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I myself like this one better than the FP linked above, mostly because of the lighting and the fact that it goes all the way down the tunnel, but that's just my opinion. These factors also make the two images different enough from each other as I see it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roppe fortifications, underground.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the composition doesn't convince me, and the flash is too obvious in this pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is no flash, only lightpainting. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMoKio. Amada44 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bland lighting, maybe lightpainting but not as in "painter with easel" but "painter with ladder paint bucket". Subject is not presented in an interesting manner, and completely worn out nomination wise by redundant candidacies. It is frustrating that nothing we write here will stop the nomination flood. --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground, at the Fort de Roppe.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Junniper Springs, FL panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 08:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juniper Springs
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Juniper Springs, a freshwater spring in central Florida. All by -- ianaré (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fix stitching error in annotation. ZooFari 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • i don't see it, can you describe it ? --ianaré (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any stitching error. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nice and correct picture but not special enough to justify featuring. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is not attractive or interesting, and I'm not seeing anything educational here. I haven't quite got the reason for this being nominated. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah there's just TONS of natural springs in the world that have been turned into swimming pools. Completely uninteresting, to be sure, a place like this. No reason at all for it to be called the "jewel of the forest". I wonder why I even went there in the first place, or spent at least an hour waiting for people to jump so I could get a more interesting shot. --ianaré (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only one section of the picture has correct annotation - when I hover over items to left and right it again annotates the centre, and in some views the annotation does say "stitching error". SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - in one of the women jumping into the water, there are either stitching errors or some strange shadows. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • it's a shadow, the water is cold so people generally go in only when the sun is very bright. --ianaré (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think what ianaré said above justifies perfectly its interest. --Tintero (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Happy scene. Swimmers mid-jump is a nice touch. Their shadows look perfectly consistent to me. Well done. --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Messier 81 HST.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 06:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The spiral galaxy Messier 81 is tilted at an oblique angle on to our line of sight, giving a "birds-eye view" of the spiral structure
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Tryphon - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The info line above is nonsense. (fixed) Other than that it is just a generic galaxy image. I'm a bit tired of these types of nominations. --Dschwen (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think when Cody saw that he had to fill out 'USERNAME', he just wrote his. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind lots of nominations of space objects, because we do have an astronomy section of FP, and these really are fantastic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. There is so much information here. I don't know about other images of Messier, but this is very detailed. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually I'll support this one. It stands out by sheer resolution alone, and the big version is a good find by Cody. Plus it shows off the zoomviewer pretty good ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mattew666 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Astronomy

File:Peacock Flounder Bothus mancus in Kona.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All frames are of the same fish taken few minutes apart. He changed colors to match his surroundings as I watched. In the last frame he buried himself in the sand. Almost nothing, but the eyes are seen.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Do you have the location? --Cephas (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Location is added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. It would be good to add the info above (about it being the same fish, etc) to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish

File:Przewalski's colt (head).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Straight-on view is not very good for a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I doesn't really show the full animal. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for answering. Thats surely why you opposed to this and this...Sometimes FPC project is hard to understand for newbies...--Jebulon (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Cats have a much broader face. A cat picture from the front still tells you a lot. However, a horse's head is long and narrow, so best shown from the side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor angle, face distorted, too tight crop. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info High Fin Sperm Whale and Alvesgaspar, this file and the File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg are both portrait photographs. A portrait photograph points at the individualistic personality. This is the legitimacy of the necessary portrait photography. The portrait photography is an old genre of the photography and is also ok in the Featured Pictures. I think, it is wrong to say a portrait photograph has a poor angle and a too tight crop. I see in each animal an own personality, therefore I make also portrait photographs from animals. There are also portrait photographs from animals in the Featured Pictures like this. Alvesgaspar, you write: "face distorted". I used the lens Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 2,8G ED. This high-quality macro- and portrait-lens (90 mm on my D300) makes no distortion. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm not talking about artificial ditortion caused by optics but the geometric distortion consisting of closer objects look larger than distant objects. In this case, and due to the relatively short distance, the whole head seems too big relative to the rest of the body and the muzzle looks too large relative to the whole head. That is why a longer focal distance is usually a better choice for portraits. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is a high-quality shot which I think is really not distorted. A 60mm lens is a good portrait lens. The composition is straight-forward and not bad...but for FP it is imho not outstanding enough. In this case a totally centred head might have a been a better choice, bcs then you get a symmetry (sth like this). Here are some animal portraits I like - this, this and also that Btw: The Emu portrait you linked also wouldn't have gotten (correct grammar?!) my support. Sorry.--AngMoKio (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you AngMoKio. I nominate your crop in Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Nice, but not featured. --Steindy (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please see the Alt 1 with the crop made by AngMoKio. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Veronica spicata 1005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 06:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-Maimbœuf church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 07:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint-Maimbœuf church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good, beautiful picture (single shot, no HDR?), but the photographer is not on the axis of the nave and the picture is not centred. This is slightly disturbing. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In fact, this is an HDR image. In a church, you can't make a good photo without using HDR method. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice. I don't find being slightly to one side disturbing. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Eusebius. Furthermore, I see a bad light in the rose window (CA ?), the crop is not symmetrical, and the pic is a bit tilted, or suffers of a little perspective distortion due to the position of the photographer (look at lines on the ground). Enough to oppose with regrets, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- This is a very good photo indeed. But not excellent because of the flaws mentioned above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Solid good quality shot. But the off-center position and the HDR are putting me a bit off. Lighting looks dull and lacks contrast in the lower portion of the image. This seems like a pretty standard church shot. --Dschwen (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: what software was used for the HDR/tone mapping? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral That's an eye catching shot, and I think opposing based on slight centering off would be nitpicking, but I also feel it's disturbing on architectural subject, like good care wasn't taken while preparing it. Stained glasse is partly blown out, despite 3 (or more ?) exposures tones mapping. - Benh (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support –It's really difficult, to make this better. It harms that the photo is not in the axle. --Steindy (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Stained glass in Žilina - kraj Žilina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stained glass in Žilina train station
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- while its a technically proficient image good QI or VI, I prefer to see windows in situ giving context. The bold lines are they part of the window construction of just bars Gnangarra 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's generally possible with stained glass, unless you can get it right at the perfect moment around sunset. Stained glass tends to be much brighter than anything around it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I like very much this stained-glass but am not sure it deserves FP status. If it were larger!... Let's wait and see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File description has no information about when this was made or by whom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added information about the date and author --Pudelek (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • A 1950's work - copyright concerns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • train station is a public place in Slovakia --Pudelek (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per comment above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bottom side is a bit hmm... it is not in a line, but curved. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco, CA at sunset taken from the Marin Headlands.

File:Apikal4D.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

3-D Echocardiogram
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ekko - uploaded by Ekko - nominated by johnnytucf -- 152.6.250.5 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 152.6.250.5 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very valuable despite the low resolution. (Please document the animal - I assume it is human, but can't be sure.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- For now (according to rule #1 of my guidelines...), as it is not clear for me what's going on. I'll wait for a physical doctor to come and confirm this is close to the best one can achieve with such technology. Then, I may change my vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MattiPaavola. Amada44 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work and with a high educational value. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated

File:Cango Caves-001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stagactites and stalagmites in the Cango Caves, South Africa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, centred on what seems to be the subject (which is static and yet unsharp - tripod and longer exposure needed here). I would have shown more of the left side of the stalagmit, instead of the darker parts on the right side. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Eusebuius -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only tripod and longer exposure but also DRI is necessary in this case to get a FP. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question DRI? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    "Dynamic Range Increase" or "Exposure Blending" some say "HDR" --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Charging Leopard-001.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Charging Leopard in the Rhino and Lion Park, Gauteng, South Africa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice subject, great action shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome pic --ianaré (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect --George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great!!!--Luc Viatour (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like the composition, maybe because it's vertical, maybe because it's too tight for me. Also the focus seems to be slightly ahead of the animal, I don't think that motion is the only reason for the relative lack of sharpness. I do not wish to vote though, it is a rare and impressive picture. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's categorized as a Panthera pardus and called a leopard (corresponding vernacular name) in the description, I'm not a specialist but it looks reasonably identified. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose correct ID is not needed only for butterflies...Remember the rules...--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment From my memory of the rules, exact scientific ID is NOT a requirement for FP only for QI --Tony Wills (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Smooth_O (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (DES) 17:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing shot! --Tintero (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - although a zoo animal, the behaviour shown wouldn't be obtainable in the wild (other than extracted from the camera posthumously!). Which subspecies of Leopard is shown would be useful to know, but from the zoo's location, very likely African P. p. pardus. - MPF (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- It is a very interesting photo but it misses the point. There is no feeling of motion, due to the angle and too tight crop. At first sight it looks like the animal is sitted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks very dynamic to me --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support bcs of the slight motion blur. But it is not an easy shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Statue of Liberty, NY.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 14:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Liberty (more formally, Liberty Enlightening the World, and more colloquially, Lady Liberty) is a structure located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, presented to the United States on the centennial of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence as a gift from France. It was designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and gets its green coloring from patination of the outer copper covering. The statue is world-renowned for being the first thing sea-borne visitors, immigrants, and returning Americans see upon entering New York Harbor and has been known as a beacon of freedom to much of the world. It earned UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1984.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Cnidaria Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

cnideria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably a very difficult photograph, but noisy and unsharp. --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful colors and translucency, sharpness OK (though DOF is a bit low), noise in line with ISO settings. --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find it unsharp at all. And I think what Eusebius says is noise are actually filaments on the jellyfish's body. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
En effet, la "peau" de la méduse est comme granuleuse (désolé pour la réponse en français) --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Translation of above message : Yes, the "skin" of the jellyfish has a granular texture (sorry for answering in French) --ianaré (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info there is a white dead pixel, except this problem who is easy to correct the picture is beautiful, sharp, good colours and interesting composition. --Croucrou (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
corrigé et réduction du bruit apliquée --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now it's perfect, i don't saw any noise, only the texture of the animal --Croucrou (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very nice composition but too much noise, caused by the very high ISO setting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support He had no choice but pushing ISO setting very far, otherwise he would have had to use wide aperture, which would have shallowed DOF. I think that it's a very good compromise overall, and 2800 iso for a D3S probably is much like 400/800 on older cameras such as my venerable 400D... :) Based on that, I guess that's the best we can get today. I've tried same shot at f/2.8, iso1600, and few years ago and don't get this good results (otherwise would have been on commons for loooong already). Here we have two for the same price.- Benh (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The species is not identified. Cnidaria is an animal phylum with over 9000 species. I'd like to support once the species id is given. Might it not be obtained from the Pairi Daiza Park? --Cayambe (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Demande au parc effectuée this is "Aurelia aurita"--Luc Viatour (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support amazing creatures! Amada44 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brilliant shot Rastrojo (DES) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture of high educational value. --Tintero (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yet another captive... Mais c'est magnifique. Pourrait entrer dans la catégorie "E.T. in space..." --Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   • Richard • [®] • 10:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the species identification. --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – I don't know, how to make this photo in the dark sea without noise... --Steindy (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sémhur (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Sandahl (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Panorama of the Whale Galaxy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 15:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the NGC 4631 galaxy.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dendroica pensylvanica MN2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chestnut-sided Warbler
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The shadow is unfortunate but such a close shot of a warbler is difficult. All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find the shadow that bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good located pic of a wild bird - MPF (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo! Amada44 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose trevlig bild, men jag tycker skuggan stör tillräckligt för att bilden inte ska vara utvald /Ö 22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
According to google this means: nice picture, but I like shadow disturbing enough that the image should not be selected .--Elekhh (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty, but not outstanding. Steven Walling 21:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moreover, the shadow is not a problem: it adds by giving some relief IMO--Jebulon (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MPF. Lycaon (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Panorama des Hoechster Mainufers zwischen Bolongaropalast und Ochsenturm von Sueden-20100524.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frankfurt on the Main: Waterside of the district Hoechst as seen from the southern side of the Main
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Panorama of 15 images stitched with Panorama Studio Pro 2
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --патриот8790 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question, it's a wonderful panorama :-) -- Ra'ike T C 09:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sehr schön - Excellent --George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice detail, good view --ianaré (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  fetchcomms 12:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this pic taken from a curve of the Main ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, take a look at the embedded camera position using e.g. Google Maps. --Mylius (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tintero (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - OK, I can imagine what some might think after seeing my oppose... But the picture feels tilted (but I've checked, and it's not). Also, I just don't feel impressed if we remove the fact it's a huge panorama. Lighting, pale colours, a bit washed out sky... all contribute to no wow to me. Good quality picture ? I think yes. Would I hang this up in my room ? I don't think so. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The RAWs used to stitch the image were developed using a colour temperature of 5400 Kelvin which is the „sunny daytime“ standard and even was in the times of analogue photography. No further saturation was added to make the image come as close to the actual colours as possible. Of course colours like e.g. seen here might seem more picturesque than above, but do they reflect reality? I think not. Not trying to convince anyone – just an explanation of my approach to photography. --Mylius (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Swans are overexposed. Just joking (yeah, I'm not funny), I think it is a great photograph and I find it impressive in itself. Could you just have a look at the note I have left on the picture, and either confirm that the antennas look like that on the originals or correct it? No need to restitch the whole thing I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I really envy you for your eyesight. ;-) Especially since I spent hours watching out for stitching errors. The left part of the left antenna actually is a bit skewed, but the more prominent part to the right was an stitching error I've corrected (although via manual retouche in Photoshop since this is a part so small Panorama Studio doesn't even recognize it). Thanks for the hint! --Mylius (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support then. I guess I was just lucky in finding that. --Eusebius (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also appreciate the very natural colours. --Cayambe (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Not very exciting, but solid quality and good composition, comparing favourably with our featured panoramas. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Joaquim, u are the one who started discussion to raise bar for FP, and to make them exceptional again, and yet u support "not very exciting" images... hmmm ? ;) - Benh (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, because I rationally (the 'head') consider this picture to deserve FP status though emotionally (the 'guts') don't feel very excited. This means, of course, that I have full control of my body and mind... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this is exactly the difference between an FP (guts + mind) and a QI (mind). I could go over your history, and would find you sometime opposed because bells weren't ringing, but maybe the pictures then also deserved FP. I think this is the point: not being afraid to oppose when you just feel like so. - Benh (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both my mind and my heart say: undoubtedly FP quality. -- MJJR (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Gulf of Mexico Oil Slick.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oil Spill reaching the Gulf of Mexico
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by すけ - nominated by すけ -- すけ (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- すけ (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question what are those horizontal lines on the spill ? --ianaré (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that is how it takes the images and pastes them. This satellite. --すけ (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but I really don't like the parallel lines in the sea and the added border lines (state/county limits?). --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentBest is slot image. That satellite will not likely take another photo like that until after decades or perhaps never. That has a heavy weight. --すけ (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I can easily believe it is the best picture of its kind, but it doesn't make it an FP for me. We have sat pictures of significantly better quality. Also, the same raw sat images could be better processed to form a better image, so I don't really have any second thoughts about my opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A neat picture, but it's not a particularly informative illustration of the oil spill itself. At the top of the Gulf, it is difficult to differentiate between what is oil and merely opaque water. There is also a deceptive large glare toward the bottom of the image, which is not part of the spill, according to this map for May 18, the day this satellite picture was taken. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View from Lummus Park of Miami Beach, Florida. All by -- ianaré (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - good technical quality, but not a terribly interesting looking place, just a load of rather dreary skyscrapers - MPF (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • it is what it is ... though if you look closely, you'll see that there are in fact several architectural styles represented, from art deco style of the 1940s to modern designs. Not my type of vacation either, but people from all over the world do go there (and spend ridiculous sums of money). This is also the the biggest and most famous beach in the area. --ianaré (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, because of the former comment. --Tintero (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For aesthetical reasons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong support Per author, it is what it is, we can`t delete the skyscrapers :-). Iadrian yu (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture! Gives a good impression of what the place really is. Reflects the atmosphere of the spot also very well, as far I remember from a short visit over there some years ago (where I did not spend ridiculous sums of money at all...). Technically well done - except a few stitching flaws in the sky, which can easily be resolved - and good encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Show a lot of details. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View from Lummus Park of Miami Beach, Florida. Panorama with feet wet. -- ianaré (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't really see any educational value here, and it seems overexposed to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I thought this one was more educational, as the perspective offers a broader and more detailed view of the buildings (Miami Beach is a pretty famous city, very popular with tourists - and this is the main beach). It also shows many more people, a mix of tourists and locals. Technically it is also much more challenging, due to the many movements to be expected during its realization. I do think the other is more aesthetically pleasing, which is why I nominated both. --ianaré (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, because of the former comment. --Tintero (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I marked a stitching error. Furthermore I need to see some of the girls on the right in a higher resolution to be able to review the image. ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed stitch error, thanks. I actually waited for those girls to get in field of view ;-) --ianaré (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer that one, and like composition. I thought I was alone, but AngMoKio proved me wrong: I scrutinized the pic very closely, but spent a bit more time on right part. I think it was a bit challenging to take because of moving people. I feel the horizon is curved, but if so, I believe this improves the picture. Very nice overall ! - Benh (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the seaweed band caps off the composition. The only negative thing I can say is that the flag is flying the wrong way :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- For aesthetical reasons, I don't like the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • kind of a cheap oppose, don't you think ? What specifically don't you like about it ? --ianaré (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, here it goes (applies to both pictures). First of all, both pictures are more or less symmetrical, which is aesthetically boring. This is a common flaw in landscape panoramas. The coloring is also uninteresting, with extensive areas of sand and sky and no warm tones (reds, yellows). Finally the distortion is disturbing. In particular, the horizon if very curved, especially in the second picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • thank you for your helpful critique. --ianaré (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional to Alvesgaspar, the clientel on the beach are not of the most aesthetically attractive cross-section of humanity . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
a) I'm sure they would beg to differ. b) I'm surprised you missed out on an opportunity to support an image showing so many wild H. sapiens, in a group activity very representative of this species. --ianaré (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice place.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Alvesgaspar --Karel (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Oryctolagus cuniculus Tasmania 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 21:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Tyrannus tyrannus MN3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Kingbird
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Typical posture of the Eastern Kingbird standing proudly on a top of some dead branches in the open. All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good located pic of a wild bird - MPF (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose somehow the image is too normal. difficult to say what it exactly is. Probably a colorful bird would make it much more interesting. The other nominated image (above) is very good and a FP in my opinion. Amada44 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is it possible that the bird is slightly underexposed? --AngMoKio (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sunlight was somewhat diffuse and the bird is not colorfull. Although I increased the color, the result still kind of plain. I like the composition though. --Cephas (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceremonial start of the Iditarod dog sled race
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Kovalchek - uploaded by Smooth_O - nominated by Smooth_O -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy, on all dogs. --Eusebius (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Well of course it's noisy, packs of dogs always are! MPF (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great action shot, unfortunately, very noisy at ISO 1000.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it's noisy, but I love the composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition, but the noise is just too much. Steven Walling 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to kaʁstn - MPF (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per kaʁstn, and due to one dog's compelling blue eyes. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good action shot, but there is too much noise, almost everywhere. --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having in mind the conditions.., very nice work.Iadrian yu (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise? Oh, I didn't notice cause pic looks so cool. --Lošmi (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Could you please all review according (among other things) to the technical guidelines? The image is beautiful but the noise is visible even on the 800px-wide thumbnail. This image wouldn't even get a QI status. --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what you mean? Dogs by their inherent nature are noisy, though you can't actually hear it on a photo. There is also of course a lot of white spots from snow kicked up, is that what you're referring to? That apart, the lead dogs are clear and in decent focus. I can't see what your problem is. MPF (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    No, I'm talking about the prominent electronic noise coming from the camera sensor, amplified by the 1000 ISO. --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    This is an action shot, you can't compare it with a bowl of oranges for which you can choose conditions. Of course that one should try to avoid noise as much as possible but in some cases it's inevitable. Nevertheless the same guidelines says: "Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality". --Lošmi (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Still can't see what you mean. What does this "electronic noise" look like? I can't see anything "hiding the details of the picture" - MPF (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Open the picture at 100% and look at the top left corner (for instance). Over the background, you can see snow flakes (larger white spots), and a multitude of pixel-size coloured spots, making an orthogonal lattice (image of the photosite lattice on the sensor). Here it is really very bad, showing local patterns (coloured vertical or horizontal lines). On a better image, it could look more like the grain of a photographic film. If you look at the head of the first dog, you can see that the edge of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the teeth, the texture of the tongue... are somehow hidden by this noise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can see what you mean now, but don't think it is enough to have a serious adverse effect on the photo. Maybe some people are more sensitive to it than others? - MPF (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality, too tight framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love huskies but per Alves   • Richard • [®] • 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Walkway Over the Hudson 2010-05-31.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge in New York, United States, after years of misuse and neglect, was transformed into a pedestrian walkway in 2009 and spans the Hudson River.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no WoW, no significant details in the image, people's clothes are very bright.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diaa. This doesn't have much educational value either, since it show the bridge very poorly. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination - Sometimes I feel like this is a guessing game... but thanks for the comments everyone... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 17:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troilus and Cressida
Gray contrast test image.svg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - dull and over-dark - MPF (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The thumbnailer makes it a little darker at lower resolutions - due pretty much to how engravings make shades of grey using black ink and white paper - but this engraving does make heavy use of chiaroscuro, with Cressida in the light, scaling back to the problems awaiting her in the darkness Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks just fine at full res, shows artistic use of chiaroscuro. NativeForeigner (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Iadrian yu (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as co-restorer/nominator.  f o x  13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Had invited him to join me, but missed his agreement, and so presumed he wasn't interested. Oops! Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media

--Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Al-capone-cell.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An inside, high-resolution picture of Al Capone's cell as it exists today at Eastern State Penitentiary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thesab - uploaded by Thesab - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The bottom of the furniture is cut off without reason. --99of9 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don' t know why this is a problem. Thank you very much, --патриот8790 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in order to get rid of the strange oppose reason (FPX). In my opinion all essential parts of the cell are visible and the cut off parts of the furniture are likely not very interesting. bamse (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Agree with Bamse about the FPX template, I was going to do the same thing. Still, I would like to see the bottom of the furniture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thanks Bamse for the FPX removal; I am neutral about this picture, because its quality is not wonderful, yet I think it has a great educational value. About the legs of the furniture... I can imagine one has to snap a shot of this cell from a corridor, maybe through a window, and it's not feasible to have the whole furniture on one shot, unless using a wide angle, which in turn would've distorted the whole scene (just guessing). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fair enough, the FPX was probably too harsh. Sorry. But I strongly believe this is not featurable. If a static scene is not complete, why would you call it your finest? We expect high technical standards for static scenes, and our composition standards should be equally high. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – Beautiful lighting. --Steindy (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ 99of9: I'm respectfully sorry, but what you expect in FPC is not necessarily what I expect in FPC. Your "We expect" is maybe excessive a little, I'm afraid. For example, in my opinion, a FP is not a QI++ (if it is, then the word "featured" is maybe not appropriate, if I can say that as a non English native speaker), and this one shows something very "special" enough to be featured, maybe... Furthermore, it looks like if the nominator or the creator were not members of this "we". Sorry if I'm wrong, nothing personal here, but that's what I think... --Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • FP is not QI++, but the same standards do apply - unless there is a mitigating reason. For exemple the leopard pic, the focus is a little off, but the strong visual impact and difficulty of the shot is a mitigating reason for me. I don't see a mitigating reason here, this shot could be easily duplicated and made better. --ianaré (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Antennae, Hubble images.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 01:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Two galaxies are squaring off in Corvus and here are the latest pictures. When two galaxies collide, however, the stars that compose them usually do not. This is because galaxies are mostly empty space and, however bright, stars only take up only a small amount of that space. During the slow, hundred million year collision, however, one galaxy can rip the other apart gravitationally, and dust and gas common to both galaxies does collide. In the above clash of the titans, dark dust pillars mark massive molecular clouds are being compressed during the galactic encounter, causing the rapid birth of millions of stars, some of which are gravitationally bound together in massive star clusters.


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Astronomy

File:Arothron hispidus is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 04:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse
Could you please be more specific about low quality? The details of the very small cleaner fish are seen clearly. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I find about everything unsharp. I am certain that I would be totally unable to take this picture, but I've obviously seen better underwater pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto to Eusebius; the centre is sharp enough, but there is bad spherical aberration out to the four corners which spoils the pic a bit - MPF (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1[edit]

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is another candidate I think you should open another candidate page, but it's only my opinion and I often find local FP traditions curious. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the idea is that since only one picture of a given subject can be the finest, they ought not both be promoted. So if they both achieve the requirements, the one with less support is not promoted. --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The second image is added as alternative and not as a separate nomination. Of course only one of them will be promoted. It is an usual practice with alternatives.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish
The chosen alternative is: File:Arothron_hispidus_is_being_cleaned_by_Hawaiian_cleaner_wrasses,_Labroides_phthirophagus_1.jpg

File:Astronaut-EVA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 15:19:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Views of the extravehicular activity during STS 41-B
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Previously nominated over two years ago and failed. The image hasn't gotten any better and our standards have even risen since then. --Dschwen (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of no geocode. (a funny joke, isn't it ?). Nevertheless, noisy and unsharp at high resolution. Sorry for Mr Mc Candless.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but it's a bit noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, why doesn't that surprise me? --Dschwen (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • sniff..sniff...I smell sth --AngMoKio (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:Astronaut-EVA edit2.jpg may be better. It's cropped a bit, though. However, looking through the EVA category, it does appear this one has particularly unusually good composition, so I do think that it's worth seriously considering some version of this. Symbol support vote.svg Support, therefore, as iconic and not easily replaceable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. Interesting? Yes, but not featured quality. Steven Walling 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Adam Cuerden. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't strike me as particularly impressive photography.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bordeaux place de la bourse with tram.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 18:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bordeaux, place de la bourse with tram. In front: miroir d´eau
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Barun (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Promising in low size, but slightly deceptive in full res (sharpness, dynamic range...) --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy, but nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Tilted, technical deficits. Subject looks great and shows clear potential for an FP. But this is not it. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great!--Luc Viatour (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical problems, per Dschwen. Steven Walling 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per Maurilbert, he said exactly what I think--Jebulon (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Building on the left is sharp; maybe effects of distortion by thermal convection currents in the rest of the scene? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - a daytime shot would be much nicer - MPF (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very poor quality. Fortunately it is possible to do much better even under these difficult conditions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful use of two strong, opposing colour-sets. 71.130.1.218 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Please log-in to vote --AngMoKio (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There seems little reason to oppose this nomination for me. To say 'a daytime shot would have been nicer' hardly constitutes a reason. Still I suppose its largely personal preferences.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dent STS 1881.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 05:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tooth of Australopithecus africanus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Rare view, Very high scientific, educational and encyclopedic values, emotional testimony of very far ancestors (hmm not so far of some I know...). Perfect photographical technics (details, light, composition, background). It honors the FP project, IMHumbleO. Thanks ! Sure, that's not flooding !! --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good example for an attractive kind of scientific documentation. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to Mbdortmund - MPF (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting view with the black reflective background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm reading about these 'guys' now, so of particular interest to me. The image is exceptionally well detailed imo. --ianaré (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's very nice at thumbnail and even full screen size, but looks strange to me at full size. I see some fringing beside contrasting light and dark features, and the texture seems odd in places (e.g. around the dark "z" on the upper surface). I suspect it's a bit overprocessed, which seems a shame. I can't bring myself to oppose it though.--Avenue (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not so sharp, I see some noise and maybe some posterization. I second Avenue's remarks and I find quality not sufficient for a FP studio shot. --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture. Great work. Per Jebulon. Iadrian yu (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Nice picture , scientific , but I wonder what it IS
  • no anonymous votes. It's a fossil tooth, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Lynx lynx (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 20:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lynx lynx
<div style="display:none--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC);">
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful picture, but DOF probably too shallow, and the part in focus is not so sharp. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems focused enough for me. Steven Walling 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- As Eusebius -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it a little disturbing that the eyes are in the center of the image. I find that this doesn't make it a very good composition. Amada44 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background very noisy. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the background isn't noisy or very noisy. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Michael Gäbler, the image is not grainy.. and the quality of the image should be judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc.. Ggia (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I may be wrong, but I think the background is noisy. All the images here are judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc... I think it's good. It's the rule in FPC, isn't it ? I may say too that for me, it's not focused enough. But I agree: it's only my opinion. Nothing personal here--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The image is well focused, at least the interesting parts of the image are focused. I don't see much noise either. I find more disturbing that the eyes that are in the center of the image, and I think that it is more fruitful comment about the discussion. Talking about noisy photographs, ie. looking closely to the images of Sebastião Salgado you will see a lot of noise (due to the use of Tri-X 400ASA black & white film). If the photographs of this photographer were in a free license and they we uploaded here.. and if one of them was a candidate as a featured picture we will comment that it is low quality according to FPC rule (because of the grain)? Ggia (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Zoo animal, and too much of a posed portrait to look realistic. Looks like those pics one sees of businessmen looking artificial with a plastic smile. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No, the Eurasian Lynx is not smiling, he is yawning. Therefore this is no posed portrait. Did you ever see a pic of a yawning businessman? Smile By the way the Wisentgehege Springe game park is no zoo, it is under the Habitats Directive a Natura 2000 natural habitat with wild fauna and flora. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "natural habitat with wild fauna" - so this animal is unconstrained, free to leave the park if it wishes, even to go to Germany or France without hindrance, and gets all its food by its own hunting, not provided by man? I have my doubts!! From the literature I have, Lynx lynx is long extinct as a wild animal in the Netherlands. If it is reintroduced, where from, and how many generations ago? In general, reintroduced animal populations are required to show at least 2-3 generations of survival without human assistance before they can be considered wild again (e.g., in Britain, reintroduced Haliaeetus albicilla were only officially accepted as re-established in the wild 28 years after reintroduction commenced). If this animal doesn't meet those requirements, it is as far as I'm concerned, a zoo animal. - MPF (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Rana clamitans MN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 19:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

North American Green Frog, female.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mattew666 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Harsh lighting, poor DOF, not the best angle, The existing FP of this genus are generally much better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Good photo, but the bar in this subject is higher than this. - Keta (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good but not fantastic --ianaré (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Amphibians

File:Przewalski's colt running.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor framing. What is the subject: the horse or the trees? Reminds me of those family shots with the monument behind. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, poor composition. --Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alvesgaspar and Eusebius, please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory. Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image. This image point up the little Przewalski's colt in his large German lebensraum. This German lebensraum is not the initially habitat of the Przewalski's horses. This has been the steppe in Eurasia. In some years the Przewalski colt will be reintegrated in the steppe of Mongolia. The open countyside in the image is the habitat of the Przewalski's horses in the Wisentgehege Springe game park. The image indicate this with many pieces of horse dung on the meadow. The Przewalski's colt is very little in the large image, this emphasizes his smallness. The image shows on the left side the shadow of the colt and on the right side the open way to his mother. I like the frozen moving in this image: the colt seems to dance on one feet during he is running to his mother. Important is the contrast of the sunny colt and the shady wood. There is a way from the sunny meadow into the dark wood. This way into the dark wood may remember Germans to the Fairy tale Hänsel und Gretel. In bygone times such a way into dark woods had been menacing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar explained what I meant by "poor composition": by looking at the picture, it is not clear why so much background is part of it (and also, the animal is strangely centred). "Poor framing" or "poor composition" is not "defamatory", it is a negative (and somehow subjective) value judgment over one's work. If you don't want your work to be evaluated in a negative way (which I can totally understand), then maybe you shouldn't submit it for reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if my evaluation was too harsh by no offense was meant, of course. 'Poor' is very often used here when assessing pictures, instead of 'bad'. I personally prefer that the evaluations of my images are straight and clear because I learn more from them, but people are different. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, we three are working together for the good future of FP. You participate in the discussion Careless reviews. I myself support the FP mostly with images. I think you misapprehended my sentence „Please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory.” The word “poor” has different meanings in the English language. It is not only used in the meanings „not good“ and „meagre“. It is also used in the meanings „pitiful, pitiable“, „wretched“, „woefully“. Therefore the word „poor“ can be understood as a defamatory word. The adjective of the german translation “arm” is today used to offend or insult somebody with words like “armer Irrer” (= “poor foul”), “armes Schwein”, “arme Sau”. I think it would be better for the good future of FP to find another way to describe the lack of quality in images of FPC. I wrote: “Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image.” Maybe you can find in the English language a harmless word instead of "poor..." to describe the lack of quality in an image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh please... When using a word in a sentence, it is not required that all its meanings apply at the same time, let alone that all the meanings of its possible translations in another language hold. I didn't mean that the image needed better funding, if I need to clarify. The second meaning of "poor" in the Oxford English dictionary (just after the money-related sense) is "of a low or inferior standard or quality", which is exactly what is meant here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose another high quality shot. But to me the composition seems a bit random. The background really is a bit distracting. I'd prefer a tighter crop, sth like this --AngMoKio (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your stimulus. I made a crop. Please see Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ack Eusebius. --Steindy (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I made a new crop. I hope it is a better framing now. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Please leave the old nomination and make a new subsection with the new -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 23:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Psalm 23
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Joseph Martin Kronheim (?) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This was scanned at 800 dpi. The original is about 6-8" wide, at full size, my monitor makes this about 6 FEET wide. This is great for reproduction of the work, but you may prefer a less extreme view for evaluating it as art. Dschwen's Javascript viewer, while not perfect (it tends to look very slightly blurred at lower zooms), will help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An interesting bit of ephemera, representative, though better quality than the vast majority, of things you may have seen a lot if you were raised in the American fundamentalist evangelical tradition like I was. Unlike those, this is freely licensed, and (although I'm still seeking confirmation of this, initial enquiries have been positive in the identification) by a reasonably notable creator of such materials. Also illustrative of a Victorian publishing house, the Religious Tract Society, which we have precious little else from.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That is wide... Very interesting, well done restoration. NativeForeigner (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question on the files page there is also a link to the original scan. I compared the original scan with the nominated version and I think that the contrast in the nomination is too high which results in lost details. And I think an important criteria of judging restorations is that details don't get lost. Correct me if I am wrong...I am for sure not an expert concerning restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Scans rarely come out with accurate colours. Since I own the original, I adjusted it to get as near to that as possible. I've looked at it again, and discovered a way to make it slightly more like the original: Kronheim uses a reflective bronze-colour ink, which scans differently than it looks to the eye. Once I realised that, I could selectively desaturate red in that area, leading to the currently-uploading version, which, to my eyes, looks as identical to the original as you can get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent quality... and convincing explanations given by the uploader/nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cayambe. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:The birth of the Mantid 0521.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 23:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

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

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Roadside Hawk (Buteo magnirostris) perched in a tree in Goiás, Brazil.
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 a better version of this picture is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Eagle Harbor Lighthouse Sideview.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 17:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eagle Harbor Lighthouse in Michigan, USA
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JovianEye (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding. QI but not FP.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the shadow of the tree at the lighthouse ... Please take a photo with the visible tree. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard and Alchemist --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard and Alchemist. The shadow of the tree makes you want to see more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – all said --Steindy (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, nice, but not outstanding. And yes it would be better without the shadow and with or without the tree. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg JovianEye (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leaf scorpionfish
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here's the story about the image. I was swimming over the coral reefs, when I suddenly noticed a strange leaf. The only thing that made me to stop and take another look was that the "leaf" was kind of out of place there. It took me about 10 minutes to realize I was looking at a fish. I've never seen such fish before, and never heard of him either. What was amazing that the fish really behaved as a dead leaf that got stacked in the corals, and is rocking back and forth by the will of the currents. The nominated image is a composite of four frames that IMO show not only the fish, but his behavior as well.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Always same dilemma with you Mila... I feel it's valuable, rather unique over here, and that one has to catch it. But I oppose mainly for quality reason. And the fact this is underwater is now no longer mitigating to me (it's possible to take good quality underwater pictures at little cost). - Benh (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The quality is good. It is how the fish really looks. The blotches on the skin are natural, and the shape is not really sharp. Besides you really cannot judge all underwater photography the same. It is much easier to take underwater images, when diving because you could stand still. I was snorkeling in the strong currents. To take those images I should have been diving and working my legs and arms to stay under long enough to take the image. I could have uploaded a single image or the two last frames only, where the quality is better a bit, but I believed it was important to show how the shape of this amazing fish is changing. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Benh. Image quality and lighting are really not good enough -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after thinking about it... mitigating reasons... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the individual frames are good, but the four together don't look good; in particular the bottom right frame is disproportionately green-toned compared to the other three more blue/red-toned frames. I'd think it would be improved by some sort of border (e.g. a white line) separating the frames. - MPF (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problems --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Just can't see the main object good enough. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the idea of the "main object" not to be seen good enough :) On the other hand I did get enough :), and that is why Pictogram voting delete.svg --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Full Opera by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 16:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The new Opera House in Oslo.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Krakers - uploaded by Krakers - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice shot, unfortunately quite noisy in some areas. Why not chose an earlier time of the day to have more light thus being able to use a smaller iso? Did you do some selective noise-reduction? Some areas have heavy noise while others are more or less noise-free. Maybe some experts here can help you to get a better noise reduction, it would be worth a try. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but noisy at full res. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture ! Iadrian yu (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - all the lights (most obvious with the small background lights top left) are double, presumably due to camera shake. Agree with AngMoKio, a daytime shot would be better. PS looks a shocking place for safety, do people wheel their prams up to the top of the roof, then let them roll back down into the water? 8-) - MPF (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice, but noisy in dark areas. Looks it was taken at 800 iso, and subsequently level adjusted. I wouldn't say it would be better at daytime, but here a tripod would have helped for sure - Benh (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Technically not perfect, yet one of the best pictures of this building presently on Commons. Very interesting lighting. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Sharpness, noise. --Steindy (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture but noise ruins it. --Aktron (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, I'd say the lighting is good and I don't have a problem with any noise.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality issues (noise, blurryness) --ianaré (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Paradisiac beach in Bretagne.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A paradise beach in Bretagne
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 quality is poor (unsharpness, chromatic noise, lack of detail) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Ferenc Ilyes (HUN), Artur Siodmiak (POL).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 10:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ferenc Ilyés), hungarian Handball-Player, blocked with foul by Artur Siódmiak (Poland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Steindy (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - this captures the confrontation as well as the ball; action photos like these of important matches are rare on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice handball pic. Rastrojo (DES) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality, the head in foreground ruins the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
With this kind of reasoning, FP nominations will continue to be dominated by endless rows of images of plants, stones, engravings, statues, and astronomical objects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very good and "live" handball pic. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - surely you mean 'foul', not 'handball'? None of the players is touching the ball with a hand, but a foul (shove in the face) is being committed - MPF (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good action shot... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and funny shot :) --Einstein2 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good action shot indeed. The head in the foreground is not completely random either. --Dschwen (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jackhynes - uploaded by Jackhynes - nominated by Jackhynes -- Jack (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jack (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - no location or status (wild or zoo, etc.) information. May change if this info can be obtained. - MPF (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Added location and status information. Jack (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is a tad tight, but it's a high quality photo of a rare species. Steven Walling 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor framing and composition. It shoudn't be too difficult to re-shoot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alves. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute, relevant and decent photo... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ack Alvesgaspar. --Steindy (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute animals, but framing too tight, pole in the background disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose pole is distracting, they look like zoo animals. --ianaré (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 11:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surcouf
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Eusebius (Guillaume Piolle) - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition, nice quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing very special; copyright concern: when did the sculptor die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    1917. --Eusebius (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That red fence doesn't look good. It's much better when the image is cropped above it IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Correct picture but nothing extraordinary justifying FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many tiny disturbing things: the random cropped fence, the edge of the fort covering up the headland, the hand pointing into the upper-left corner (neighter the horizon nor the sea). --Elekhh (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:Wörtherseestadion beim Endspiel im ÖFB-Cup 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 08:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view in the Wörtherseestadion in Klagenfurt (Austria) with 28.000 spectators during the final of the Austrian Cup 2009–10 SC Magna Wiener Neustadt vs. SK Sturm Graz 0:1 (0:0) at 2010-05-16.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Steindy (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I don't like the chromatic aberration and the overexposed sky, but I like the view, the scene and the sharpness --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Maybe a valuable picture but I don't see anything extraordinary mitigating the technical flaws and justifying the FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Jacktd (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong CA on the metallic structure--Jebulon (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Temple in Alishan.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longyin Temple of Chukou Village in Alishan National Scenic Area.
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 sky is severely overexposed (all white) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 00:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bottlenose Dolphin - Tursiops truncatus A dolphin surfs the wake of a research boat on the Banana River - near the Kennedy Space Center.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Solipsist - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very useful, but too much noise next to the eye and the mouth. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not a bad picture by any means, and technically it's fine. I just don't find it that exceptional in terms of difficulty of capture, composition, and rarity - given the photographer probably sees this scene on a weekly basis (get the mangroves in the shot, or get it when he's leaping clear out, etc ...). I would be more likely to support if it were the work of a commoner. --ianaré (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – A professional work should be without errors. --Steindy (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to Mbz1, the noise isn't obvious to me. Wild and located, makes it much more valuable than pics from dolphinariums - MPF (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable but too noisy in water areas. ----Chrumps (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Agree with MPF that being in its natural habitat is a good thing, but the composition is just awkward. Is it an action shot or a still shot? –Juliancolton | Talk 11:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the composition is just fine, but the lighting is a tad too bright for me. Just not quite there, technically. Steven Walling 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - For me this is a nobrainer Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Falkland Islands Penguins 49.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ben Tubby (flickr) - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Amada44 -- Amada44 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Amada44 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful, sharp --Croucrou (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Panasonic1 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I prefer a photo of the whole Penguin. --Steindy (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good portrait, wild and located - MPF (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good detail, like the composition. --Elekhh (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original and very nice one - Benh (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition. --Avenue (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys talk 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome! Pity the photo is a bit soft! Diti the penguin 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and thinking about an other vote. I've got a Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I saw some kind of halo around the beak reminding me the result of oversharpening, additionally, the plumage on the shoulder is not only "a little bit soft" but noticeably blurry. Was the picture indeed oversharpened? And what's about the strange focal length of 1250mm shown on the Flickr page, could the softness come from a motion blur? Grand-Duc (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Balaton Hungary Landscape.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 16:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape at Lake Balaton, Hungary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by txd - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening, oversaturation. If not me, someone else will probably FPX this picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, the oversaturation is part of the tone mapping effect and I'm sure there are lots of people who like that on Commons. As for the rest of the problems, I suspect they are all caused by overcompression. --Aqwis (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, I have to agree that some people will appreciate this kind of Flickr kitsch and that a number of them won't even bother to open the picture in full size. Well, I'll keep trying anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad tone mapping and oversharped --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose BBB Smile --17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, --mathias K 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice subject, but oversaturated. --Cayambe (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Berthold Werner and Cayambe. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2010 (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 of very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening and oversaturation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Hubble images, 2003-2004.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 00:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Galaxies, galaxies everywhere - as far as the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope can see. This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, this galaxy-studded view represents a "deep" core sample of the universe, cutting across billions of light-years.

The snapshot includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colours. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, may be among the most distant known, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old. The nearest galaxies - the larger, brighter, well-defined spirals and ellipticals - thrived about 1 billion years ago, when the cosmos was 13 billion years old.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field diagram
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 this version is already featured. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brother and sister in the street of Qala-i-Shada, Kabul, Afghanistan. An amazing picture by the same author of this other one, a serious competitor of POTY2009. Created and uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:28, 31 May 2010
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely portrait, interesting lighting/background --ianaré (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm starting to think that this is sort of too easy, and that the hard conditions these people live in make them very photogenic. But that picture sure feels nice, and there a few from Afghanistan over here... Certainly less than panoramas and insects...:). Ack ianaré for lighting. Also friendly support since Paulrudd was my classmate in highschool ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I think that the strongest points of this picture have nothing to do with poverty or exoticism. I'm referring especially to composition, lighting (this is a 'contre-jour') and the expression of the children -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agreed for lighting too. But I believe expressions of the children contribute to make this pic great, hence my comment. This does come from the conditions they live in; I don't mean exoticism but I meant poverty and hard conditions. Don't get me wrong though: Alexis (author's name) did large part of the job by framing and exposing it right in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • why do you think that these children live in poverty? --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I feel you ask this as if it was shocking that I think so (sorry if I'm wrong). But I answer anyways : I can only assume, yes, but have good reasons, among them : Dirty clothes, one of the kid missing a shoe, skin looking like having hard time and Afghanistan having low HDI and low per capita income. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
            • No I am not shocked. I just sometimes have the feeling that people from western or "rich" countries (me included) easily think that people from other cultures are poor or even suffer. By western standards those kids might be poor and still I think that such a pic can trick you. That girls other shoe could just be around the corner because it took it off for what ever reason (I often see children that get rid of various pieces of clothing just for fun). The children's clothes might be dirty because they were playing in the dirt or the mother just gave them some old clothes because they were about to play outside. Even my mother had some older clothes for me when I went playing in the forest. Those kids look well fed and not unhappy, just interested in the photographer. Of course I might be wrong and those kids are really poor, even for Afghan standards, but I just think it is interesting how we (myself included) quickly come to the conclusion that people from far away countries and different cultures have to be poor or suffering. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
              • I understand this point of view an partly agree with it. I never said that these children are unhappy, but that they are poor and live in hard condition, and that I'm likely right given all element we have so far. (we could as well think as disguisement or whatever but this would go very far !). some hard conditions to me that explain the skin : not spending days in air conditioned building but spending days outside under hard sun, not having shower everyday with shampoo etc. And I don't always wait to have all elements before coming to a conclusion, otherwise, I wouldn't often have opinion... would I ? :)- Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
                • Of course I understand your point of view and the way you get to your conclusion. It was not my aim to question your vote or opinion. I just had some deeper thougts on how photos might trick us and felt the need to talk about it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ianaré. --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice photo with the shadows on the ground --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I showed this photo to my dad, who lived in Afghanistan for some time. He says "I believe these children are Azarahs, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Descendants of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan". --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not so keen on the centred composition still a really good photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I'm really uncertain whether not only the exotically working and sweet children and the surrounding field make the photo unusual. Sorry, but I don't see anything, which makes this photo technical better than other photos with sweet children. --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ianaré. Although subjects are centered, the wall on the left gives some dynamism to the picture. It would be very different without the wall. --Cephas (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would consider this an average portrait. It is attractive and they are photogenic, but I find the crop too loose and the viewpoint too high, which prevent this photo from standing above others. IMO, not a good enough portrait for FP. As a side note, I'm wondering why you quoted the author and his work. I thought this was about judging individual photos. Were you trying to justify or inflate the value of this photo just because the author had a finalist at POTY2009? Really a bad move on your part, Alvesgaspar. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I really don't believe the value of this photo needs to be inflated by the kind of expedient you are accusing me of using. My only purpose was to call the attention of the community to the talent of this creator (who should be persuaded to contribute to this forum). FPC reviewers are not stupid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't try to turn this into something else, this is not about reviewers but about the words you used. If that was your only intention, it wasn't the best place nor the best wording, and the more I read it the more it looks like what I said, that's the impression I get at least. - Keta (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I have already explained what my intentions were and consider your insinuations inappropriate, so say the minimum. Yes, this forum is often used for raising and discussing side issues, as you should konw if you were more acquainted with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" --AngMoKio (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • That's very correct AngMoKio, I'll have it in mind the next time. - Keta (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral @Alvesgaspar it is an average portrait (but not a bad one). these kind of pictures are best shooted in black & white film. I partially agree with Keta comments.. Ggia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not Alvesgaspar, but would like to comment on this. Why would this be best B&W ? This is subjective issue, but I personally think as B&W as (most of the time) a cheap and easy way to turn a regular picture into something that looks to "stand above others", since this unconsciously remind old times when photography was much more art and unaccessible than it is now - Benh (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nor am I (!!), but I regard b&w as a relict of history which has no place in modern photography - colour is now possible, and removal of colour to make b&w is removal of data & information, and therefore unjustifiable - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I must object here strongly. A really good b/w picture doesn't work as a colour photo. For example this is a great work of art, but in colour it wouldn't work. Many really good portraits only really work in b/w - and I don't mean just to convert a colour pic to a greyscale pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I just explained why I am voting neutral in that photo. And I said that I would prefer this photo shooted using b&w film (not digital)! Not converting a color photo to b&w. My pov is that b&w film, grain, analog capture works better in pictures/subjects like this one.. here. ie. I don't like much that the viewpoint too high (as Keta mentioned). BTW.. If you like the photo support it. Ggia (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I did ;) but that has nothing to do with the picture itself and I was just giving my point of view as well. Again, I find it strange to rely on grain or whatever... but just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I Agree that sometimes, B&W can be of good use, that's why I said that most of the time I feel that people use it as "art" label" rather than a way to really give another meaning to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I look to much down on people... - Benh (talk)
*Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WOW!, this discussion about b&w is really ridiculous. Photography is not about either color or gray scales, they are elements of photography. It is foolish to state that b&w is a thing of the past, or to say that color is the only thing. While yes, a regular color photograph can be made "more interesting" by converting it to b&w, color could mask defficiencies on the photograph also. Reality is that some photographs work better in b&w and some work better in color. And get this, as much as the digital camp thinks that digital photography is better than analog, well, I have news for you, that is not necessarily true, from the potographic perspective. Digital photography, with all its good things, cannot compete with tonal graduations, dynamic range or many other valuable visual attributes of analog photography. To think that digital cameras produce better photographs is like saying that synthetic brushes create better paintings. The art resides on the eye, knowledge and experience of the photographer and not necessarily on his camera, or the painter´s brushes. A camera does not make a photographer, or creates a good photograph. Digital imagery, from cameras to computers, have only produced more people taking and manipulating pictures, and not necessarily better photographers. One thing is for sure, the mix of technology and photography has produced a lot of people who think that they are photographers... so far from the truth. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did the parents of these two children give their permission to have this photograph taken? Snowmanradio (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - nice pic, but can't quite bring myself to vote for it. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb Rastrojo (DES) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0196.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 20:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on a bird show on the castle Augustusburg, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by LC-de - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice image, but not feature-worthy IMO. Number one, I'm not a huge fan of the lighting; the bird is in a shadow, which detracts from the details on the bird's already dark body against the bright lighting in the back. Second, the bird has a tag on its leg; I don't oppose images solely based on the fact that the bird is in captivity, but in this case, it's far too obvious and the tag makes the bird look too "un-nature like," if you get what I'm saying. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – An unlucky and unnaturally moment. The Bald eagle is in the shadow. The ring on his leg shows, that he's prisoner. --Steindy (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ditto to Kevin and Steindy - MPF (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bird in shadow. --Elekhh (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit dark over the birds body. The image documentation explains the image adequately. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I am the biggest sucker for anything animals but unfortunately the lighting is all wrong for spotlighting this image. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Maffei 1 and 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 11:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maffei 1 and 2
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/WISE Team, uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoA mosaic of images from WISE in the constellation of Cassiopeia. This region contains a large star forming nebula within the Milky Way called IC 1805 (sometimes called the Heart Nebula), a portion of which is seen at the right of the image.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First WISE FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - awkward image dimensions, and parts of Heart Nebula cropped off. Why is it 1.6 by 4.5 degrees? Couldn't it have been made e.g. 2 by 4 degrees, removing low relevance plain starfield from the left, and increasing the height to bring in the rest of the nebula? - MPF (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Unfortunate display format. I believe that this photo shows the Heart Nebula better. --Steindy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special or all that impressive.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice shot but not unique. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I strongly disagree that it's "nothing special", but the image resolution is far too high for the level of detail present in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Rolleiflex SL 35 E.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 12:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The SL 35 E is a camera to use 35 mm film by german manufacturer en:Rollei produced from 1978 in Singapore. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol support vote.svg Support but would like to see the information expanded (date & place of manufacture; whether film or digital, etc., etc. - no doubt a camera buff can tell immediately at a glance, but I can't, and I'd guess many others can't either) - MPF (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Sorry, but the camera and the objective are full with dust. --Steindy (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nothing extraordinary, subject or technical quality, justifying promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ideal to illustrate the camera. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose standard product shot, unfortunately with a dusty subject. But I don't see anything extraordinary here either. --Dschwen (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen. --Elekhh (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree great promotional shot. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sonnenblume Helianthus 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SunflowerThe sunflower (Helianthus annuus) is an annual plant in the family Asteraceae and native to the Americas, with a large flowering head (inflorescence).


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants/Flowers

File:papaver alpinum bud.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 23:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is too distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it unfortunate that the DOF is so reduced that only the top of the stem and "back" of the bud are sharp, and the hair on the foremost part of the bud are already even so slightly blurry. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too busy composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I really tried to pull out a neutral here but, foreground to background focal issues. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 20:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

** Please sign your vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Heart and Soul nebulae.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heart and Soul nebulae are seen in this infrared mosaic from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE. Also visible near the bottom of this image are two galaxies, Maffei 1 and Maffei 2. Maffei 1 is the bluish elliptical object and Maffei 2 is the spiral galaxy.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by me -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First WISE FP. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – Yes, this is the very much better version of this nebulae. --Steindy (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous, and very informative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, as Adam Cuerden points, informative. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avenue (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question -- This is a false colour depiction of an infrared original (one of many possible, I imagine). What is the meaning of the colours? In my opinion 'being beautiful' shouldn't be enough to promote pictures with scientific content, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please see the additional information (above the license box) for the colour representation Originalwana (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was going to nom this one anyway Originalwana (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - After the information was supplied. Gorgeous and educational picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Astronomy

File:Living statue, Miami Beach, FL.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 19:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A living statue performing in Miami Beach, FL. Also a study in white. All by ianaré (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - may be good technical quality, but I don't find it attractive - MPF (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Good technical quality. By the bright background the statue stands out too little. --Steindy (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • the alternative was a busy sidewalk. In any case, I think it actually adds to the composition. Maybe I can change it though. --ianaré (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It wasn't until the third time that I skimmed through the list of candidates that I noticed that it was actually a person. Anyway, its a support from me. I wish that the clothing wasn't cut off at the left, but it's not a big deal in my view. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bright background makes it a FP. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Neither the theme nor the image quality justifies, in my opinion, FP status. Maybe a picture of the whole woman, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does not look impressive to me. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find it attractive, but it's a good shot. The background works, and I think it's arresting enough to be an FP. --Avenue (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's the facial expression which wins it for me. --Elekhh (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but borderline. I might support a different crop more. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:NASA Space Shuttle Atlantis landing (STS-110) (19 April 2002).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Duffman - nominated by Parker1297 -- Parker1297 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Parker1297 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that the composition could be better - the birds are distracting from the main subject, and so is the grass. There also seems to be a tilt. In addition, the sky is quite noisy. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The noise isn't that bad, and I think the birds are interesting, and I like the composition. The tilt is unmissable though. I will have another version ready in a minute. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1[edit]

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thanks that's better. Parker1297 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose better does not automatically mean excellent. --Dschwen (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Birds are interesting but randomly positioned, unfortunately. --Elekhh (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Elekhh. It could be a dramatic shot with the larger bird in contrast to the shuttle, but the smaller bird is a distraction. Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - it would be easy to clone out the ibis if desired. - MPF (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nothing special here Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Przewalski's colt (head) edit amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Przewalski's colt running edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Also here I tend to pro, but also still have to think about it. Technically this photo is really good. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I understand the dilemma: either you preserve the shadow and end up with an unbalanced composition; or you sacrifice the shadow and give some more space ahead of the horse, making the composition more natural. I think I prefer the 2nd option. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hofkirche bei Nacht (Dresden).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hofkirche in Dresden by night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's much better than this one. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not enough foreground. Trees and lights are distracting. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a wider angle would be a better composition. Those cut-off trees and this cut-off orange thing in the lower left corner are disturbing. And maybe it is also better to take this picture in daytime, because then you don't have those annoying lights in the view. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Composition. Even with improved composition it would still be a fairly ordinary shot. No reason to do it at night either. --Dschwen (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMoKio. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Unfortunate picture composition. What makes the photo in the dawn better than with daylight? --Steindy (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, great light and the tree aren't really disturbing. --Aqwis (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMtaylor848 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Omg,"no reason to do it at night" the world of art is so uncontrolled. This is a great picture taken at a great time of the day. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ...art... ?! --Dschwen (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because I think that oppose opinions are non relevant here, useable for comments every picture you won't to promote, and because I like this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • So you are basically saying Screw you opposers, your opinions are not relevant, I'll rather support without giving any reasons at all? How is crappy composition not relevant? Sounds awfully like this nom is used as a soap box for a fairly general debate about FPC. --Dschwen (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Niobium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 22:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element and metal "Niobium"


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:River Thames and the London Eye-31May2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 19:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: River Thames and the London Eye on a cloudy day, London, England.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by რობერტ (Robert) - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: as nominator. -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Ok, I'm the last one who always wants to see clear blue sky in all pictures, but this light situation is detrimental to the subject. Most interesting parts are just underexposed. Also, boring 50:50 composition. --Dschwen (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think the composition lacks a clear focus. --Elekhh (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition / lighting Ggia (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Composition, darkness. --Steindy (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing distinguishing this from a million tourist pics on Flickr or elsewhere, unless the idea is to show how the sky "in its typical English color, that of a rancid dishrag", as Douglas Adams once put it, can make a striking view mundane. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot, however the light is questionable. There are hundreds of images of the Thames at this point on commons, some probably with a better light and composition (there is a little too much river and a little too much land, although I won't argue with it being centred and have never understood why this is detrimental to a photograph).89.243.246.89 11:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please login before voting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 050602-F-1234P-005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 02:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Highway 401 Night Lapse Busy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 23:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night lapse of the 401. Even at 9:30pm, the route is still very busy.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Schwarzenfels, Sinntal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 06:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION