This is a Featured picture. Click here for more information.

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2013

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

Contents

File:Inzlingen - Wasserschloss3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 17:44:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inzlingen: moated castle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Taxiarchos228 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, composition and nice perspective. The reflections in the water are brought out well. I would prefer a slightly wider crop at the bottom (foreground) to make the photo more balanced. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • comment Is it me or is the left side of the house overexposed?Geni (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Stunning; but I prefer this more, in composition-wise. JKadavoor Jee 09:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 905 (front) and 911 (rear).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 16:23:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

NASA's Shuttle Carrier Aircraft 905 (front) and 911 (rear)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/Carla Thomas - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An irretrievable image, both airplanes are retired due to the end of the Shuttle program. -- Ras67 (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some mist in the air, which makes the picture appear a bit dull. While this is perfectly normal for aerial photographs, it is not too hard to remove that. --El Grafo (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Interesting but not exceptional. The colours are washed out and the backgroung is a bit distracting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a higher resolution file in the Dryden Image Gallery that has very low contrast, I used that to create a WB/contrast-corrected version:
    possible alternatives
    Higher resolution, less haze
    Higher resolution, less haze 
    Less busy background
    Less busy background 
    The original from there would also be an alternative. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imo, your version is much better mist-wise, but the blue stripes on the fuselages seem to be a bit dark now. Also, it seems to be a bit too brown/yellow-ish (have a look at the lower side of the fuselages: I guess they should be in a neutral grey? They have a slight color cast in the original too, but it has become stronger through the modifications). But maybe that's just my eyes/monitor tricking me. In terms of the background, I think I prefer the first option. I can't decide which one is the best one overall, so I'll simply Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain . --El Grafo (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
      I tried to correct the issues you mentioned, to some extend. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Palac Koniecpolskich Podhorce 04.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 16:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pidhirtsi Castle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Haidamac - uploaded by Haidamac - nominated by Шиманський Василь -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective (right part of the building is too dominant due to the side view perspective), composition (especially the foreground) and quality (sharpness, distortion) are IMHO not sufficient for FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Damm, that's one distorted looking building :) But I would love to point my camera in it's direction. --Uberprutser (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although a better crop (especially the bottom section) would make the picture even better. The composition is great! --Aktron (talk) 10:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Hysteroconcha dione.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 13:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pitar dione
✓ Done Thank Biopics --The Photographer (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome but it is still not correct. The subgenus from Pitar (Hysteroconcha) has been raised to full genus status so it has to be Hysteroconcha dione. (ref. Prof. Dr. P. Bouchet).  B.p. 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Obvious VI but not special enough for FP. Dof could have been made much better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Rakvere linnuse varemed vallikraaviga1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 11:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rakvere castle ruins
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'd prefer a bit more space at the right, but FP anyway. --A.Savin 15:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like it --Michael Kramer (talk) 09:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As A.Savin. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As User:A.Savin. (Hmmm; I should be more careful, to avoid further issues.) JKadavoor Jee 05:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stryn (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. The weight of the building serves the right side fine, and that, along with the unfortunate parking area, I think makes the right crop ok (normally I'd agree with a wider crop), and I would never agree with losing the left edge just to center the building out. Part of the fun of this image, for me, is that open space on the left, and I absolutely want to go walking on that trail. The whole thing makes me think of Kurosawa's Ran. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Tiegelgussdenkmal-Essen-Detailpanorama-2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 13:18:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail panorama of Monument "Tiegelgussdenkmal" showing steps of crucible steel production
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Detail panorama of Monument "Tiegelgussdenkmal" showing steps of crucible steel production. The five steps of production are marked with the note tool and linked to single shots. The panorama is stitched from 7 single images.

created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Colin (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:54, 22 February 2013
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good despite a slight stiching error (easy to fix ; see note, please). --JLPC (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. I've corrected the small stitching error. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 10:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality --Arcalino (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jml3 (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Xylocopa pubescens female 1.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 10:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Xylocopa_pubescens_female
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gidip (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy background, blue-ish hue. --Aktron (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have selectively reduced background noise and reduced the blueness just a bit. Revert if you don't like the changes. -- Joydeep Talk 18:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Gidip (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not happy with the light reflections on various body parts; like one in natural lights. JKadavoor Jee 08:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Indian Roller (Coracias benghalensis)2.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 16:45:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is too small (please check the FPC guidelines) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2013 (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:Alassane Ouattara UNESCO 09-2011.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 01:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ivorian president at UNESCO.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ivorian president Ouattara attends a ceremony at UNESCO. Created by Hugo Passarello Luna - uploaded and nominated by Skiper -- Skiper (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Skiper (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Excessive NR has ruined the quality IMO. --King of ♠ 06:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By King: noise and level of detail is not sufficient (even for QI). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above--Godot13 (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Edvard Radzinsky 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 20:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Well-known Russian writer Edvard Radzinsky
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well-known Russian writer. -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop is a bit uncomfortable to me. It's somewhat tight, and portraits should generally be more square than 2:3 (something like 4:5 is perfect). --King of ♠ 06:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lucy Merriam.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 21:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blonde girl.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by girl's family photographer - uploaded by J Milburn - nominated by Keraunoscopia -- – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I love photos of kids and this is a very beautiful girl indeed. But there is nothing really special about this picture and the image quality is on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar, I've looked at this image closely several times after reading your comment and I don't think I understand about the image quality. How is it on the poor side? If I may make a comparison between a girl and a tiger, File:Tiger-2.jpg was in this year's POTY and it's extremely over-sharpened. Looking at the image at full size, there are literal blocks of pixelized color that represent, I suppose, hair, water droplets, and reflections. That to me is poor image quality. (I'm only asking out of curiosity.) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not an important personality; nor represent any Ethnic group. So just a beautiful family snap for me. It is an en:fp; but the original article was deleted saying non-notable child actor, 2 roles as a kid, Modeling is not significant. JKadavoor Jee 11:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment No problem, thought I'd throw it out here. Is there a way to quickly delist so not to waste people's time? Also, I listed it because I couldn't find a blonde girl FP; I thought there would be an easy means to do so, like through categories, but apparently not. So I wasn't sure if I was competing against a similar or better FP image of a blonde girl. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 11:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This? Are you talking about withdraw nomination? Just use {withdrawn} template although it may too earlier. JKadavoor Jee 12:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, nevermind, I don't know why I'm so scared to see an image be opposed for FP. So I won't withdraw my nomination. That's the whole point of this process. Gotta learn to take the nos with the yeses! And thanks for the link, that's a fantastic picture. I'm still wondering if there's an organized way to find FP pictures sorted by categories or something, aside from sifting through 4,000+ pics. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, it's right there! I feel stupid. I was looking at the categories in specific images and not finding anything. I was actually thinking more specific categories, to be honest, but that works perfectly. I can sift through those in the future to make sure I'm not nominating something that might already be there. Thank you. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice image of a little girl, but this is not a typical pose of a child in this age, it more a a typical adult model pose, IMHO, so the image give me a strange impression --Slick (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment not represent any ethnic group: this is not fair. It is a very good photo of a blonde white girl. Yann (talk) 09:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK; but it need to be specified in the "info" above and in file description or category. Otherwise she is just a beautiful girl. It is a pity that the short description on nomination page is not displayed unless we put our mouse over the picture. JKadavoor Jee 05:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • JKadavoor, can you clarify for me? You want me to add to the description page to explain that she's a caucasian girl? As for the short description you have to mouse over for, the instructions say to limit this to three words, so I don't really consider it very important. But for the image description, I can update that if you think it needs to be more specific. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think so (about file description and categorization). But Yann can help you better; he is more experienced in this regard. JKadavoor Jee 06:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Hmm, that would be really weird: "Lucy Merriam, a White American child model and actress, known for her role as Emma Lavery on All My Children." – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 07:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh, okay good, sorry if I took you too literally. I agree, I think the blonde hair, blue eyes categories pretty much do the job. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 09:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better that most portraits we get here. Yann (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But not as a portrait of a child model/actress; as a portrait of a beautiful blonde white girl (per Yann). I would like to encourage nominations form underrepresented areas like Sociology and Development geography compared to Natural history and Geography. Sorry, if my first review was a bit biased; I've a known hate to models. JKadavoor Jee 06:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Thalassarche bulleri in flight 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 02:54:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Buller's Albatross (Thalassarche bulleri), East of the Tasman Peninsula, Tasmania, Australia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by JJ Harrison - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by JJ Harrison. I'm aware that the image quality isn't totally perfect - I had some water on the front of my lens. I think it's pretty good considering it's a flight shot taken in waves 5 meters high whilst getting sprayed from head to toe with buckets of cold, salty, water! Camera was (somewhat) protected with a plastic bag thing. -- JJ Harrison (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JJ Harrison (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Any reason for such a minimum resolution. Although it is good to encourage free gifts to Commons, it is not worth to encourage bare minimum pixel contributions. JKadavoor Jee 06:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's an exceptional photograph given the circumstances. JKadavoor Jee has a very intriguing point though. -- ~y (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Stunning image as so many of your photographs, but I feel insulted by the extreme downsampling.  B.p. 18:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's lovely. Insulted by downsampling??? --Uberprutser (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's great. And I understand the downsampling, it's a relatively high-ISO-shot and this resolution allows for effective sharpening, while higher resolutions might not. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per below. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • From 16 Mpx to 2 Mpx is 12.5%. That's called a teaser, not an FP candidate. It is a good image to illustrate web pages and will be a fine VI candidate, but calling this the best commons has to offer?  B.p. 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Agree with Biopics. Not a requirement but a legitimate reason to oppose considering the goal of FP. Part of the body is blown white and seems pixelated. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better "wow" factor than the average FP, but for images at minimum resolution I only prefer to support with super "wow," which this image has not reached IMO. --King of ♠ 01:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per my above argument. If arguments like it's a relatively high-ISO-shot and this resolution allows for effective sharpening, while higher resolutions might not is valid, we've provisions like uploading the original file over and then reverting back to the current version so that anyone can use the original if preferred. JKadavoor Jee 05:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    Admittedly, that's true. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I don't dispute the image may be somewhat downsampled and a bit oversharpened (there are jaggies all round the bird) the comments here on size aren't fair IMO and folk may want to reconsider their protests. The image is not downsampled 12.5%. The vertical resolution is a conseqence of the wide aspect ratio and quite effective IMO. The horizontal resolution is 41% of the original output from the camera. The bird takes up 75% of the width at about 1550 px. Now look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds for other bird-in-flight photographs. Generally, for birds that aren't close up, the pixel size of the other FP flying birds are no higher. This photo was taken with a 500mm lens on a boat on high waves. Could it just be that the bird didn't exactly fill the viewfinder? Can JJ 75% fill the viewfinder with bird-in-flight while arranging the appropriate negative-space on the right-hand-side holding a 500mm lens on a rocking boat? If he can, I expect shortly after he walked on water as his second miracle. So perhaps this image is 50% cropped horizontally and 80%-size downsampled (which is not at all an unreasonable downsample given the ISO and conditions). I think it is a good photograph but I am concerned that we already have two featured pictures of this bird in flight over the sea, also taken by JJ. Since FP is meant to be our "finest", then perhaps three is pushing things. It is a better composition than this and stronger colours than this. Also, this photo, which not featured and possibly oversaturated, has lots of sharp detail the others lack. So there are plently great pictures to compare with. It would be nice if the sharpening was turned down a wee bit too. -- Colin (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I sill believe my argument is valid (Why not upload the original file below the current version?). I don't want to fooled by supporting a near thumbnail size contribution; thus unconsciously boosting the commercial value of the original file for sale (See Please send me an email if you wish to negotiate for higher resolution copies, prints or less restrictive licensing.). Sorry if I'm rowing against the wind, making new friends. (Yes; now we're friends at Facebook. I appreciate JJ's spirit to accept criticism which is not very COMMON here.) Face-smile.svg JKadavoor Jee 06:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Jee, I can't think of any image purchaser that would be enticed into a higher valuation because it is featured on Commons. In fact the contrary is true for Getty Images, where CC licensing removes any possibility of even the higher resolution image from being represented as Rights Managed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMerops (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral nice image but only downscaled version --Slick (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Birds pictures are bound to croping and denoising, in order to get the shot correctly the photographer often needs to have fast shutter speed with lens not wide open (i.e. f/4 to f/8 generally) which implies high ISO. For the croping it's just a question of money, affording long telelens is not always possible 600mm 800mm are very expensives. Finally this picture is over 2Mpx and is pretty impressive, it's an FP for me. --PierreSelim (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:An-2 OK-HFL EDST 02.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 12:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Antonov An-2 of the Heritage of Flying Legends ("Oldtimer Fliegertreffen" Hahnweide 2011)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 12:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author. I love the light on such foggy mornings and, of course, the An-2. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 12:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sleeping man on the bottom? --Arcalino (talk) 14:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 16:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice.--ArildV (talk) 16:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 05:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ivar (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm really imressed: That's probably the greatest photograph of a non-flying aircraft I've seen for a while - great quality, composition, light and of course subject. The person/pilot sleeping under the wing is just the cherry on top, adding some real Fly-In-feeling. --El Grafo (talk) 10:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    Wow, thank you. I'm really overwhelmed by all this support, this is very motivating. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It is kind of visually timeless. Very nice. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Incredible. My only issue would be the front wheel chocks, which look almost oversaturated with a strange one or two pixel black outline. I'm not sure what that is, it doesn't look like a result of sharpening. But they just seem kind of unnatural, the only things in the picture that bother me. It's such a small detail, though, and the picture is quite lovely. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

Image:Defense.gov photo essay 100116-F-9171L-060.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 13:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An Afghan National Army soldier provides security at a checkpoint
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Efren Lopez - uploaded by Slick-o-bot - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slick (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think some counter-clockwise rotation is needed. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strange and confusing looking background, just like you painted over half with a blue/white color. There is a bit ca that is easily corrected and a dust spot above his left hand. --Uberprutser (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- I like it very much despite the unfocused foreground (at the bottom) and the strange looking background. I like the composition and the human expression. Image quality is good. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually, I don't find the background strange at all: That's most probably some kind of fortification made of sandbags and the like and imho provides additional value. Could someone who knows what kind of gun that is please add that to the description and/or place the file in the appropriate category? --El Grafo (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, the background says "This was not taken in the studio" - which is somehow quite important when speaking about war photos. --Aktron (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We don't need more war and guns till the Kzinti come.  B.p. 11:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per B.P. Low educational value. Yann (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Defense.gov photo essay 100116-F-9171L-060 (crop).jpg


  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I add a other version, crop and adjust color balance a bit. (I am not sure how to insert a second version here, if it not done well please correct it.) --Slick (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- The original is better Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Federica Pellegrini.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 14:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Italian swimmer Federica Pellegrini
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Mauro742 - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the crop is very tight. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the straight flash rarely is very good for pleasing human portraits (for featured pictures). --Ximonic (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And the flash creates another problem: the high contrast makes her eyeshadow look like a bruise. The cut of her eyebrow (and whatever that blemish is above it visible at full-res) don't make this any easier. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Death Valley salt, moon & cloud.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 05:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

death valley moon cloud
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kfbrett - uploaded by Kfbrett - nominated by Kfbrett -- Kfbrett (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC) First upload by non-photographer, straight from camera, uncropped. But had to try due to awesome subject matter. Any advice appreciated. "With salt flats visible near its base, Tucki Mountain hosts the setting moon and a lenticular cloud surfing above, at sunrise in Death Valley National Park."
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kfbrett (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the picture is very grainy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should be rejected (@admins?) quickly due to massive quality problems. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2013 (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 Low image quality. 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.

King of ♠ 09:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sperm whale skeleton Nantucket.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 14:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A sperm whale skeleton on display in the Whaling Museum in Nantucket, MA.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tim Hirzel and Hannah Carlson - uploaded by Kurzon - nominated by Kurzon -- Kurzon (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- as nominator Kurzon (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2013 (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 too small, only 685 x 1024 px. --Llez (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (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:Rõngu kirik 29-06-2012.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 11:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rõngu church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite the fact there is no wow effect I have to say that there is hardly a way how to make such a picture even better. The colors are good, exposure is good, and the timing also. --Aktron (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Motive, composition, mood and light are too ordinary for me. Quality is at a high level, for sure, but not that outstanding (IMHO level of detail on the fassade could be better) to change my vote to support. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This time I concur with Tuxyso Poco a poco (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Hysteroconcha dione.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 13:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pitar dione
✓ Done Thank Biopics --The Photographer (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome but it is still not correct. The subgenus from Pitar (Hysteroconcha) has been raised to full genus status so it has to be Hysteroconcha dione. (ref. Prof. Dr. P. Bouchet).  B.p. 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Obvious VI but not special enough for FP. Dof could have been made much better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Abeja (Bombus terrestris) en un clavel de Indias (Tagetes patula), jardín botánico de Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-12, DD 01.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 22:28:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bee (Bombus terrestris) on a French marigold (Tagetes patula), Tallinn Botanic Garden, Estonia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bee (Bombus terrestris) on a French marigold (Tagetes patula), Tallinn Botanic Garden, Estonia. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Too busy composition and the insect only takes a small fraction of the picture. A bit below the present "bug bar", I believe. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The framing is too much for such a small subject. See notes. JKadavoor Jee 05:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What the opposers fail to realize is perhaps the photographer intended to show the flower AND the insect --Muhammad (talk) 07:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Not really; and this not the first time I oppose Poco's a fly on a flower shot. For me, the subject should be in focus. So the flower and bee, if the subject is the flower AND the insect. Here the flower is fully OOF. But yes; people have other opinions. JKadavoor Jee 07:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Muhammad for the lecture. Your assumption is right. My intention with this FPC was to propose a bee AND a flower as FPC. I wouldn't have propose this picture with the intention that only the bee is the subject. I thought that the title and the description would serve as hint about what is the subject of this shot.The case that Jkadavoor mentions was not similar. In that QIC the flower was clearly not in focus (and not eben complete) and therefore I accepted his argument , but this is not the case here, because the flower is in focus. Poco a poco (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Poco a poco (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Agrigent BW 2012-10-07 13-09-13.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 14:34:00 (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) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Nice composition and overall quality, though lighting could be better (mid-day). --King of ♠ 01:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Composition is not he best (with the tourist included in the photo) and there is some disturbing geometric distortion which (maybe) could be avoided by taking the camrea further from the subject. Image quality is on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find the composition quite excellent. The inclusion of the "tourist" is not distracting and makes for a great scale reference. However, it does seem a bit soft or unsharp. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Good photo, but I would have liked the building without the tourist - Averater (talk) 08:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Defense.gov photo essay 110516-N-TT977-067.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 18:39:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Listening ...
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chad J. McNeeley - uploaded by Slick-o-bot - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Slick (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Listening, following and exporting war :) So who is this person? --Uberprutser (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Just a listening women. I like the image, don't know why. Maybe her (little bit sad?) eyes, ... or the composition in complete. I do not see war in this image. --Slick (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Irrespective of whether who she is, I like everything (despite the military background) of the portrayal: very interesting expression, nice composition (repeated elements in the background, direction of the view, position of main subject, DoF) and the very high quality regarding sharpness and bokeh (I guess it is the wonderful AF-S 85mm/1.4). --Tuxyso (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problems with wow, EV, background, and categorization. --A.Savin 21:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As A.Savin -- Arcalino (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can find some EV. JKadavoor Jee 05:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- As a portrait of a person, there is nothing extraordinary in the photo: the framing is not the best, the camera seems too close to the subject and the background is distracting. If there is a non-trivial 'story' in this depiction of a military listening to a speech, no clue is given. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, nice background, only the colors should be a bit more "warmer". --Aktron (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good photo. I like the composition but would liked some more background info with the photo of who she is and why this photo is special. - Averater (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Estudiantes vs Unicaja Málaga - Carl English y Zoran Dragić.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 19:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Carl English (left) tries to dribble Zoran Dragić. Game Estudiantes vs Unicaja Málaga (82-68).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality sports photo, nice facial expressions and action. --King of ♠ 01:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- This is a very demanding type of shot, especially for non-specialists. In my opinion that is a sufficient mitigating factor for the less-than-optinal image quality, considering the good composition and facial expressions. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support congratulations!!! --Ezarateesteban 14:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Aceptable noise, nice moment --The Photographer (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JKadavoor Jee 06:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice capture. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good job Poco a poco (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. Just two basket ball players struggling. The photo on it self doesn't compensate either. - Averater (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Sports

File:Fotoflugkurs Cuxhaven DS76917 - Erdkrümmung.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2013 at 09:27:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

curvature of the earth / Erdkrüummung
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created/uploaded/nominated by Michael Kramer (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC) by photografic by plane course, highlightig the curvature of the earth by using a fisheye, focused on the plane in the middle from another plane on 15 meters distance
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Kramer (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fisheyes can be used for very interesting effects, but unfortunately I think here it has just made for a cluttered composition. Sorry. --King of ♠ 09:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per KOH, and overblown sky. --A.Savin 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While I am generally a big fan of air-to-air photographs of aircraft and highly appreciate the efforts at de.wp to create aerial photographs in a more or less systematic manner, I don't think this very one is exceptional enough to be "featured": blown sky, horizon disappearing in the haze/mist/fog, dull colors due to all the water in the air (partly retouchable), Nothern Germany looks not very appealing at this time of the year – so all in all it's mostly the weather's fault :-) Also: Is this really the curvature of the earth we are seeing there? Isnt't it merely the usual way straight lines look like when they are at the edge of a photograph taken with a fisheye? --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fisheye curvature is ok imo, but the other problems are too many. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Friedrichshafen panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 15:46:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Friedrichshafen, taken from the Moleturm.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Julian Herzog -- Julian H. (talk/files) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author. Nomination as recommended by Tuxyso on Qi-nom, thanks for that. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 15:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice panorama --Arcalino (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. Especially the arriving ship as compositional element. Probably you can use the {{Panorama}} template to indicate which software and how many photos were used. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    Thank you, added the Template. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 00:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Too distorted to my taste, overall unsharpness. Looks like it was dowsampled but I may be wrong (exif info?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I increased the sharpening if that helps. Apart from that, there's nothing I can do about this as the quality of this is limited by the medium-quality jpeg photos this panorama is based on. It was taken 4 years ago and at that time, I did not own a DSLR, so there are no raw-files available. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for me looks like a wrong color balance a bit --Slick (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as Alvesgaspar, for me no significant improvement --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lichtbringer ("Bringer of Light") by Bernhard Hoetger (1936).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2013 at 07:08:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lichtbringer ("Bringer of Light") by Bernhard Hoetger (1936)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Original art by Bernhard Hoetger. Photographed, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Godot13 (talk) 07:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I would welcome feedback on this nomination, whether it is positive, negative, or neutral. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess it is a well enough taken picture but not enough wow or faults to make anyone vote. It happens. Especially for photographs of art/sculpture. For the image there's a tiny bit of red CA on the left border that might be removable by a click by your raw importer. Otherwise it is fine apart from ... the white border. Absolute no no. Some guideline somewhere. Folk can put whatever border they like when they use it so leave the pic alone. If you can find a use for it on Wikipedia then you might have more luck on a Wikipedia FP. -- Colin (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mother and baby sperm whale.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 13:16:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A mother sperm whale and her calf, photographed of the coast of Mauritius.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gabriel Barathieu - uploaded by Kurzon - nominated by Kurzon -- Kurzon (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kurzon (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I don't know much about underwater photography, but is it normal for animals to be so soft/blurry at full resolution? It definitely looks great at lower resolutions. -- ~y (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow factor, rare picture and correct quality for an underwater photography--Citron (talk) 11:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks, wasn't sure about it. :) -- ~y (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As per Citron -- ~y (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support amazing. Jml3 (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is sufficient for underwater. If it's a bit unsharp, just let it be unsharp, don't oversharpen it like this one. --King of ♠ 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Atrocious quality does not mitigate the wow.  B.p. 21:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Right color compared to this? JKadavoor Jee 05:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as per Jkadavoor. That one is certainly better, so no. Yann (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)I changed my vote to Neutral after the comments below. Yann (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm glad you liked that one, but that one is an image I myself retouched, using this base image, which was rejected in a previous vote for being "oversharpened". The image above, on the other hand, is supposed to be a natural, unaltered photograph. Given how big these animals are, they must be photographed at a distance to capture them in full profile, and thus the image will be inevitably blurred by the water.Kurzon (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not talented enough to evaluate sharpening issues; my only concern is about real colours. Which is the real colour? JKadavoor Jee 17:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This blurry blue is the original. The only thing I did to the image above is crop it.Kurzon (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — Underwater photographs in open ocean are inevitably going to be blurry unless one resorts to overenthusiastic recoloring/sharpening tricks like File:Sperm whale pod recolored.jpg. I prefer the natural over the artificially enhanced. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ...understanding the circumstances. Of course one would hope for a less blurred effect from the water from a distance but then again one should find such whales somewhere the water is very stable and does have almost no minerals or organic material I guess... Now how difficult would that be. --Ximonic (talk) 11:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • If you were to look at sperm whale photographs on Google Images (here's a link for you), you would see that this is actually a pretty good photo as far as underwater shots of whales go. Some photos are crisper, but they are often shots of small juveniles, or close-ups of the head. I'd say this is the best photo on the Web that captures the whale is full profile, and we should all be thankful that Mr Barathieu agreed to release it under CCA.Kurzon (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Kurzon. You are right and that's what I'm talking about. I also did try to search for such pictures of whole whales under water from Google. Although many pictures can be found, it is difficult to find a large and sharp one showing the entire adult. Yours is very good in comparison. And Jkadavoor, awesome pictures yet quite small! ;) I wonder what would they look in a featurable resolution. --Ximonic (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes; not many people are generous enough to give away their rights, posts only down-scaled versions. Thanks, Barathieu Gabriel Barathieu (I don't know his nationality; calling surname may be considered as rude Face-smile.svg) for this. JKadavoor Jee 05:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Mr Barathieu is French, and you should prefix the surname with "Mr" when addressing someone directly.Kurzon (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite accidental; nowadays I'm supporting people from there, too much. (And thanks for that "Mr." part. Everyday I'm learning new things.) JKadavoor Jee 10:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support forget to support (per Ximonic). JKadavoor Jee 05:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing more to add... It is among the best photos I've seen on commons. - Averater (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Paris 06 - St Sulpice organ 01 (square version).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 08:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Great Organ of Saint-Sulpice church by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll and Jean Chalgrin - Paris, France.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The Great Organ of Saint-Sulpice church by Aristide Cavaillé-Coll and Jean Chalgrin - Paris, France, uploaded & nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Selbymay (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 10:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • i recommend a tighter crop, to cut two of the lamps (see annotation) --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- tighter crop (as Berthold Werner) with 1:1 format would be better. --Arcalino (talk) 08:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I agree with the crop suggestion, but the improvement wouldn't be enough to reach the FP star imo. Lighting is sub-optimal, especially the in the upper parts, and there is nothing really exceptional in this depiction. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thanks for your comments, I upload a square crop with the upper part less dark. Please tell me what you think. --Selbymay (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Concern: Good for FP; but is it advised to crop an existing VI? The preferences for VI and FP are much different; and the new crop reduced the EV (The entire arches and the middle pillars on sides are visible in old crop); I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 05:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I revert this version and I've uploaded the cropped picture under a new name. --Selbymay (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 15:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Good descriptive photo of an organ but nothing that really stands out making it special. - Averater (talk) 08:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Photo - Festival de Cornouaille 2012 - Graeme Allwright en concert le 28 juillet - 003.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 10:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: Graeme Allwright at the Festival de Cornouaille of 2012.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thesupermat - uploaded by Thesupermat - nominated by Thesupermat -- Thesupermat (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thesupermat (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect. Aktron (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood. --Selbymay (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support <3 DarkoNeko 17:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tamba52 (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral the wow is not here for me (especially the camera angle), otherwise good picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ... but the expressions, well caught! JKadavoor Jee 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Very good composition and mood yet still showing the guitarist making it valuable - Averater (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Rankweil Panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 21:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rankweil
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Panorama vor der Totenkapelle am Waldfriedhof in Rankweil mit 8 Denkmal geschützeten Objekten. all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arcalino (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I admire your beautiful work on panorama photography. The notes with links to the appropriate monuments are also very helpful and have high EV. But the fact that 10-20% of the photo (the very right) part is remarkably unsharper than the others parts avoids me to vote with pro. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice otherwise but I'm afraid I have to agree with Tuxyso. The camera seems to have shaken a little while taking the rightmost picture. Also I'm a little unsure about the cut out lower parts of the tombstones below. --Ximonic (talk) 11:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find the camera shake or stitching problem to the right that disturbing. I also like the helpful notes in the photo. - Averater (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Werkspoor diesel valve train.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 12:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Valve train of an old stationary Werkspoor diesel engine. This engine is on display in an old decommissioned water rumping station in the Netherlands.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Slick (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 06:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support the valves are cropped Albertus teolog (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DoF, tight crop, needs a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Mmmm, personally I'm all for a large DoF. But shallow DoF seems to be the thing, artistically speaking, these days. But I needed the large aperture to get enough light. I know it's a bit of a tight on the left but without bringing a ladder I couldn't get a better shot. I tried perspective correction already but it's rather hard to do without a good reference point. It's also not that important imho.


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Retablo de La Chinita IVI.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 02:45:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Retablo de La Chinita
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: I would crop a little on the right to balance the composition. Also, if this was developed from RAW, a bit of highlight recovery would be nice for the slightly blown-out top of the crown. --King of ♠ 10:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I not have file RAW. New file is uploaded with a slight correction. I hope a little better. Thanks. --Rjcastillo (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 08:39:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I am nominating this picture for delisting and replacement (current replacement options nominated above) because an image that is 2.89 times larger and much sharper is available. Origin of the image is still the same as the replacement: the US Air Force. The sources are slightly different, as the current FP is from dfrc.nasa.gov and the replacement source is from the nasa.gov Dryden Image Gallery. The uploader at the time the image was nominated for Commons FP was User:Aka. (Larger images were later uploaded over.) (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The original is higher quality (less compression and indicated colour space). The source of the newer images is highly compressed so low quality, is missing the colour space tag and has been simply enlarged 1.7x (not 2.89 times) without any extra detail. The new images should be deleted as inferior copies. Colin (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination – Got excited for nuthin'. Thanks Colin for digging into this. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdraw my withdrawal. I have a bad habit of taking one opinion and going with it. I'd like to still consider the alternate image above for possible replacement. I should give hear/read several opinions before making quick decisions. I look at my uploaded image and I just don't see how it's an enlargement. Noisy, yes, but still a viable option. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 00:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I stand by my assessment that the "larger" picture is actually the smaller picture blown up and saved with a very high degree of compression. The "noise" is JPG artefacts, not noise from the original photograph. I'll discuss more on the FP for the new image. Colin (talk) 11:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Withdraw my withdrawal of my withdrawal. Colin makes a good case and besides, again like he says, the original uncompressed scan of the original negative or print would be the best and sure source. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Firefighter in Navegantes SC.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 14:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A brazilian fireman fighting a fire on a garbage dump
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Marcelo Camargo/ABr - uploaded by Excolis - nominated by Excolis -- Excolis (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Excolis (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lake Prespa - Stenje beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 14:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Prespa, Macedonia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like this picture. But it does not seem to be clear enough, particularly in the foreground Hockei (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Byodo-In temple.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 14:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Byodo-In temple, Kāneʻohe, Oahu (Hawaii)
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 Poor light, no chance to be promoted, sorry --A.Savin 16:47, 2 March 2013 (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.
  • I am unsure with A. Savin's (hope the name is spelled correctly) decision. The sky is burnt out thus it cannot be QI, but probably some reviewer think the colors or the golden light are interesting. I opt for undo FPX but would like to hear another opinion on it because I am too new on FPC. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I think there are at least three problems here: First, the clouds are blown out (too bright to show anything other than white, no "texture"). Second, the building front is too dark, caused by the backlit situation (sun is in front of photographer instead of behind). Third, it the light really was yellowish, then a yellowish foreground is ok; but since this looks like the sun was quite high up in the sky, the light probably wasn't actually yellowish; instead, this looks like it was caused by white balance issues of the camera (due to the difficult light situation). --Kabelleger (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
      • The fourth problem is that the subjet is cut off on the left (and the fifth the harsh shadows that result in many underexposed areas). Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok, it was just a question / idea. I have the impression that FPX is sometimes used too fast without giving a nomination a chance. I would also not support this photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
          • I agree with Tuxyso. I would not support this, but for me it's not an FPX either. --King of ♠ 05:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Layers of titan.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 21:15:30
Layers of Titan

Technical issues

  1. It is a compressed JPEG
  2. Aliased text
  3. Pixelated texture on the Decoupled outer shell and the Ice IV shell
  4. Horrible compression on Titan's southern hemisphere
  5. Blurry probe image

Artistic problems

  1. Cheap lens flares
  2. Sun position makes no sense, in addition shading is inconsistent between Saturn, the probe, and Titan. (light is coming from in front, but Titan is shaded from the left, the probe from the right, and Saturn from the front-left)
  3. Unrealistic stars
  4. Poor render quality of the layers
  5. 3D positions are inaccurate—Saturn and Titan do not appear to be on the same plane.
  6. Cropped pole sticking out of the probe is disturbing
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg DelistKelvinsong (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg DelistKruusamägi (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist B.p. 21:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist JKadavoor Jee 06:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep IMHO the delisting procedure started here from some "lead users" is from my viewpoint not OK. Because of the page's position the delisting candidates get much less attention than the FP candidates - delisting through a backdoor because some users do not like this image afterwards. For me it is not a good idea to delist a FP after less than a year. Votes should be accepted even if they are not from lead users (in May 2012 there were 7 pro and one neutral vote) - otherwise the whole voting process is useless. None of the delisters here were involved in the former voting. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that (in this case) we have not enough reviewers for graphical works. So many of the votes are (including me) just "filler votes" to make the quorum based on the arguments of a few real reviewers. I think the current nominator is a good graphic designer to whom we can depend. Do you disagree with any argument he raised? The position of the delist part in this page is not good; hardly any visibility. JKadavoor Jee 11:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I must confess (same as you) that I cannot make qualified assesments for graphical work (the reason why I normally do not vote pro or contra for them). My keep-vote was merely against the process initiated here. The given arguments against the illustration seem plausbile (but too late). IMHO it is not really fair towards the creator or former nominator. Another reason for keeping might be that here on Commons is currently no alternative to this illustration thus it has a high EV and has generated a high "Wow" for former reviewers. Delisting an FP candidate with 7 Pro (on 0 contra) votes after less than one year devaluates the assesments of the former reviewers. From my perspective of a layman the bad quality of the text with its hard edges and the unsharpness of the satellite is disturbing. Assumed the reviewer on FPC are not competent enough it might be better to have a separate excellent illustration or excellent graphical work and to restrict FPC to photographs. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with you on the point it is not really fair towards the creator or former nominator. But in this case (only in this case) the creator is just (?) an organisation who has no (?) feelings. The nominator is not responded so far. I can't fully agree with the point on keep since no alternative to this illustration is available because sometimes we have to delist one inferior one to maintain the reputation (?) of COM:FP. JKadavoor Jee 17:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About 3D positions. Titan is up to .3 deg of from Saturns equator which in turn is up to 26.7 deg of from its ecliptic. Since the camera position is so close to Titan relative to Saturn it doesn't have to become a perfect plane. Averater (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:2012.08.05.-26-Vogelstangsee Mannheim-Gemeine Waldschwebfliege-Schnitt.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 09:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by hockei -- Hockei (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Hockei (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JKadavoor Jee 09:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gidip (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - To hard flash, and could have benefited from a tighter crop. As it is now it is just a fly on a flower with a leaf at the left side. - Averater (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your opinion about the picture is OK. But this hoverfly deserves attention like other animals. Hockei (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Echium rauwolfii flowers 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 09:14:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Echium rauwolfii
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gidip (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Insufficient DOF as I complained earlier; but like it overall (composition, mainly). JKadavoor Jee 09:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Freesia February 2013-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 18:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cluster of Freesia alba flowers in Porto Covo, Portugal.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Cluster of Freesia alba flowers from my backyard in Porto Covo, Portugal. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although geocoding would be nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't know why I like your old composition. Which lens (70mm)? JKadavoor Jee 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- The older one was taken with a Tokina macro 100 mm. In this one I used an old (and cheap) Nikkor 35-70 zoom, my very first lens for Nikon D80, bought second hand. The problem is I still don't have the appropriate glass for the new camera... Anyway image quality seems good enough and composition is much better imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmmm; and I heard a lot about the learning curve of the new D800. :( JKadavoor Jee 13:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
        • You may consult Roy Prasad for advice (if needed); who seems to be a die-hard Nikon and Leica fan (and Sony NEX too Face-smile.svg), having good experience with D4 and D800E too. JKadavoor Jee 04:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would have like the whole plant and to see it more isolated from the background. - Averater (talk) 09:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't like the bokeh (disturbing objects in the lower part) and the centered composition is a bit boring to me. Gidip (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 18:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Grant Park with the city center skyline in the background, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Grant Park with the city center skyline in the background, Chicago, Illinois, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting and clouds. Composition is good but could be zoomed out a little more. Also, I did not know that you could shoot at 1/100s, f/13, ISO 200 at night ;-). King of ♠ 05:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    Great camera, isn't it? Seriously, I forgot to change the camera clock, the real time is 6 hours less (16:41h) Poco a poco (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JKadavoor Jee 06:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality and composition (after I've realized that the motive is the park not the high-riser) is very good. I would prefer a slightly wider crop at the left to show the circle of the red stones completely. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition; I particularly like the way you set the leading lines into play. The burning you did to the clouds adds to the dramatic mood. I wonder if you could improve the shot by controlling the white balance better; for me, however, this doesn't mean the picture should not be featured. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With a lesser hand this would just look like a too-busy attempt to make this shot. But you realized the idea. I love it ... it makes Chicago look practically utopian. Daniel Case (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --The Photographer (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Haliaeetus albicilla (Svolvær, 2012).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 19:55:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

White-tailed eagle in Svolvaer, Norway
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info White-tailed eagle Haliaeetus albicilla in flight near Svolvær, Norway -- ~y (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well; and it seems you (camera position) are in the same level. Good EV; they (File:Haliaeetus albicilla -captive-8a.jpg) collectively describe the subject well in the article too. JKadavoor Jee 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Maire (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good composition but the background is noisy. It also seems dark to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hockei (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportKelvinsong (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice - Averater (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good -- Arcalino (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 09:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pine 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Jenny Haniver MHNT.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 11:49:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Seriously ?--Citron (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting and unusual. Would be good to have brief decription of Jenny Haniver with the photo. --Stu Phillips (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you to Citron for this appointment. You actually see a stingray. 18-th century sailors, especially Dutch, were masters to transform this stuffed fishes, they sold as evidence of the existence of sea monsters.

This specimen dates from this period. It owes its preservation to the multiple layers of varnish. This fraud continues even today, with android forms (see article quoted above). The "Little Dragon" form is extremely clever and very difficult to do. Human imagination has no limit. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Kleinkems - Evangelische Kirche2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 09:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kleinkems: Protestant Church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Wladyslaw. Pictorial view at a small church on a rock shelter. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The electric wires ruin the composition. Sorry. Yann (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    it would'nt be a big deal to erase the wires. But do we want a beautified picture instead of the encylopedic reality and does the deep hanging wires really interfere the impression so much? --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    Why the wires become thicker on right from the tree on-wards? Not happy with the roof under shadows too. JKadavoor Jee 16:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    Sorry, but I don't know. I didn't laid the wire. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
    But you constructed that church? Congrats. JKadavoor Jee 06:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    Maybe yo manage to make relevant and non-ironic statements. This is not a funny blogside for balderdash. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    Wladyslaw, it seems that you doesn't accept criticism. It is very far to be one of the best pictures we have on Commons. I'd even oppose it as QI because of the poor composition. Now it is possible that one can't make a better picture from the ground, but it doesn't change anything as a FPC. Yann (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't feel enough about this photo to vote one way or another. But I would definitely oppose erasure of the wires as representing a gross departure from encyclopedic reality. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This photo could have benefited from having been taken from a higher altitude. As it is now the foreground (which is mostly cropped away) bothers me. - Averater (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Point Cabrillo Lighthouse, on an early morning in February.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 21:04:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Point Cabrillo Light, Mendocino County, California


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Roque Cinchado, Parque Nacional del Teide, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-16, DD 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 21:27:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roque Cinchado (volcanic plug on the left) with the Teide (highest summit in Spain) in the background, Teide National Park, Tenerife, Spain
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Roque Cinchado (volcanic plug on the left) with the Teide (highest summit in Spain) in the background, Teide National Park, Tenerife, Spain Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's a bit noisy, and the shadows are very dark. However, I very much like the composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    ✓ New version uploaded addressing those issues, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    Nice. Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose For sure: A nice view on the Teide. But IMHO you chose the wrong daytime thus the shadows are too harsh and the light is a bit unfortunate. Your photo is taken at 14:32 wheras this one (nearly the same date, yours in December, this one in January) File:Teide2007.jpg is taken at 18:12 and has IMHO much better light. Composition and quality is not that special that let me change to support despite the light. If possible, please add a geotag. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For composition and natural colours. --Cayambe (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good colors, sharpness and composition. The light is a little bit harsh indeed. But the location is situated at rather high altitude, so the light is often harsh there. -- MJJR (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut off Teide makes this composition not good IMO. this one is better File:Pico de Teide.jpg if you want to show the surrounding. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I kind of like the harshness but lack a clear motif, what is the picture supposed to depict other than a nice scenery? - Averater (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Пірогово.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 13:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Windmill at the outdoor museum of Pyrohiv
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Roman Starchenko - uploaded by Roman Starchenko - nominated by Шиманський Василь -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is small. This unsharp area in the middle is weird. There is a sharp line in the sky probably from the use of some filter. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also see techincal shortcomings, but this image has a lot of "Wow inside". The sharp line is probably due to the use of a skylight filter. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Kruusamägi, very disturbing line from a filter (see note) --Arcalino (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wooooooooooow. I guess the line can easily be removed --Kirua (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image quality is not ok (vigneting, shallow DoF, etc.) --PierreSelim (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to the line in the sky and the unsharp parts of grass beneath the mill. - Averater (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

File:11-09-fotofluege-cux-allg-25a.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 12:22:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The initial version was voted a featured picture, but in the meantime a newer version with a much higher pixel count was uploaded which shows a significant blur and is very unsharp due to its pixel blur. The newest file version is not a featured one. (Original nomination)
  • as an Ip I am not allowed to vote --188.104.120.220 12:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The new version is not good. I think this issue can be easily be solved if we just restore the initial version. --High Contrast (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Blanzac-Porcheresse 16 Noyers 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 15:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common walnuts (Juglans regia) in winter, near Blanzac-Porcheresse, Charente, France.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by JLPC - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Because. But I would like contrast to be increased a bit. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great mood. JKadavoor Jee 16:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition but quality is a bit on the low side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition. Would be even better if brightened some. --King of ♠ 09:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --A.Savin 12:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice couple Poco a poco (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. --Moonik (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Graceful silhouettes in winter mood. --Myrabella (talk) 07:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There just isn't any wow for me. I don't get it what you all see in this dark image of two trees. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By Kruusamägi: For me also the composition is not fully convincing. The hills in the background virtually cut the top part of the trees and the centred position is IMHO a bit boring. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose By Kruusamägi as well, there's no wow, unfortunately. Also, a plane is lazily flying into the frame and leaving a contrail at the top, which is just weird. Kind of dead colors (nothing wrong with muted colors, but here it serves to hurt the image more); just two trees with birds in them, something I see outside. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 03:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I just don't get the supports for this. Even as an artistic piece it is weak. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Myrabella. Peaceful. Nice lace.--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kruusamägi --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author. Thanks to Tomer T for having nominated the picture : frankly, I wouldn't have nominated it myself in FP and I'm still not convinced, even though some of my Commons friends, known or unknown, like it. Anyway, thanks to all reviewers. --JLPC (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Bombyliidae 3 by kadavoor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 09:48:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bombyliidae
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bombyliidae bee-fly. Article editor's comment: "This little bee-fly really appealed and had all the easily seen features. Note the bright bands of coloured hair, the long and thin legs and upright posture, the "delta wings", the proboscis and the forward pointing antennae". All by me -- JKadavoor Jee 09:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as nominator. Sorry; but the above reasons are not enough for an FP. Image quality is very poor. Subject is not well identified too. JKadavoor Jee 09:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand the oppose as nominator bit, but it's interesting that the picture was taken at exactly 10 degrees north! -- ~y (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • The oppose as nominator is probably to make a point :) --Muhammad (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:The Fortress of Asolo, TV, Italy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 14:29:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Asolo's fortress over Mount Ricco.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Tonchino - uploaded by Tonchino - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tonchino 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral These old fortifications are quite interesting. In this case I think there is too much sky compared to the subject in the composition. The dark shadowy cypress(?) trees on left are a little cut out and distract me a little - they make too much contrast near the corner compared to the other nicely lighted hillside plants. Perhaps a different composition and/or other time of the day would do. --Ximonic (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is it possible to take this photo from a height? Here most of it is hidden. JKadavoor Jee 16:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Due to the season and weather, to sky is so much more saturated than anything else on the photo that it distracts from everything else. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Calle en centro de Maracaibo.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 15:44:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maracaibo city center
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me. Typical street in Maracaibo city, Venezuela
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The Photographer (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Godot13 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Unattractive and awkward composition.Fotoriety (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice mood, I do like the composition actually Poco a poco (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support :-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- good quality, nice old car but missing "wow", sorry Arcalino (talk) 20:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question The front wheel appears to be much bigger than the rear one – is that reality or just some kind of stitching-related distortion? --El Grafo (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's reality, people modify their cars, especially the young. Here there is a kind of craft with cars, import problems and the high cost of new cars, people manage to invent new things based on old things. The price of a new car "economic" costs about 8 years of minimum wage, something impossible to buy for most people. I've seen really interesting cars transformations--The Photographer (talk) 13:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think so; it is due to the perspective. See the building behind; is the height of the wall on right is taller than on left? I didn't see a problem for it though. JKadavoor Jee 16:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Both constructions are obviously different and far objects look smaller. The house is on the right has very large windows. This unique style of colonialism is also high doors for people entering with mounted their horses. --The Photographer (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
"far objects look smaller". That's all. Rear wheel is farther than front wheel; so looks smaller. (I'm an automobile engineer by education. We can't use different dia. wheels an a vehicle; the balancing, weight distribution, stability, etc. will be affected. Most fatal is the effect in balancing; due to the shift of the "center of gravity" to back. Vehicle seems weightless in front; chances that the front wheels don't touch the ground when speed increases. We can use fancy, thick wheels and tyres; but the diameter (wheel+tyre) should be uniform in all wheels if the wheel axles are in the same level.) JKadavoor Jee 05:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
"Rear wheel is farther than front wheel; so looks smaller." I took that into account when I wrote that the front wheel looks "too big". In other words: "Given the perspective and assuming the wheels are equal in diameter, the front wheel looks too big". There are three possible solutions for that: 1) some kind of distortion (due to projection during stitching or lens distortion), 2) the assumption of equal diameter is wrong, 3) my sense for proportions needs calibration. Fortunately, The Photographer himself revealed that option 2 is correct, so there's nothing wrong with neither the image nor my brain ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 13:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Maybe in your country these things are really strange, but here is the daily bread :) --The Photographer (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Good reasons to love your country, Venezuela! (eventhough you missed all the point I talked about.) Hope (and wish) your president will recover soon. JKadavoor Jee 15:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your good feelings. If you ever decide to visit Venezuela, please let me know --The Photographer (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC). Pictogram voting info.svg Info At the time of this writing the receipt of information that Hugo Chavez is dead. --The Photographer (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure; thanks. JKadavoor Jee 08:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yeah ! Thanks The Photographer ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice photograph of a typical street scene - well done at very high quality. I appreciate your very useful and documentary contributions to Commons (not only your FP candidatures). Keep on shooting :) --Tuxyso (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment +1, I follow Tuxyso opinion. The Photographer adds something "new" in "Commons". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebulon (talk • contribs) 15:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. For me it is a great honor to receive your comments --The Photographer (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2013 at 21:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006-2.jpg
  • Symbol support vote.svg strong support One of the highest quality photo of a building I've seen here. A lot of Wow from the impressive quality and level of detail. The result is even more impressive if you consider the year of the photo - 2006. Does anyone know which camera was used? --Tuxyso (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Myrabella and A.Savin. Please be consistant in nominations...--Jebulon (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can anyone describe the problem with nomination again? I've not understand it yet. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because that rule (COM:FPC#Featuring and delisting rules, number 4) only explains how to feature if more than one choices in a nomination. The correct way is to support/oppose comparing with existing FP. I will (or anybody can) add a delist request for the existing FP because it seems a development based on the arguments at EN:FP. And our attempt should be to choose best instead of relying on mechanistic rules. JKadavoor Jee 16:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I need more from the bottom of the tower. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Original is at File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg. The rules are clear. --King of ♠ 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Which rule you are talking about? Is there such a rule: "An FP can't never be replaced by a version even if it is better in aspects." See, our intention is to showcase our best examples to public at Commons:Featured pictures, updating the list frequently. The traffic to Commons:Featured pictures is much higher compared to any other galleries or categories so less chance that people find a better file for their use if it is in a generic gallery (a pity). I'm concerned if other intentions override our primary intention (as I stated above) which is more prominent nowadays. JKadavoor Jee 06:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The problem is that this is not a nomination for replacement; such nominations should be started in the delisting section. Otherwise, we would have two versions of the same image side by side, both FPs, which is not allowed. --King of ♠ 10:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • We don't have a D&R format as in EN:FP (They are also preferring a normal nomination nowadays). So the procedure here is to make feature and delist request simultaneously or to make a delist request after the completion of the new FP request. See the vote of Carschten below. I know this type of nominations are difficult to close by the boat; but we've a lot of experienced "closers" here. Correct me if I'm wrong. JKadavoor Jee 12:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected; I did not notice that a simultaneous delisting nomination was going on. Of course, based on the merits of the image I Symbol support vote.svg Support, if and only if the delisting nomination succeeds. --King of ♠ 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • However, I think a D&R is still preferable at EN:FP; perhaps it should be listed in the main section, but should still proceed as a D&R. They make sense on EN:FP because of the EV requirement, and in most cases there can only be one FP in a particular scope. However at Commons, unless the original no longer satisfies the criteria, we typically accept two FPs of the same subject as long as they were not made at the same time by the same person. But for re-edits like this D&R still makes sense on Commons. --King of ♠ 00:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "However, I think a D&R is still preferable at EN:FP". Yes; but EN:FP is manually processed (closed), so lot of room for any type of complicated processing. We can vote in any way like Delist only if any other alternative is Featured, etc. Here the bot only understand standard parameters; and chances that some make any arguments if the closer take a selective decision on his knowledge and experience. I too think only the delist request below is enough if we have parameters like delist and replace. Hope people will agree with the closer in this case. JKadavoor Jee 04:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Reviewers, please see this too and vote accordingly. JKadavoor Jee 05:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now --A.Savin 22:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support replacing old nom. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • ...and the manual Symbol support vote.svg Replace vote. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Naqsh i Rustam. Investiture d'Ardashir 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 12:52:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ahura Mazda (right, with high crown) presents Ardashir I (left) with the ring of kingship. (Naqsh-e Rustam, 3rd c. CE) [2.40 . 6.45] m


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Orchis punctulata 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 18:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Orchis punctulata
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gidip (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The flash is a bit hard and the crop is a bit tight. I would like to see more of the plant. - Averater (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Stade toulousain vs Castres olympique - 2012-08-18 - 42.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2013 at 11:53:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fend in rugby union
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fend in rugby is an offensive move where the ball carrier push away the defensive player with his arm. It generally allows to either break the defense line or avoid being tackled. Here Edwin Maka performs a fend. c/u/n by me -- PierreSelim (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator -- PierreSelim (talk) 11:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well caught. JKadavoor Jee 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support cool photo --Excolis (talk) 14:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : good and didactic. --JLPC (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically, a great shot and also high encyclopedic value. Congratulations, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't see anything special about this photo. I need something more to it. - Averater (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Новоспасский монастырь и церковь Сорока мучеников Севастийских.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 12:24:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of Novospassky Monastery in Moscow, Russia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created + uploaded by Святослав - nominated by me --A.Savin 12:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Despite some minor technical weaknesses I find that this picture has lots of wow anyway. --A.Savin 12:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree. --King of ♠ 13:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Arcalino (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great combination of wow and EV. JKadavoor Jee 16:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality, nice composition and light. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Savin, it will be very helpful if you (or anybody else) add an English description while nominating so that we can understand the subject better. Google Translator helps me in most cases; but not always. And sometimes even categories are in foreign languages to me. Hope I picked well, this time. JKadavoor Jee 05:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not Savin, but I've done it for him. --A.Savin 09:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I din't get (I'm not Savin)? I think I requested to the nominator; not to the contributor. Thanks, anyway. JKadavoor Jee 10:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the nominator's username is A.Savin. The nominator doesn't like to be adressed just by his surname (in Europe it appears impolite). He may be adressed by his first name either. --A.Savin 10:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm; I hope people will select better admins next time. :( JKadavoor Jee 13:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support like it --Michael Kramer (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the composition but I am not convinced about the result. There are too many flares, the light sources are too intense, the crop inthe bottom is improvable and IMHO the exposure time was a tick too long. Poco a poco (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry! Composition and quality are sufficient in my opinion. First of all, by looking at the picture I think the main subjects are the tower buildings. That's because how they are composed, and it's good that way! However, the bright light bulbs cause too much distraction for my taste. Of course the prominent light sources can't be removed from their places but they are quite much competing for attention which I think is unoptimal for the subject. --Ximonic (talk) 12:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Kakerdi.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 22:36:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Kakerdi

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Lockheed SR-71B Blackbird, NASA 831, over California (LCD).jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 08:25:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by USAF/Judson Brohmer - uploaded by Keraunoscopia - nominated by Keraunoscopia -- – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Explanation I am nominating the current FP SR-71 photograph to be delisted (below) and replaced for three reasons:
  1. The current FP is of a smaller size. My current nomination is 2.89 1.7 times larger (thanks to Colin for the correction).
  2. The current FP image's source (dfrc.nasa.gov) has the sRGB color profile. My larger file source's (nasa.gov Dryden Image Gallery) image did not have a color profile assigned at all, giving it a brighter and slightly whiter hue. Irrelevant, striked through.
  3. The current nominee is sharper. When I scaled the larger image down to match the FP image, the FP image was still softer. I can provide screenshots of pixels to show this. Not only this, but half of the FP image is stretched by one or two pixels.
  4. I also enlarged the FP image to 5100 x 3996 and found similar results: this larger image is not an enlargement, it's not blurred or soft.
I assigned the image above the Color LCD color profile, a Photoshop option that matched the colors and brightness of the original file. As Colin points out below, this may not be a standard profile. This was then converted again to sRGB. I did this to keep the image consistent. The alternative image below was immediately assigned the sRGB color profile, and its color and brightness matches the current FP image.– Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm no expert but I don't think the colour profile stuff you are doing is right. Both images here are set to "AdobeRGB". This profile should not be used for web images. 99% of Wikipedia users will be using a browser, OS and monitor combination that are only capable of handling sRGB, and many will display the wrong colour if AdobeRGB is used. I will have a look at the source JPGs later if I get a chance. Converting a JPG from one profile to another risks colour artefacts like banding as it is not a lossless operation -- setting the profile should be done when first saving a JPG based on a raw or TIFF file. I don't believe there is such a thing as "Color LCD" profile -- this sounds like a name of the profile your PC has defined for your monitor, and is not standard. Colin (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
As I explained in the image descriptions, in the RetouchedPicture templates, after changing the images to either Color LCD or sRGB, the image was then up-converted to Adobe RGB (1998), which was just an automatic thing I have Photoshop set up to do (my working space). What I did was download two copies of the full image, opened one and assigned it Color LCD (I had no choice, if i didn't assign a color profile, the colors went berserk—this is the only option that retained the original look); the second image I opened and assigned sRGB, which darkened the image. Both images were then automatically "upconverted" to Adobe RGB (my working space). I can change this to be sRGB and re-do this process.
I've never noticed any problems viewing Adobe RGB images in my browser, and I didn't know browsers were limited to sRGB; all my other uploads look exactly the same when viewed in my browser as they are when viewed in two different applications I have. But if this is a concern, I have absolutely no qualm re-doing the above steps (the only reason it takes me a while is because i have to re-type up some of the metadata, which was not included in the original file).
As for Color LCD, I'm not claiming that's a real profile or not, but it's what Photoshop recommended because there is no color profile on the JPG. (I had the option of not assigning a color profile, and you should have seen the colors then!) Assigning Color LCD, whether it's a real profile or not, made the image look exactly as it does on the NASA site—on my computer, as I stated above—, so that's why I used it. If you think I should upload the original downloaded file without changing anything, then again, I'm willing to try that. I figured my assigning a profile would simply keep the image appearing consistent since it would finally be Adobe RGB.
Finally, you're absolutely right (about everything, I'm not arguing with you on any point, just clarifying), but if the larger image has no color profile, that's not my fault. Shouldn't one be assigned to it? I found that by assigning sRGB to the larger image (the alternative below), suddenly the colors and brightness matched nearly precisely (color sampler-checked) with the smaller image that is currently FP. In short, I had no choice but to assign a color profile to at least one image, however ultimately destructive it may've been. This larger image is still sharper, even after assigning a color profile, and I just wanted to update the FP. Already, someone on the SR-71 article confirmed the RGB image looks the same (color-wise, at least). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
That's a lot of talk. In short, here's what I'm willing to do (with your/anyone's approval before I go through all the work):
  1. Replace the above image (currently titled "LCD") with the original file from NASA.gov. No color profile changes (no changes at all).
  2. Replace the alternative image (currently titled "sRGB") with the color profile assigned as sRGB, and left as-is (no upconversion to AdobeRGB). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Both images are now in sRGB. The image above matches the color and brightness of the original file photo; the image below matches the color and brightness of the FP image. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 18:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I've now done some investigations. The original FP appears to be based on the image labelled "3000x2668 JPEG Image (4,406 KBytes)" on this dfrc.nasa.gov webpage and (according to the history log) is a lossless crop of that file to remove the footer banner. The above/below nominations are based on the image labelled "Download Full Size" on this nasa.gov webpage but have had some colour space fiddling done to them. I have come to the conclusion that the original FP is fine, the "larger" Nasa image is crap and there is something wrong with Keraunoscopia's colour setup on his PC. Firstly the original source image is 4,949KB and after cropping is 4,174 KB on Commons. This is 3,000px wide. The source of the new images is only 2,557KB yet is 5,100px wide. As Keraunoscopia notes, the former has an sRGB colour profile whereas the latter has no profile (which isn't uncommon on the web). Examining both closely with Photoshop shows no difference in colour to me but clearly shows the latter to have horrible JPG artefacts due to the high compression. A good example of this is the cockpit or pilot's helmet where the bright white is surrounded by loads of JPG gnats. There is no extra detail on the "larger" image at all. Someone has blown it up and saved it with high compression without indicating the colour space (which is almost certainly sRGB anyway). So I propose that actually the new images should simply be deleted from Commons as inferior versions of the FP.
As for why Keraunoscopia is seeing colour problems, see this (slightly out-of-date) article. I wonder if you are using a Mac or a PC, if you have a standard or wide gamut monitor, if you have installed the correct profile for your monitor, what browser & version you are using and what version of Photoshop you are using. In your Photoshop File Handling Preferences, have you got "Ignore EXIF Profile Tag" checked (it should be unchecked). -- Colin (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination above image only then (not the alternative). I'm on a Mac, Firefox 16 (and I see an school bus yellow car). Do you really not see any color difference between this and File:Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird.jpg? My "Ignore EXIF Profile Tag" is (and was) unchecked. This is both embarrassing and really depressing. I'm so sorry for having wasted your time (and wasting my own, I had another thing I could've been working on). – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
No difference, in Firefox or Chrome or in Photoshop. I have Window7. However, I think the difference for you might be how the Mac interprets JPGs with no colour space. If you have the mixed joy of having a wide colour gamut display then this is closer to AdobeRGB than sRGB (often there are presets to switch between these on the monitor setup). According to that article I linked the Mac is perverse when it comes to JPGs with no profile -- it doesn't assume they are sRGB (which they almost certainly are) but assumes they are the colour profile of your monitor. If your monitor is set to AdobeRGB then it will display the wrong colours for such images.
But even with JPGs that are set to sRGB there can be problems with wide colour gamut monitors. The problem with some of the "better" browsers that are colour managed is that they appear (to me) to do the transform in a naive "nearest colour" mapping, whereas Photoshop/Lightroom will dither the colours when transforming and displaying the file. Although AdobeRGB has a wider colour palette than sRGB it still has the same 8-bits of limited range in the JPG, so those colours are further apart. A particular shade of red in sRGB may well have no counterpart in AdobeRGB -- Firefox will simply pick the closest and Photoshop will dither. This leads to banding in the sky with the browser for example but not in Photoshop. So if I use a colour managed browser on my display set to AdobeRGB, I can see posterisation in some images on the web. I don't get that problem if I view the same image in Photoshop which nicely dithers the sRGB JPG for my AdobeRGB display. So for web browsing and FP reviewing, I switch my monitor to sRGB emulation and use Firefox which I've set to be not colour managed -- no banding and the correct colours provided the image is sRGB. It is a bit of a pain. Colin (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
You know what, though, I think I went about this the wrong way. I should have never uploaded the above image or even brought up the color profile issue, because I think I created an unintentional distraction. So assume for now I was only nominating the alternate version below.
(When I compare the two images I linked to just above your last reply, I don't see any difference either. I only ever had a problem when I opened the no-assigned-color-profile image in Photoshop and had to assign one—my mistake in assigning the Color LCD profile. If I assign it sRGB, then it still looks exactly like the current FP, so I don't think I have a problem—and I'm certainly not seeing any banding in the browser.)
Ok next, you mentioned file size. (Sorry for getting my math wrong, you're right, it's 1.7 times larger.) I took the lossless crop from the FP image, and enlarged it to 5100 x 3996, and flipped back and forth between the large Dryden Gallery image and the enlarged FP image, and the large Dryden image was still sharper. I don't think the large Dryden image was enlarged, like you suggested above. If it had been, the noise in the desert background (at the very top, it's extremely easy to see) wouldn't be crisp, it would be blurred. Are you absolutely positive this 5100 x 3996 image is an inferior product? The pilots heads look like regular noise that I've seen on many other images on Commons; artifacts, sure, but crisp and clear, not what an enlarged artifact would look like, right? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Well there's the size in pixels and the size in terms of bytes. The "larger" image is only 0.6x of the filesize of the smaller one. Yet is has 2.9x more pixels. How can that work? It is fairly obvious that it has been compressed to death. (BTW I'm talking about the source pictures -- the ones you have saved and uploaded were saved with a low compression setting -- and you get a large filesize as the new JPG faithfully records all the artefacts in the old one). Now open up both source pictures. Enlarge the smaller to 5100 wide using a good quality resampling algorithm. The look at the front cockpit. The triangular window has a nice white edge. The nearby edge of the aircraft that goes from grey to black is also nicely smooth. Compare with the new picture and you see loads of JPG gnats round those edges because JPG can't handle contrasting edges when highly compressed. Now look slightly up at the blue-tinged area and compare the two. The newer picture clearly shows the 8x8 structure of a JPG (it is composed of 8x8 tiles) with very sharp edges on the tile borders. The older picture shows none of the 8x8 tile artefacting because it has been saved with a low level of compression. I'm afraid any extra "detail" in the newer picture is just JPG artefacting and an illusion. Colin (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thinking a little more, it would be odd (but not totally surprising) for someone to enlarge the smaller picture. What is certain is that the smaller picture is not derived from the larger one, because it is so damaged by the high compression that it wouldn't generate the clean artefact-free smaller image. Therefore both images may have a common large ancestor. This is an old photo, pre-dating digital cameras. So the ultimate source is a negative or a print. There is a regular pattern noise on the images that suggests it might be a scan from a print. So there may be a TIFF on someone's hard drive that is large and uncompressed. I'm absolutely certain, that the large image we have here is so damaged by the compression that it contains no extra detail. Even if it wasn't badly compressed, it still might not contain more detail as the original might be somewhat soft or have artefacts from the printing process or film noise -- we won't know. Colin (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I definitely see what you're talking about—I did as you write, which is what I did yesterday also. That extra sharpness was what I thought was simply noise, but maybe it's a bit too crystal sharp (there's no distinguishing mid-tones between certain pixels). Since the source is from actual film (which I was aware of), I was expecting to see film grain too, but I suppose I don't know what I'm looking for. So the sharp JPG pixels are artifacts and not a clearer image then. Well, I think I'm convinced. Definitely, both images must be derived from some master file somewhere, and I suppose that would be the only file to actually be worth locating. Ok, sold! I'm withdrawing everything. Once again, thanks so much for your help ;) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this version so far (it's a little more contrasty). I may change my mind as I read comments :P -- – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 08:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination both images from nomination. – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London - September 2006.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 16:47:18
Clock Tower - Palace of Westminster, London


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /A.Savin 22:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Cheetahs on the Edge (Director's Cut).ogv, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 01:34:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gregory J. Wilson (producer, director and cinematographer) - converted by Odder - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The video is in full HD, is 460mb in size at HD quality.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- russavia (talk) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great video. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! --King of ♠ 05:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing. odder (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Sorry if this is a stupid question, the video is released on his website as CC-BY, but would that include the music? – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 06:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Is it just me that is feeling sad looking at this video? It is a technically brilliant video but I'm deeply disturbed by the methods used to capture this behavior. I'm against the use of captive animals for human entertainment and these cheetah runs are definitely that. There is a lot of 'wow' to see something like this but little empathy for the poor animal which leads a life in prison :(. -- ~y (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, it is sad. But this is a "message" video. It challenges to to think of what can we do to help these animals. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I see it as an advertisement and not a message. There's one line about their plight in the end and a link to commercial websites/organizations! Do we need the vulgar show of power over captive animals to put across the message when there's tons of films shot in the wild (which are better by being natural IMO)? I guess we do for more audience, but abusing (or exhibiting) captive animals is something I deeply detest. :( -- ~y (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, I knew that would come up in this discussion eventually. Thanks for going through my contributions to pick up the one captive non-domesticated animal! I've hated myself for going to that orca show because I didn't know better in 2009 (and it is only on commons as encyclopedic content for a wikipedia article). In fact, I hate myself each time I look at it and feel sad for the plight of the beautiful orcas (which I've seen in the wild). So, your point of bringing that up was because I have posted ONE picture of a captive animal means I have no right to air my views on showcasing captive animals? Also, I do have many photographs of captive animals from a long time ago (at a time when I thought it was OK because big names did it) and that in no way means I like doing it now or in the future, or encourage photography of captive animals or support it. I believe that's a change for the good and I think it is up to the big organizations to encourage that change. The least we (or at least I) can do is to oppose featuring captive animals and encourage wild content. Sorry for the long comment. -- ~y (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No personal attacks please -- Nossob (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is the support vote above here an error and should it be struck?  B.p. 06:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No sarcasm here, please. Your negative vote was accompanied by the statement that the picture should have been submitted to "Featured Video Candidates", because "here at FPC we have no established rules to assess moving images." It that was intended to be your reason for opposing the picture, then it seemed possible that your negative vote was in error, since "Featured Video Candidates" does not exist. It appears, however, that you had merely made a comment in addition to your negative vote. I just needed to know which was which. Peace? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Yathin. --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)--Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please submit to Featured Video Candidates. Here at FPC we have no established set of rules to asses moving images.  B.p. 12:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Featured video candidates? Does that exist? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
      • No. This is a motion picture, and it's called "Featured picture candidates" for a reason. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Is the "oppose" vote therefore an error, and should it be struck? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome and beautiful video. And for the "sadness" felt by Yathin and Cayambe, I hope you guys are both vegan. Léna (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I wish I was solar-powered, but what's your point? My eating habits should decide what I like or don't like? So, you're telling me all meat eaters should support animal cruelty and ill treatment? I've worked in wildlife reserves and I've seen the kind of silly things people do to get photographs and videos that were inspirational. Chasing animals with cars, shouting at them to get an expression, driving off-road and capturing them for the sake of a video or a photograph is more common than you think. Remember, there are inexperienced amateurs trying to copy photographs and videos using far more cruder and dangerous methods. And that's just a small part of the larger issue I have with captivity and treatment of wild animals for the purposes of entertainment, which by the way is very different from sustenance and conservation. I'm not debating the quality of the video, just the larger implications it has. It's fine to think this video awesome (I know it is awesome), but I have personally seen a lot of negative consequences resulting from videos and photographs made in "controlled environments" and it is worrying. -- ~y (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • @Yathin and his opposers: The ethics in nature photography is beyond the scope of this page, I afraid. We've similar discussion earlier; where Richard Bartz says "DONT KILL ANIMALS!". But we all know killing, dissection, and study are part of education. But the limit how much we can go is always a question though. I think the best compromise is to vote on individual ethical stand and respect others on their stands. I've not a firm stand in this case, honestly. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. I'm generally opposed to anything captive and it will always get an oppose from me. I was just mentioning my reasons for the oppose in my vote (instead of a simple "captive" or anything else equally useless). I know I'm going to be a minority, but at least it serves as food for thought. Also, the behind-and-scenes, credits and branding at the end is perhaps like putting up pictures with watermarks which is why I thought this was like an advertisement as well! There is no harm in having healthy discussions as long as there are no personal attacks -- which are unfortunate. In the end, everyone who works with animals thinks about their welfare, which is good. Face-smile.svg -- ~y (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry for derailing the conversation, I souldn't have done it. Just for the clarity of what I said : I'm French, and in French, we have two different words for "plant-based diet" (végétalien) and "life without exploitation of animals, in food, clothes, entertainement..." (végane). Both can be translated by "vegan" in English but I was talking about the latter. I'm always bothered by people claming one kind of animal exploitation is bad while doing other kinds when they could easily avoid them (and for the record, I know that for a lot of people, plant-based diet is not easy). Concerning your point about "setting a bad example", I understand it (I know a flickr group about birds that doesn't allow pictures of nests because of unfortunate consequences for the youngs in the said nest) but feels like it is something we can't endorse in Commons. I will not talk about veganism / animal advocacy until I'm in front of a nice beer and actually talking and not writting, I promise :) Léna (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • No worries! Written discussions can obviously sound heated when they are not, especially in matters like this which tend to have people (like me) who strongly believe in an ideology. I have previously opposed nest/captive photographs on FPC for similar reasons. As per JKadavoor and others, this is definitely not in the scope of commons, but it is always good to put forward a thought and a reason for the oppose, hoping that it may change in the future. Every small change helps in making it a better place for the animals (like the popular nest photography bans). You're welcome to drop by to Oslo for a discussion because I could go on for hours about this! ;) -- ~y (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Don't forget to invite me too. Face-smile.svg JKadavoor Jee 05:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Of course, you're welcome too! :-) -- ~y (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: Great quality, and the amount of animal cruelty in parks is minimal compared to the amount in the food industry, also I don't think this affects the value of this footage. What I'm wondering though: Isn't a credit roll at the end somehow equivalent to a watermark on a photo and should be replaced to identical credit in the description and then removed? I'm not saying that would be good, just asking. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
    I don't think that is necessary. For photos, a watermark detracts from the illustrative value of the photo, since photos are meant to be consumed in their entirety. However, for videos with credits at the end, a user could just choose not to view the credits if they wanted. --King of ♠ 13:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, great! Yarl 11:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • a double Symbol support vote.svg Support. fantastic work! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albeit not a fan of the musical accompaniment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tonchino 13:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As mentionned on the talk page, the background music might not be free. Jean-Fred (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is an issue with one of the musical pieces in the video. I've discussed the issue with Lynnemusic, and I have informed them that their music will be replaced in the video -- this will be done by way of this bugzilla request in which a same quality video without the sound will be overwriting this file. russavia (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great contribution, extreme high EV, but I also do not really like the music. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is one of my favorite animals and I respect your message. But Sorry, I can't support this video. For me it is boring and the music as well. And it shows no real hunting. Hockei (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♠ 00:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animated

File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 11:32:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Courtyard of "Schloss Broich" (Broich Castle) with entrance

created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, nothing special in the composition (crop, shadows), and also see Carsten (ghost in the archway). --A.Savin 16:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice lighting. --King of ♠ 05:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Which part of Schloss Broich is this? Courtyard? JKadavoor Jee 08:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info / ✓ Done I've uploaded a new version with removed ghost. IMHO the beautiful lightning and sky comes out better with this new version. @Jkadavoor: It is the courtyard as tagged. The photo you linked to shows Schloss Broich from the outside. If you go through the entrance from the outside photo you see the motive I've nominated here. (Courtyard = Schlossinnenhof) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 09:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like the stronger HDR effect, but that would be ok if not for the clipped whites in the clouds that you created now. The old sky was very nice imho. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
There are not clipped whites, sorry. Please look at the histogram. Another indicator that highlights are better managed in this new version: Please compare the top of the roof (at the very right side, at the "Blitzableiter"): In the old version some details were slightly burnt out, it is not the case in the new version. Additionaly the sky in the new version shows much more details than grey of the old version (which comes ofter from highlight correction). More clipped whites in the new version would be strange because I've added an underexposed (-4EV) for the new processing to bring out more details of the sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right, they are not white but grey, but they still look like clipped whites. And whether or not they are white doesn't really matter, they are bright and almost featureless areas with sharp edges, and that doesn't look good to me. Clouds don't have sharp edges. And the sky doesn't have this dark-blue-grey colour it has now, in this editing. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01-temp.jpg
-4 EV with original non-pimped blue sky. Out of the cam.
I've used a polarizing filter. I have NOT pimped the sky. Look at the orignal (underexposed 4 EV) file. It's not my fault that the sky looks that way. I prefer a more blue sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not saying anything's your fault. HDR editing software always manipulates every part of the image heavily and with no respect to reality. That's just what it does, locally selective tone-mapping. I'm just saying the result of what this software does is, in my eyes, very far away from reality in a non-pleasing way. Just like the editing done by the software, this isn't absolute or provable, it's just subjective perception. It all comes down to: I like the old version better. Ymmv. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


Alternative[edit]

Schloss-Broich-2013-01-Alternative.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info After the review of Julian (and others in a German DSLR forum) I've created an alternative without ghost and (hopefully) better and smoother sky (in den previous version there were some halos at the building and a darker area between clouds). I hope it is OK to put this alternative?! --Tuxyso (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this very much. --Julian H. (talk/files) 07:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better and less artificial-looking than the original. --King of ♠ 09:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JKadavoor Jee 10:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Better than the original nomination, not doubt, but the lighting is not really outstanding and the missing wow cannot compensate it, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. After your (and other comments) it is clear that the alternative version is better. What's the best way now? Should I withdraw the original nomination? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Need not. JKadavoor Jee 04:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tuxyso (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Frank Schulenburg made slight (but very good) local adjustments. In order to avoid a further alternative here I've overwritten my photo with his version (with his his approval of course). If one thinks that is a problem please tell me and I will revert. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot :-) --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This alternative is no doubt a lot better then the first one. But I lack something to make the photo interesting. A wider shot or something happening in the scene could maybe have helped? - Averater (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like this one better: File:Schloss-Broich-2013-03.jpg - Averater (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Feel free no nominate it :) My intention was not to nominate two motives for FP of a similiar object nearly at the same time - so I had to decide. One remark to your comment "But I lack something to make the photo interesting." - IMHO it is a bit inconsistent that you vote with "Pro" for IMHO a quite ordinary church with average light and mood above (yes, one sees the surrondings, but is that a reason for FP?) and vote here with "Contra" (not with neutral) for an important castle with interesting light. I think the lightning of the castle is intersting, because the left side in golden sun light, the right side in shadow but with all details visible due to HDR usage. I do not challenge your assesment, nonetheless for me it is not really understandable.
    • BTW: I have another photo (not uploaded) with a wedding horse buggy on the courtyard. I hesitate to upload it becasue the light is not that good and the encyclopedic value questionable. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
      • These matters are by nature subjective and what differs between the church and this is that that kind of photo is one I'd rather have on my wall than this. But obviously that is my personal opinion and I don't think there is anything wrong with your photo. - Averater (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your clarification. And for sure: Assessing FP candidatures is ofter a very subjective matter (also my comment to your review). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support imho FP--Steinsplitter (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♠ 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture
The chosen alternative is: File:Schloss-Broich-2013-01-Alternative.jpg

File:Koeln Hohenzollernbruecke.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 23:02:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /A.Savin 08:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Christ Pantocrator church - Nesebar 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 10:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fragment of the west facade of the medieval Christ Pantocrator church in Nesebar, Bulgaria. Built in the first half of 14th century.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 10:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain as author. -- MrPanyGoff 10:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice one. --Aktron (talk) 11:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Very beautiful, I'll support when 1) a higher resolution with more detail is provided, 2) a usage is found. --A.Savin 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Usage: here in section decoration. It can also be used in articles about the Byzantine architecture and the Medieval architecture as well as the architecture of the Second Bulgarian Empire.--MrPanyGoff 07:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, with a "wow" mood for me.--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great wow; but the top is not sharp enough for me. JKadavoor Jee 06:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♠ 07:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Emirates Stadium - East stand Club Level.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 18:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ed g2s - uploaded by Ed g2s - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kasir (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- an error must be fixed first. (see note) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Obviously good [even Arsène W. can be seen :)], but a few stiching errors and CA (see notes, please). FP after fixing, of course. --JLPC (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately, the picture is cropped too much in the foreground. Otherwise i would give support. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mount Kosciuszko, Australia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 13:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mount Kosciuszko Panorama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Reflexio - uploaded by Reflexio - nominated by Reflexio -- Reflexio (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The resolution is rather low, and why is there a white border around the image? If you want I can remove it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 3.17 Megapixels are not enough for a landscape panorama in my opinion. There are also slight CAs, but because of the low resolution they are only clearly visible when zoomed in. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeDue to the border. - Averater (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With or without the border, this is a picture of a mountain (and not just any mountain; the highest on its continent) which looks flat. Daniel Case (talk) 04:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mount Kosciuszko is not very high :-( It is an easy walk (not climb) to the top, so it looks flat from the top because gradient of the surrounding area is not very steep. --Reflexio (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
So is this taken from the mountain, or of it? The filename would suggest the former. Please clarify (Never mind, I figured it out).

In any event when dealing with a flat-topped mountain, even a high one, one should keep in mind that the summit of any mountain that is the highest in its range generally offers a weak view, since every other summit will usually be below the view plane.

In those cases it generally works better, if one is looking for that "wow" an FP is supposed to have, to photograph the mountain from somewhere where it looks as imposing as you can make it, like this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, accept that view. My intent was to show a panorama from the top of the mountain. There are plenty of photos of the actual mountain.--Reflexio (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Mount Kosciuszko Panorama


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♠ 07:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Mute Swan Emsworth2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 23:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mute Swan (Cygnus olor)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Geni - uploaded by Geni - nominated by Geni -- Geni (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Already a Featured picture on the english wikipedia.Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Geni (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This is a beautiful photograph but there's a very similar featured picture. I personally think there should be only one featured picture of a similar composition of a species. Not sure what the rules are for featuring very similar photographs but will support if that's not an issue. -- ~y (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because this picture is better, with sharp focus on the head. Yathin, we don't have such a rule (unlike in EN:FP); but people can vote based on their stands (or even make a delist request). JKadavoor Jee 11:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --King of ♠ 13:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ~y (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBruce1eetalk 18:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is not bad, but for me it is nothing special and has no wow-effect Hockei (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is good but to make a picture of a swan stand out you have to make something extra - Averater (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --LC-de (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose me too --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♠ 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Neues Rathaus at night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 21:34:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hanover, Germany, Neues Rathaus (New Town Hall) at night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Spreng Ben - uploaded and nominated by Marcus Qwertyus -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- With almost 185K views, this is one of the top viewed Creative Commons photos on Flickr. There is some color fringing on the west wing but who is really looking that hard? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, to me a typical image with "big wow" in preview but a rude awakening at full size. Imo clearly overprocessed, with unnatural green of the trees, extreme unsharpness and noise at the edges, some magenta CA as well. --A.Savin 23:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharpness and too much noise in trees --Rjcastillo (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with others, nice scene, but over-saturated, processed --Reflexio (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Commons is not Flickr. Colin (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reflexio, why did you delete my vote? -- -donald- (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Oregon Junco in Kelowna, BC.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 23:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oregon Junco Kelowna BC


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Redgrape with dew.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2013 at 18:02:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pinot noir
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mahdiz - uploaded by Mahdiz - nominated by Mahdiz -- :)Mahdiz talk 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support its special, best quality and great! see other version in summary of picture -- :)Mahdiz talk 18:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the variety of ripeness of the grapes. But the blown white sky is distracting and the picture is noisy. Colin (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Colin. JKadavoor Jee 05:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose With Colin, for a close-up this photo has remarkable quality issues. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- -donald- (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Rosa Löffler-001.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 20:47:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roseate spoonbill in Florida
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Roseate spoonbill in Florida. Created and uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Nossob (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain -- Nossob (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition but the image is noisy and the head is quite soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as The High Fin Sperm Whale -- Hockei (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good composition that more than enough makes up for the softness. - Averater (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The reflection is nice, but the quality not sufficient for FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This photograph has been made with a 2x convertor and it is of very high quality for the optics combination. At full resolution, few wildlife photographs are sharper when the subject is a small part of the image (and looks like this photograph has not been downsized or processed much even). I think the image is beautifully composed and has sufficiently high quality for being a FP. And incredible colors! -- ~y (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♠ 07:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:School children (Lukhanyo Primary School, Zwelihle Township (Hermanus, South Africa) 09.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 22:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Schoolboy in a South African Township
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A schoolboy in Zwelihle Township, South Africa. Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Godot13 (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Comments (positive or negative) are appreciated.--Godot13 (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Sea sponge.svg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 21:03:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Diagram of a syconoid sea sponge.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A diagram of a syconoid sea sponge. all by KelvinsongKelvinsong (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportKelvinsong (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support to begin with; although I've little knowledge about the techniques here used. Will reconsider my vote if any arguments raised. We may think about a solution on reviewing such works. I don't like them pass without any comments; it is not good to our contributors. JKadavoor Jee 11:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Kelvinsong has made much better images. In my opinion this doesn't express that well how a sponge "works" and the place where text is located is a bit crowded. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Smialek Castle Party 2012 0 14.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2013 at 07:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fire breathing in Śmiałek podczas Castle Party 2012
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Lilly M - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomer T (talk) 07:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The composition is not as good as the previous FP, but still this is an uncommon subject and packs a lot of "wow." --King of ♠ 09:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • It's hard to equalize with this POTY runner-up you mentioned :) Tomer T (talk) 11:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like that parts of his head is blocked by the fire. Composition could have been better if taken from another angle. - Averater (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support special picture--:)Mahdiz talk 18:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per KoH. JKadavoor Jee 06:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Wow is there, even if Luc Viatour's one is even better. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support without restriction. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Sultan Ahmet Mosque February 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2013 at 21:05:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Interior of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Interior of the Sultan Ahmet Mosque ("Blue Mosque"), Istanbul, Turkey. Exposure fusion from 2 exposures (3 EV). Created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Where are the bells ? oh sorry, it is not Notre-Dame... Very nice, very good light, shame of the moving man, but still a wonderful picture for me. Congrats !--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, nice composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agreed on the composition, though you could probably get away with more of a crop to the left. Daniel Case (talk) 04:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very gloomy compared to File:Blue Mosque Interior 2 Wikimedia Commons.JPG. Different parts though. JKadavoor Jee 06:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Clearly over-exposed image. My picture is much closer to reality, is also my picture taken a very gray winter with weaker light from the outside.--ArildV (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can compare with this picture from the mosque's official website.--ArildV (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes; the bottom half. But I love it (the upper half) than this much darkness. Just my opinion; others may have different... JKadavoor Jee 13:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
        • For the first time; decline because the photo is NOT overexpoused! I made the mistake apparently to upload a picture that showed mosque as it is, not as you think it should look like (and it does, how absurd it may sound, the picture worse as you).
        • From now on (if your opinion will guide), all interior photos to be either: a) over-exposed, b) heavily manipulated to suit your taste for how a building should look. The educational value is obviously irrelevant. Better to fool visitors to Wikipedia with a fake, manipulated image.
        • --ArildV (talk) 13:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Arild, I can't see any details here. Most of the artworks on the walls are very, very dark. I don't think lack of overexposure is a reason to support. The interiors of many buildings may be very underexposed; but our eyes have the ability to adjust themselves to see properly; the camera lacks it. That is why we use other techniques like HDR (or whatever maybe).
          • My opinion is just my opinion; it has nothing to do in the rejection of an FP! (I think you know it well. Nowadays my votes only attract revenge votes, so chances that you get at-least 5+ blind supports for this single oppose. Am I withdraw my oppose?) JKadavoor Jee 15:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
            • I can't see any details here? Excuse me, you must have an incorrectly adjusted monitor. I can see every single piece of the ceramic tiles, no details on the walls is lost in darkness. And it is a HDR, which has given a correct exposure of the inside while the details and colors of the windows are preserved.
            • I dont know and dont care about revenge votes (if there exists). If we begin to think about FP/QI-politics before we vote, we become corrupt. I may be naive, but I never think about it. And would you nominate a good picture today, I would support.--ArildV (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
              • Thanks; it may be a monitor issue. JKadavoor Jee 07:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JLPC (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Tomer T (talk) 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is cw tilted Poco a poco (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♠ 07:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Torma kirik3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2013 at 22:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Torma church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition with a lot of unimportant space does not convince me, sorry. Even if you choose a tighter crop I am not sure if the motive, light and quality would justify FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. JKadavoor Jee 16:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me, the composition is just right. It puts the church and its surroundings into a context. Any closer and people would have complained about the distracting trees and branches in the shot ;-) Also, the green, blue and red add to the somewhat clean mood of the scene. A smaller aperture would have added more depth of field; however, in this case it's ok, as the background (the smaller trees on the left hand) doesn't matter when it comes to the subject of the image. Great shot, Iifar! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC) 
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have nominated some church photos but it seems that they are viewed as a bit too ordinary. So this image really standed out for me for the reason Frank very nicely embodied to words in last comment. This is not just an image of a church but with a church and its surroundings. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I see your's and Frank's argument. My comment with "unimportant space" was possibly a bit harsh. I as reviewer can not assess the importance of the church's surrordings. Is it somehow special or seldom? In the description one can only read "Torma church". My general problem with your church nominations is: Churches are too numerous (in Germany nearly every small village has one or two) and too similiar that every well composed photo with good quality can become FP. There must be some additional outstanding value like "light, composition, level of detail, color, sky formation, special very seldom architecture ..." In this photo I see none of these. Nonetheless a nice photo with interesting colors as Frank has pointed out. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
      • In Estonia each church is unique anyway (but at a same time we only have ca 300-400 of them built over 8 centuries). I have to agree with you on this that the number of churches is so big, that there needs to something special. Maybe even some current and bit similar FB-s about architecture should be compared and poorest of them delisted. For me, how this church fits to the surroundings is special enough and I haven't seen any current FB to be similar to this. But off-course this does not mean that others have to agree with me and it was just this "unimportant space" that disturbed me and why I wanted to make a comment on this. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks for sharing your thought about Estonian churches - I had not known it before. Probably I am bit biased because small churches in villages are inflationary in Germany. I am unsure if it is a good idea to start a comprehensive delisting of architectural FPs. Probably you can start a discussion about it. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice to see some surroundings and not just the church. - Averater (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Tuxyso.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of ♠ 07:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012.07.04.-10-Eilenburg-Nashornkaefer-Larve.jpg

File:A Jicarilla Man, 1904, Edward S. Curtis (sepia restored).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2013 at 06:42:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Male Apache Indian
  • Peter, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I apologize for the error. I've changed the restoration license to be precisely the same as the original's, and no disrespect was intended to the memory of Curtis by trying to claim his photograph as my own :) – Kerαunoςcopiagalaxies 20:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support Epic restoration work sure is on! Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Use only normal support template; bot will not understand others. (corrected) JKadavoor Jee 04:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /King of ♠ 07:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Golden Horn Metro Bridge Mars 2013.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2013 at 19:22:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Construction of the new Golden Horn Metro Bridge in Istanbul. In the background, the famous Galata Bridge. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good EV and interesting composition. JKadavoor Jee 16:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done. --Selbymay (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition --Rjcastillo (talk) 03:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Morning (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original composition Poco a poco (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hockei (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kikos (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Niverolle Montagne noire Francer.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2013 at 22:58:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
A white background is less distracting, it's sure !--Citron (talk) 10:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
KoH, dou you mean the foreground grass? Or the stem just pass behind it's bill? Otherwise, I think it is OK because it is winter. JKadavoor Jee 16:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm referring to the tall grasses, which I feel are not sufficiently blurred. --King of ♠ 23:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I think they can be easily blurred by an expert. JKadavoor Jee 05:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful. The blurry background helps the bird stand out.Kurzon (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Hockei (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Vamps (talk) 18:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really nice. --Selbymay (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Arcalino (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All an FP needs.  B.p. 11:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stas1995 (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Tir bijan Lagoon 139004 2.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 11:53:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quality image of Lotus Flower in Tir Bijan Lagoon, Amol City, Iran.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mehdi - uploaded by Mehdi - nominated by Mehdi -- MehdiTalk 11:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality image of Lotus Flower in Tir Bijan Lagoon, Amol City, Iran.-- MehdiTalk 11:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the kind of photo that makes you go wow but not at all bad and very descriptive, showing both flower and leaves. - Averater (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality--:)Mahdiz talk 18:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the bloom is too bright, the sharpness is not good enough for FP and for me it is a bit noisy. Hockei (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's too busy; if we want it to be about the flower let's crop in on it so we're not distracted by the leaves. Daniel Case (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Arkhangelskoe Estate Aug2012 buildings 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2013 at 11:27:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Arkhangelskoe Palace near Moscow, Russia.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by --A.Savin 11:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A.Savin 11:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe a little too conservative with the symmetry, but otherwise well done. Daniel Case (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull lights, shadows on both sides, overall not very sharp, unsharp foreground, little child's angle of view (looking upward?) and plain, too blue sky. This is an example to me how a QI (technically OK) not become an FP (special for my eyes in every aspects). JKadavoor Jee 07:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Berlioz Petit BNF Gallica.png, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2013 at 21:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hector BERLIOZ, 1863
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pierre Petit - uploaded, stitched, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The full version, high resolution, restored, of the famous photograph (albumen print) of Hector Berlioz by Pierre Petit. Remember that this picture was taken in 1863. The original (frame also cropped) is available as first version in the file page. Uncropped version available by following the link.-- Jebulon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality, good restoration. --King of ♠ 01:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a bit too yellow for me, and it would be much better on grayscale. Sorry. Yann (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for review but you are technically wrong I'm afraid. Obviously, you did not see the original... Please notice that the "sepia" color is a choice of the photographer, and is not due to age. Of course, I could desaturate it entirely and make a perfect B&W picture, but it should be a treason...--Jebulon (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
      • I changed my vote to comment. I made a grayscale version, and I think it is better, but if the original was like this, I don't oppose. Yann (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Thanks. Following discussion on your talk page.--Jebulon (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support : per King of Hearts. --JLPC (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, also per King of Hearts. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That cool pose is really wow! JKadavoor Jee 14:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work! -- Arcalino (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Paris 16 (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

The same image in grayscale.


  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is better in grayscale. Good restoration anyway. Yann (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The lead picture at Hector Berlioz taken almost at same times is also in sepia; so I assume Jeb's argument is right. JKadavoor Jee 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry no, per above, per our discussion on Yann's talk page, and links provided, giving the evidence that the original author could do this (me too...), and made another choice...--Jebulon (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical
The chosen alternative is: File:Berlioz Petit BNF Gallica.png

File:Canelle Cinnamomum verum Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2013 at 07:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cinnamomum verum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour - uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Mahan -- Mahan (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mahan (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice, well-executed still-life as we'd expect, but am I seeing sharpening artefacts? --King of ♠ 09:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kasir (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpening artifacts with a width of about 2 pixels, too much for FP imo. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Julian H.--Jebulon (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Sharpening artifacts but very nice (and useful!) image. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 00:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Species undetermined. Little care for the background. The pile in the foreground is blurred. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Same as Jacopo Werther - Averater (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Match Ignition 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2013 at 21:27:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I tried to photograph the match with the shortest possible exposure time of 1/4000s. So you can see the sparkles and the match head through the fire.