Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2009

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


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


Contents

File:Ignis Brunensis Macedos Pirotecnia 2007.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:27:52
Fireworks - contest performance of group Macedo´s Pirotecnia (Portugal) on Brno dam (Ignis Brunensis 2007)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Spock lone wolf -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fireworks - contest performance of group Macedo´s Pirotecnia (Portugal) on Brno dam (Ignis Brunensis 2007)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately artifacted, particularly around upper left firework. MER-C 09:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can you show me that artifacts of yours? It happens I can't see any. The same goes to the other picture you opposed as artifacted. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Better. MER-C 09:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I really like the composition but I have to agree with MER-C. The picture is full of artefacts. It looks to much compressed and i think with 500KB it is really small! Could you please upload a better version? Not that much compressed? -- Pro2 (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded, with no compression (minimum sharpening as well). But seriously, I think that you're mistaking rocket fragments rotation and physical limitations of camera for JPEG problems. Probably it would be better for me to downscale the image by 1000 px, so you wouldn't notice this at all... Any other image at the original size from fireworks is basically the same, doesn't mather if I'll upload it as 50 MB 16b TIFF or if I'll give you the original RAW. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 14:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 16:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good! -- Pro2 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 17:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Man On Mission (talk) 11:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support; loving the composition and sharpness. --Yerpo (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Done. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the kind of photo I still want to master to take it. Congrats!!! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Macroglossum stellatarum23.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:24:48
Hummingbird Hawk-moth

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Please, show me any artifact on this photo --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at the green areas in the background. MER-C 09:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not bad, but the flowers are blurry and the proboscis is hidden. It's the begining of the season, I'm sure there will be other oportunities. --ianaré (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose even that I can't still see any artifacts, I'll have to go with opposing nomination for too shallow DOF for the subject and whats more important for me: you missed the focus a bit, which looks quite distracting.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - bad focus and shallow DOF -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DOF. kallerna 13:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support For almost any other subject, the defects already noted would make it not worth proposing. BUT this is an almost impossible subject, and to get this good a picture of something on the wing (admittedly hovering and going nowhere) is worth noting. It will not make FP this time, but (as Ianare said) you may get opportunity to improve on this. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Jan mayen egg-oeja hg.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:53:49
The coast of Jan Mayen Island in the Norwegian Sea.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hannes Grobe - uploaded by Hannes Grobe - nominated by Zakharii -- Zakharii 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Zakharii 08:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the sky is blown. MER-C 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a beautiful landscape, with good photographic technique. The DOF is extraordinary and the photograph has good texture, proportion, balance and good tonal range. The fact that the sky is blown is really not so, it is a bright, cloudy day which paradoxically, makes the lighting work for the picture. The clouds act as a huge soft box. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support I agree with Tomascastelazo. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky could be cut off a bit.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the logs are also overexposed --ianaré (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A gorgeous composition is not enough especially when the obvious technical flaws would have been easy to avoid. Besides the blown sky and foreground we also have a tilted horizon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is not a blown sky, clouds are white... and it is a cloudy day. Any adjustment on the levels would render the sky gray, not blue. As far as the horizon: 1) Sand on beaches tends to have a slope, so to judge a horizon on a sand line is erroneous most of the time, and I think this is one such case. 2) By analyzing the cliff, there are visual clues such as the drips that fall according to the laws of gravity, that is, straight down. There are visual clues that suggest a correct orientation of the image, so no tilt. 3) This image, if it were a black and white, (which almost is) is a rich study in textures and middle and dark tones, with elements in the high values (wood) nicely represented and within the texture range (hitting Zone IX, which in turn tells about the luminosity difference between this and the sky). So again, any adjustments in the high values would tend to squash the tones... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. kallerna 13:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sky is white. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment sky is blue, clouds are white... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- this is the high-latitudes & the sky looks different up there, sometimes. there is more white/solidity in the clouds; ice crystals rather than water vapour, remember. i think the sky looks fine & the rest of the composition is wonderful. worst case, tone down the sky a bit to please the critics; but not every picture has to have a pretty-perfect blue sky, & this one shouldn't Lx 121 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose even if that cloud is white doesn't mean it's not overexposed. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --hence my suggestion to tone down the sky a little. no offense, but the sky pretty clearly is not the main subject of this picture, nor what makes it worthy or unworthy of FP. Lx 121 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Epalpus signifer, Megan McCarty101.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 16:39:15
Epalpus signifer

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Meganmccarty - uploaded by Meganmccarty - nominated by Meganmccarty -- Meganmccarty (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Meganmccarty (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice composition. It's a pity that DOF is a bit narrow. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - as per Richard -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DOF, bit harsh light. kallerna 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --it's wonderful as a picture study of the insect; the flower is background & usefully unobtrusive Lx 121 (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missed the focus on eyes, where I'd also expect more space than behind the rear side. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Rhombodera basalis 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 20:14:57
Rhombodera basalis

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Laufwasserkraftwerk Muehltal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 23:21:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Green energy part 3. Feed of river power plant Muehltal close to Munich, Germany. Hydroelectricity supplied yearly: 70 million kilowatt hours.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sharp, good details and composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I enjoy this series of images you are taking. —Notyourbroom (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing composition Darolu (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support laudable --Zakharii 08:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment some additional information on technical details (e.g. stitched from how many single images) would be appreciated. --High Contrast (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Additional informations added to to the image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I trimmed a little unhappy - vile grass, low sky, otherwise very sharp and well --Böhringer (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice composition! -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not the most interesting subject, but great composition & amazing quality. kallerna 13:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support you've outdone yourself on this one --ianaré (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --High Contrast (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love Kraftwerks in green surroundings ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Boing peng bumm tschack! Upload nonstop ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it is not a 360 Panorama.   ■ MMXXtalk  02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's the only viewer we have --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Wide image template is also useful, for example you can use it in your user subpages, of course it is more useful for wider panoramas, it's just an idea.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I've put the template on my sandbox for now :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- --Aylaross (talk) 10:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Is it my impression or the photograph is a bit overexposed? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I would say It's rather a tad underexposed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - When you can't defeat them, join them -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, perfect technical quality and relatively interesting subject. --Aqwis (talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know that I'll be the party popper here. I think that in spite of the photo has been professionally taken, the subject is rather unattractive for a FP. A QI would suit it better, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
But holiday pictures are ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Holiday pictures are not necessarily FP material and the same applies to non-holiday pictures. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support certainly more relevant than an oversaturated field. Beautiful composition, nice quality. --Dschwen (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- nice panorama of a power plant, but it's nothing special, & a FP needs to be. i'm not clear why the subject merited the effort; is there something unique, or notable about this facility? i've walked past thousands of simillar, unremarkable buildings in DE, with & without waterfrontage. as re composition: it's not really well balanced left to right; the water side is nicely done, but the trees & equipment on the left neither contrast, nor balance the water particularly well. the cut-off line on the far left is somewhat awkward too. (also the roof pattern is coming out messy on my (lcd) monitor, in anything other than max size?) panoramas are tricky to do as a balanced whole, but that's another reason i don't see this as an FP. it's very nice work on a technical level; very crisp in max res, well stitched together, seams all covered up. wmc should have a better organized system of merits, including technical categories; i would support this for an award for "technical skill, panorama", but it's not really an FP image. who would want to see this as a potd, much less poty? who would care enough about, or be interested enough in the subject, to click it & enlarge? the author seems to have quite a fanbase on wmc, but i don't think this particular image merits all the enthusiasm, sorry. Lx 121 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't forget, everyone sees things differently. While you may consider it just a building, others may percieve something else entirely. I personally enjoy it, but the subject hasn't totally drawn me in. I realise that it has no obvious flaws, and while it may not 'turn me on' it may do so for others, so I don't oppose it. In the end, people will vote how they will, based on whether they like the image, and if it it fulfills their own perceptions as to what 'technical quality' is. It's not a perfect system, and it never will be. But such is the consequence of being born into this chaotic world. Welcome to Commons, make sure you keep your sanity and thick skin firmly in place at all times. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - bravo! --Pudelek (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:OutsideBRX-15.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 16:23:23
professional drumset

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of multiple issues discussed above --ianaré (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (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.
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Oahu from the air 2004.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 00:40:39
Oahu from the air

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Judging from the stretch of ocean visible on the horizon, there's a CCW tilt to the image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for you comment, Notyourbroom and not for opposing the image for tilt that is easy to correct. May I please ask you to take another look and tell me, if it should be rotated some more?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Notyourbroom --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Note to whoever closes this nomination: Dmitry A. Mottl's concern was addressed by a subsequent alteration of the image, so if this appears to be a deciding vote, I encourage you to contact Dmottl to get his final opinion before closing the nomination. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Colours were bit odd, so I made couple adjustments. kallerna 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Kallerna! May I please ask you to feel free to support your edit? :) --Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It needs crop IMO (that "thing" on bottom left is distracting). kallerna 15:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Cropped. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good cleanup work all around :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 07:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see what is the subject; image is chaotic, interesting things are on the borders (ship on the bottom), partially cut out (marina bottom left corner), or out of the picture completely (road on the right lead nowhere) --che 09:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request If you can find a better aerial shot, please submit it to FPC. Or if you have a spare helicopter, I invite you to do a reshoot. :) —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, for your comment Notyourbroom. The image was actually taken not from a helicopter, but from a commercial airplane.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(Dmitry A. Mottl was not contacted regarding his oppose, as it was not a deciding vote.) Maedin\talk 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Amelia Opie by John Opie.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 07:11:01
Amelia Opie

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by John Opie - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Maedin
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think she has such an interesting, attractive face. Maedin\talk 07:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wire light 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 07:34:19
Wire Light

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Stefan from Toronto, Canada - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distracting --Andreas 06 (talk) 13:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bit noisy on bottom. Can I reduce noise and upload new version? kallerna 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better now IMO. kallerna 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No bells ringing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support glorious composition! pure art... er; i mean "highly educational" Lx 121 (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing and no wow. Lycaon (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • *Sigh* Will I ever nominate a picture that you will support? I can die happy then. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe the Belgian flag?? ;-). Lycaon (talk) 15:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Yes, his photos are great, aren't they? It's one of 300 or so I have on my page to nominate. Feel free to nominate any of them if they take your fancy; that is, if we ever run out of Mr. Bartz's insects, Tomas' doors, Mila's ever changing menagerie and of course, your own formidable collection. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmmm I dont get the effect. It's only confusing and the quality isn't good, too --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Beskid Śląsko-Morawski - panorama 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 09:55:09
Moravian-Silesian Beskids in winter

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- if you follow the bottom power line you can see a misalignment, but hardly noticable. -- Peipei (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Salt lake Baskunchak in Astrakhan Oblast (panoramic).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 15:28:02
Salt lake Baskunchak in Russia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- High Contrast (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Uninteresting composition with no obvious central subject. I also don«'t like the centered horizon and the lack of detail (excessive jpeg compression?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Similar reasoning as Alvesgaspar. Not an exciting picture, and it has fewer than 1000 vertical pixels. The fact that it's a panorama brings it up to our megapixel requirements, but it still has a strong "low resolution" feel to it. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. kallerna 11:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar -- Peipei (talk) 11:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Map of Europe, 1923.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 18:59:31
Map of Europe in 1923

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Although Bacon died in 1921, the map shows the borders of 1923-(1929)-1935, so I will have to change the name at the end of this vote. --Alex:D (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A fine map of Europe after WWI drawn by G. W. Bacon. -- Alex:D (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support without hesitation --Zakharii 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Speaking as an American whose commonwealth's boundaries have not been redrawn since a minor reshuffling in 1785 (NY ceded Erie County to PA, PA ceded all other land north of 42N to New York), it's fascinating to see the extreme extent to which national boundaries have been drawn and redrawn over the course of the last century in Europe, and how so many nations like Moldova, Belarus, and Slovenia (to name a random few) simply did not exist in the not-so-distant past. Thanks to my daily spaced repetition memorization sessions, I have memorized all of the modern nations and capitals of Europe, so the differences here are fairly easy for me to spot. Even where new nations have not been created, there are still noticeable discrepancies between national boundaries—like the bite Russia took out of Finland during the Winter War still belongs to Finland on this map. Mesmerizing stuff. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - it is a .jpg map and therefore not very precise or easy to change for translation.--Avala (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Please reconsider your opinion, this is an old map! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Gorgeous! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support highly detailed, great quality (JPG is OK because it is a scan, not a new work) --ianaré (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Avala. For an old work it's not so great, and new work in SVG would be so much more useful. Samulili (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- !!!  :(( -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I respect everybody's opinion, but since opinions are formed according to previous experiences I should make a comment. First of all, I would like you to compare this map with several others from the same period. Bacon's map is not just a political one, with borders, rivers and cities, but also a form of art, one of the most beautiful and representative works of cartography of its time. I didn't propose this image solely for its informational value, but also for these other particularities. Note its "warm", harmonious colors, discrete relief hachures and those little details that makes this map special: steamship routes (historically significant) and time zones. I know many would like a dull, "cold" png map - which, no doubt, is preferable in some ways, and can be correct to the millimeter -, but I wouldn't vote for it to become a featured picture though: it's too common and impersonal. Maps these days aren't what they used to be. --Alex:D (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess I'm biased... I own a number of books of maps (including this excellent one)... but I don't look at historical maps as being "useful." If I want "useful," I'll type a few words into Google. Maps are extremely complicated works of art. They represent the pinnacle of our quest to understand the world—to pare the enormity of the universe down to a whisper of paper—and may only arise through the cooperation of many arts and disciplines. The precision of the astrolabe and compass, the wanderlust of pathfinders far from home, the ambitions of the global-minded, and the tireless passions of artists all mesh together in one harmonious product. That is why this map—and others like it—deserve to be featured. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not understand the opposes, but I guess that holds true for some of mine too.
    I support, cause I like the details and it is an old one of countries and borders of yore. Lycaon (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- as re: some of the above objections: it's not just useful as "a map" of europe, post ww1; this is both "map as art" & "map as historical document". it demonstrates the skill of the mapmaker, & what a map really was & really looked like, in that era Lx 121 (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:€2 Commemorative Coin Monaco.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 19:06:04


Yes, it is--Euroman3 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportSniff (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Otourly (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Roquai (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail. Shame we can't see the other side! Maedin\talk 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No bells ringing, nothing extraordinary here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Value - per Maedin. How a bout a animated gif ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- an attractive coin design, & obviously useful as an illustration of subject both as coin & as person. 2 points: 1. there should be a matching shot of the other side (i don't have time go looking & see if there is one right now), if there is a matching image of the reverse side, they really should be nominated together. 2. should the coin image be rotated slightly? her chin seems to be pointing slightly higher than it should in this orientation; i'm used to thinking of the busts on coins as facing "straight ahead", not tilted upwards. Lx 121 (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as points per Lx 121 --ianaré (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - It is a good picture but doesn't have that FP "feel" to it. Most of the featured pictures i have seen in my (short) experience on Commons make me stop for a few seconds, make me think. This is just a coin. --Moise Nicu (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 23:31:57
Refueling a Fire King Helitanker during firefighting operations in Southern River Western Australia

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra -- A Carson Helicopters S-61N Fire King refueling during fire fighting operations in Southern River, Western Australia. Gnangarra 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gnangarra 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I want so badly to support this, but it is very distracting that the focus changes between different shots in this photo-stitch. If you zoom in and follow the path of the hose, it is obvious where it enters and exits out-of-focus patches. I'll leave it to you as to whether you think this can be fixed with different stitching settings or some other intervention. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The front of the helicopter is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the composition a lot...but the focus is really a bit problematic --AngMoKio (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like the composition a lot...but the focus is really a bit problematic. But I tend to support - need time to bring it into effect --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry, but next time, try to use a smaller aperture or constant focus. --Aqwis (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dendrobates azureus (Dendrobates tinctorius) Edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 19:57:17
Dendrobates azureus (Dendrobates tinctorius)

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Microwaved disks-cover fractal trees-scann Δ0050.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 15:22:59
Mircrowaved Disc

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not spectacular and why so small? Also missing EXIF (would be nice for learning). Lycaon (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. *Please consider alternative instead. Maedin\talk 07:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Alernative, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 00:52

Mircrowaved Disc 2

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Brian0918 and uploaded by Tttrung
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alternate as suggested by Kallerna
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 06:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Hardly any fractal geometry is perceived in the picture. The resolution is far too small for that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support kallerna 11:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 05:28:17
Ulysses S. Grant

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Gastrophysa viridula-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Gastrophysa viridula copulation.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice picture with a great encyclopedic value, but unfortunately insufficient DOF for FP... Question aside: isn't this too pornographic?! ;-) -- MJJR (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Needs parental advisory control first Face-smile.svg---Richard Bartz (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 09:30:13
Coreus marginatus

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Barack Obama Michelle Obama Queen Elizabeth II Buckingham Palace London.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 21:41:29
Obamas and the Queen

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Allstarecho - nominated by Allstarecho -- --ALLSTAR echo 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love the capture of the decore in Buckingham Palace. I hadn't realized how up in age the Queen is getting. Don't think we've seen much of her since the Diana fiasco. And who would have "thunk" years ago that there'd be an African American president and his wife, standing in Buckingham Palace? Quite the pictue.--ALLSTAR echo 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good contemporary document. For an image taken by a professional photographer (which got money for it, I'am shure) I expect something much better (look at the crop on the bottom) - otherwise I'am not too keen in supporting commercial pictures. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This was taken by the official White House photographer. It's not a "commercial" image. --ALLSTAR echo 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that it's not made for sale. But it was a commercial job, respectively part of Obama's 100 days in job PR campaign. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess I just don't see or understand your reasoning. How is it a "commercial job" when it's taken by a federal gov't employee whose job is to take official photos? --ALLSTAR echo 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I dont't know the photographers contract, maybe he's a freelancer. It's just because he works professional and get money for that, therefore my expectations in absolute excellence are very high. It would be a slight difference in my opinion when a Commoner had taken the picture (e.g. you), I could see mitigating reasons because of nervousity or excitement. Simply said, I dont like the crop on the bottom. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral feet cut off, otherwise featureable. --ianaré (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am with Richard on this. The composition is not ideal, and the crop is not proper. --Muhammad (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Richard. Though it has for sure potential for a VI. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image is poorly cropped 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.

. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

  • So as someone who !voted, you get to close it too? Learning something around here everyday, I am. :] --ALLSTAR echo 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
You was faster with your comment than me striking my oppose vote --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Saint_Sebastian_Sculpture.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 21:47:26
Sculpture of Saint Sebastian

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sebastian Bergmann of Flickr.com - uploaded by Thomas Gun - nominated by Thomas Gun -- Thomas Gun (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thomas Gun (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Temporary Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please add more informations and a location info to the image description before we can start reviewing this picture. What we have here ? Where is it from ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree pls add more info about this pic...furthermore i think there is a white balance problem here. Shouldnt the sculpture be white? --AngMoKio (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The image is a sculpture from Rome, it is of Saint Sebastian a Christian saint and martyr, who is said to have been killed during the Roman emperor Diocletian's persecution of Christians. - Thomas Gun (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Colour balance seems weird, exposure solution is not the best, picture doesn't show the whole sculpture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can you add a geo location to the image description, please ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because image quality is poor (colour balance) and the subject is cropped 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => /not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lyttelton Timeball Station.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 21:17:55
Lyttelton Timeball Station

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Karora - uploaded by User:Karora - nominated by User:Karora -- Karora 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Karora 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition can't smooth away the poor image quality -exposure, sharpness, fringing to name a few Regards --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad lighting. --Dschwen (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree with opposers. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image quality is poor (unsharpness, lighting) 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Charles Robert Leslie - Sir Walter Scott - Ravenswood and Lucy at the Mermaiden's Well - Bride of Lammermoor.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 19:26:48
The Bride of Lammermoor

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Charles Robert Leslie and J. Cooper - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special (for FP). Lycaon (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not very pleasing aesthetically. Maybe a QI -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I like it. And, anyway, surely FPC is meant to guide Wikipedias to high-quality imges on various subjects - if iwe accept that Sir Walter Scott is a major novelist, then I think that good illustrations of his work are clearly important. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I especially like that it includes such an interesting caption. Maedin\talk 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Firehole river at Upper Geyser Basin-2008-june.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 19:24:01
Firehole river

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish the vegetation on the right bank were more detailed (it looks a bit posterised to me), but otherwise, this is a wonderfully-composed and captured shot. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. —Notyourbroom (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure quite where you were, but here's a starting point in the Upper Geyser Basin: {{Location|44|27|48.8|N|110|49|52.7|W}} —Notyourbroom (talk) 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 15:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Presumably the underexposure of the vegetation areas results from the necessary exposure to avoid too much saturated white on the geyser itself. And tweaking the gamma to compensate will probably lose the brilliance of other parts of the picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert of Ramsor. You've got it just right! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry to be the opposer again but too many parts are underexposed due to a (imho) wrong chosen exposure. Other parts are oversaturated and quality in general is soso. Composition is nice though. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Please do not worry. There are few more of my nominations for you to oppose. Please do not miss any. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With Robert of Ramsor. A new sensor will give us in some years a larger contrast between dark and light points in the image. Today it is -like we say in German- "ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart".--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Danke schon, Michael. When we had only film and wet chemistry, we didn't have some of these problems, but you didn't know if your photo was OK until days or months later. Too late, then, to do a re-take. Technology improves every year, although I think that the JPG compression and current computer graphics are major limitations. We need systems with RGB ranges 0 to FFF rather than 0 to FF (hexadecimal). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as AngMoKio. Lycaon (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AngMo has adressed the quality issues and I don't think it's the most superior image of yellowstone park, when taking a look at the category. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 1, withdrawn[edit]

ZFirehole river at Upper Geyser Basin-2008-june edit 1.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mm, I like the color saturation of the geyser and the red liquid more in the first version. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I do too, but shhh, please do not tell, AngMoKio. I'm doing my best to please him, but I am afraid I am failing miserably. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Imho it might look nicer but it simply is not realistic as it looks here. In reality the colours are not that intense there (as in the original version). By pushing up the saturation or doing other things with PS, Mbz worsens many of her very nice pictures. I am just stating my opinion. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg this one only--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 2, not featured[edit]

ZFirehole river at Upper Geyser Basin-2008-june edit 2.jpg

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacking sharpness - no concerted light and average composition, sorry. This isn't MBZ at it's its best. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you,Richard, I mean thank you for "it's" .--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wildpferde Tripsdrill.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 20:11:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by Brackenheim. Nominated by -- 62.224.183.66 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 62.224.183.66 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC) No anonymous votes, please. Sign in to vote. Thank you. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Looks like a fantasy drawing. --Lošmi (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically a bit weak (sharpness/contrast) but the atmosphere and composition is great. I guess it wouldn't have a chance at the Wiki FPC's - so here is the place to give it a small acknowledgment. That's fine by me. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 15:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support could be sharper but great atmosphere and composition --ianaré (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support (though no such vote exists in Commons FPC) -- If it weren't for Richard's nice comment (and vote) I would readily oppose this pic on the grounds of unsharpness, overexposure, etc. Maybe FPC is making a better person out of me (or just softer)?... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Even though it isn't sharp, it matches the mood of the photo, which looks very fantasy like. --SuperHamster (Talk) 03:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great atmosphere, but as has already been stated, it suffers from some technical defects. However, these can be overlooked on the basis that conditions were against anyone doing any better. However, if the comment by Aqwis, "and neither do we promote the most "artsy" pictures" is any guide, then this may not be what FP is looking for. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technically far from sufficient, thought the 'atmosphere' may bump it to POTY2009 finalist eventually. Lycaon (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great atmosphere. It does look like a fantasy scene. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should there be a species id? Maedin\talk 12:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes there should be. That said, the id is implied through categorization, but should ideally also be mentioned in the description. Lycaon (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment a geolocation would be a benefit. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate the nature of Richard Bartz's support, but the atmosphere and composition don't make this a support from me. This feels a bit too cheap, like how Disney would try to sell "The Fantasy in the Woods" or something. Maedin\talk 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) 

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

Eudocimus ruber

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry, several problems: the composition is rather poor with the bird centered and the high angle, there's a lot of wasted space around the bird (remember the basic "rules" of photography: the main subject should fill most of the frame and elements that don't add to the picture shouldn't be included in the composition), and the light is too harsh. The technical quality is decent, however, and the colours are great. --Aqwis (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cluttered composition, small and slightly unsharp subject, blown red channel. --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:GIPE25 - Cigognes dans leur nid (by-sa).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ciconia ciconia in fly

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fly on petal.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 11:00:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created,uploaded and nominated by Moise Nicu -- Moise Nicu (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moise Nicu (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute but there are 2 many things which aren't optimal. Lighting, composition - crop, noise .. btw. welcome to COM:FPC ! -Richard Bartz (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks:-). Also, about the noise... Can someone give me some advice on it? Because I took the picture with ISO64 and as far as I know it should not be noisy. Am I doing something wrong or is it just the camera?
I don't use a Nikon camera. I think it's because of a feature similar to Canon's tonal value priority which automatically brightens dark areas - which causes color noise throught excessive overdrive of the sensor - or - 2 much sharpening value in the parameters. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you will find it very difficult to get good 'extreme' macro shots with this type of camera. Flowers, lizards, butterflies etc should be OK if you can keep the noise levels down. --ianaré (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The fly is reasonably sharp, except for the wing and further parts of the body which are almost out of sight anyway. The texture of the petal is visible. The pattern of petals makes a nice idea. The weakness of composition is in too much background in the top half of the picture. I suggest a crop so that this is reduced, placing the eye of the fly at "rule of thirds" location towards the top left-hand corner. We have no reference by which to assess the petal colour, so must assume that it is naturally this vivid yellow. The other weakness is the harsh metallic sparkle on some bits of the fly, especially the magenta and cyan blobs on the top between the wings. It seems that, with the equipment you have (rather than professional kit) you have done fairly well before the fly flew away. But it is not quite up to the standard being aimed at for a relatively common-place subject. Use the experience on FPC lists to give guidance for the future. That is what I try to do, thinking more critically about how to get round the limitations of my camera. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sankt Paulin BW 10.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 14:24:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request As a courtesy to the nominator, please explain why you have voted your opposition to the promotion of this image. Note that the voting instructions request that you provide an explanation for votes of opposition. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

talk">talk]]) 09:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry. The photo deserves to be QI as it is a solid shot. But this centred composition and all those trees in front of the the church are reasons for me to oppose. Also the trees hanging from the left into the pic are distracting. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A centered (or symmetrical) composition is certainly not always a good and valuable reason for opposing. Sometimes it's simply the best way to show a subject, as it is here the case IMO. BTW, the 'distracting' trees at the left are adding some tension to the picture, which make it just less symmetric. After all, the trees are really there, so why do you want to remove them or at least to clone them out of the picture? In our quest to make clean and beautiful pictures, we are more and more violating the reality... and the truth. -- MJJR (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ahm...where did I say to clone them away?! All I want to say is that certain conditions require certain compositions. And this composition doesn't convince me, although it is in general a nice shot - it is just not a FP for me. Btw the other shot where the trees have flowers/leafes is much nicer as this way the trees fit much better into the composition (unfortunatelly the colours are a bit strange there) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but next time please do cut off all the trees before taken the image. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Ok. ;-) For this photograph I waited for the time when there are not so much leaves. In summer it looks like this: Sankt Paulin BW 1.JPG --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose solid shot, probably QI, but nothing mind-boggling. Technical aspects are ok (slight noise in the shadows, resolution is standard), composition seems driven by necessity. --Dschwen (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing wow (summarizing other opposes?). Lycaon (talk) 09:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon and AngMoKio --Jklamo (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Tamarin portrait.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 15:21:13
Tamarin

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The image was taken in SF Zoo. The Tamarins were behind the glass. The glass could not be approached closer than 4 meters because the Tamarins had young File:Emperor Tamarin with babies sf.JPG. BTW the pictured Tamarin is female. I know because in Tamarins males are the ones, who have babies on their backs.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it is quite a fascinating creature, strange that it was named after the German emperor --Zakharii 15:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe the German moustaches of the time had something to do with it? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
looks more chinese .. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in my opinion flashlight is too harsh and the DOF is too low. Composition is soso. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info They are fast moving monkey that hardly sit in one place more than a 1/10 of a second. They were behind the glass with a very, very strong reflection. Here's the image of a visitor touching the glass that is absolutely prohibited to do BTW, but you could see the reflection there. The nominated image is a portrait. What composition a portrait could have? --Mbz1 (talk) 00:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand that those were difficult conditions. A portrait can have many different compositions. Portrait just means that a person or in this case an animal is the main object in the pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 01:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not too fond of the light and the crop. Lycaon (talk) 17:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lighting isn't very good, composition is average. Please add a location info to the image description. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
May I please ask you what is your mood today? I'm asking not because you opposed few of my images (that's fine. I'm always happy, when you pay attention to my images even if this attention results in opposing), but because you asked me to provide a location for an image which is clearly specified at this very nomination as taken in SF ZOO. You did not seem to be interested in the location while supporting few of Luc nominations.You did not even bother to ask what Zoo the images were taken at. Maybe you ask for the location only for the images that you are opposing. Is that it? I mean I understand why AngMoKio asked for the phone number for the beautiful woman, but asking to provide the location for a monkey in a cage... Well, Richard, just for you I added location for my image. Sorry, I could not direct you to the exact cage. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for asking me - my mood is markedly well since spring has arrived Munich at full tilt. Sometimes I forget to ask for the location but thank you for finally adding the location to the description. Regarding opposes - I think it is important to hold onto our FP claim in delivering the best of the best commons has to offer, which I think only less people awares at the moment. FPC is turning into QIC - I cant't admit that - nobody should. Rise up FPC! --Richard Bartz
Discussion about my oppose vote is moved to here --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cute fella, but DOF is to low, detail is lacking. Certainly a good picture, but I don't see it being up there with the excellent ones. --Dschwen (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ixodus ricinus 5x.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 15:28:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Yes, nothing really fancy here -but- an amazing 5x magnification of a ticks head showing it's supermega tiny chelicera. PLAIN WIKIPEDIA STYLE !
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, this is marvelous. The lighting, bokeh, details. How many image stack is this? --Muhammad (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
72! --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Oww, that many. I smell POTY 2009 --Muhammad (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Disgusting and annoying creature! Well, the full picture shows a x150 magnification of the thing! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support disgusting little bastard --ianaré (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Read some tick experiences by Commons photographers here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support hmm...tasty. This one is fresh from your dogs fur I guess and not from your...ah whatever. Face-smile.svg Your story shows again what risks commons-photographers take to make good pictures. I once got bitten in my hand by a horsefly while taking a photo. I saw the fly on my hand but didn't remove it because the photo was more important. Result was a big swollen hand that had to get treated with antibiotics. Though after reading your story I am happy that this fly didn't bite me somewhere else. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • These little suckers are aldo dangerous. In my country they transmit a disease we call 'fever of the tick' which may cause extremly high fevers. During summer most of them are infected! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sieht schlimm aus --Böhringer (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Grausam!!! Absolutely astonishing picture quality. -- MJJR (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As much as I hate them, this is a fantastic image =) --SuperHamster (Talk) 03:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the brother, perhaps going where no one has gone before Not signed contribution by User:CarolSpears 15:53, 25. Apr. 2009 --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Unsigned votes are not counted, I suggest that if you have "support issues" that you don't display them here. -- carol (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request When you guys see an image as encyclopedic as this, please make sure to include it in its appropriate article at your home language wiki. This wasn't used at en:wiki or es:wiki, but I just placed it in tick (en:wiki) and Ixodoidea (es:wiki) due to its amazing EV. And just a note, it seems there's a spelling error here. Based on the en:wiki article, it should be Ixodes ricinus. ~ UpstateNYer 05:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But don't forget Wikipedia is not a trusted source. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, but a quick Google search confirms it (did you mean Ixodes ricinus?). UpstateNYer 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support File name needs correction. Lycaon (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support impressive indeed! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow! --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I hardly ever pile-on, but I have to give support to this. Equally wow and gross! Maedin\talk 20:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- very well done technically & definitely an attention-grabber. i hope it doesn't make poty, tho; in that area, i prefer more attractive subjects! :P personally i'd rather not have the little 1mm scale marker on the FP version, & maybe a little tighter cropping bottom & right; but for educational use, the utility of such things is obvious. this one i'll vote for without reservation Lx 121 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sterna maxima flight.jpg, featured[edit]

Royal tern in flight

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dawn service gnangarra 03.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 02:08:13
Dawn Service ANZAC Day 2009 at the State war memorial in Kings Park, Western Australia Alternate version reduced foreground lighting

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra -- Taken during the dawn service ANZAC Day 2009. Gnangarra 02:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Gnangarra 02:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know it's an ambiental picture, but underexposure of the important part of the picture bothers me. Also, the out-of-focus head near the lower right corner and (I think) a slight clockwise tilt. --Yerpo (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is it just me or the monument and the crowd are too noisy?--Moise Nicu (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture doesn't know if it wants to be a silhouette effect or a nightshot with a vantage point. It's a pity that the memorial isn't illuminated --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • every other morning it is illuminated until sunrise Gnangarra 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Although I expect it will fail on some aspects of technical quality. It may do better under Valued Images for its historical interest. If you had been free to wander around, it would have been useful to take 10 or 20 shots of this scene and offer us an alternative. Such as from about 100 yards to camera right, getting the obelisk closer to the right-hand 1/3 vertical and flag-pole framing the edge. I don't know for certain this would be better composition, just suggesting something to try. Whether or not this makes FP this year, have another go next year and improve some of the technical aspects, especially the bluured heads of the crowd. May need a little more light, closer to sunrise. The reflections on the water work well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wasnt really possible to shift position during(I was there 2 hours before to get a high central position) with 40,000+ plus[1] people there once your in a spot thats it for the duration, unless your in official areas setting up tripods for long exposures just isnt practical. I see the people attending as a intergral part of the event that does mean using levels that increase noise, an alternate silhouette version is File:Dawn service gnangarra 02.JPG. Gnangarra 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the extra information. It explains that you were not able to do much different, and like many of us you have to put up with what is possible, rather than the theoretically ideal conditions and unaffordably expensive cameras people think you have. I like the second version better, especially with the aeroplane included. (When I suggested trying another location I did not realise that there were so many people there. The picture looked a bit like you were at the back of the crowd. We don't get nearly so many people attending events like this in Britain - only football matches and pop concerts.) Thanks for reminding us of this event. I wish you well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I suggest VIC, but for FP the hardware was overstrained. --Dschwen (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:European Hare.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 11:36:38
European Hare camouflaged in its natural environment

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info European Hare camouflaged in its natural environment
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by Spock lone wolf -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 11:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality, nice composition - I like it. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
While I understand usefulness of geolocation tag for photos of places etc., what use it has for animal which can be seen basically everywhere? --Spock lone wolf (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly virtually no use for geolocation for, e.g., a photo illustrating a mass-produced man-made object. However, I think there is some inherent worth in geolocating photos of natural flora and fauna, especially when combined with the date information. I like taking an extreme long-run view for Commons, e.g. that historians of the early digital systems of our species centuries hence may appreciate details that we might consider unnecessary in a contemporary sense. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, added --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think a vertical frame would suit this image better. --ianaré (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I quite like the composition. Might swing to support eventually. Lycaon (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI rather than FP. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Viewed it 10 times but simply can't decide it. Love it but I'am not shure about the amount of gras hiding the upper bodyparts at the expense of value. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice quality, little excitment. A QI for sure. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is so-so, and the hare doesn't stand out. I realise that's the point, in terms of nature, of course, but I think that it also limits this shot to QI. Maedin\talk 21:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. kallerna 16:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much grass. Estrilda (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Rooster crowing close-up.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 12:04:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Taken at sunrise, a rooster crowing. Notice the sharp teeth like structure in its mouth used for mechanical digestion. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I find the use of direct flash here distracting, also composition could be better (more space on the right side of the image). --Spock lone wolf (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
    • At 6.24 am, you don't have many options to capture fast action apart from a flash. --Muhammad (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
That's possibly true, however you still have other options. Using bounced flash if possible, use softbox or diffuser, or use other flash unit not on the camera... But using only direct flash on camera should usually be the last option to fall back. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also not so happy with the flash and the composition, although it is interesting to see the inside of the beak. Size is within guidelines but still very small. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, per wolf. --Aqwis (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ltshears (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support funny picture --ianaré (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per AngMoKio -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Flat flash lighting looks boring. Picture is pretty small by todays standards. --Dschwen (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I never can appeal to flashlight pictures </prayer mill> --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't mind the flash too much (I don't think it's as obvious here as it is in others that pass), but I agree that it's pretty small. I really like this view of the rooster.  :-/ So I'm remaining neutral. And just to show that I'm not an anal perfectionist, I'm going to leave that clumsy and awkward parenthetical statement. It is causing me some distress, though! Maedin\talk 06:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. kallerna 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Basilica Cistern Istanbul.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 15:28:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created,uploaded and nominated by Moise Nicu -- Moise Nicu (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moise Nicu (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- The quality might not be the best but then again it was dark and i didn't have a tripod.Moise Nicu (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No, no FP material IMO. Quality is far away from excellent, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality --ianaré (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per previous opposers. --JY REHBY (discuter) 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. kallerna 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Leopard---Panthera-pardus-saxicolor---Face---(Gentry).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 12:24:20
Face of Panthera pardus saxicolor

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gentry - uploaded by Gentry - nominated by Gentry -- Gentry (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Colors look very artificial, full size image shows a lot of chroma noise especially around the nose. --Chmehl (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality and crop --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose serious quality issues. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of serious quality problems due to post-processing errors --ianaré (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (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.
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Baccha bequaerti.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 13:57:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Everything Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute composition but I don't like the harsh frontal flash lighting at the expense of plasticity and exposure. Good but not perfect. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral composition is nice. But I really wonder why the resolution is so low. The bar for bugs is really high as we have many high-res shots there. You are shooting with a 400D...why don't you upload the full res pic? --AngMoKio (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Firstly, the insects do not usually cover the entire frame and there needs to be a large portion of image to be cropped out as empty space. Secondly, you may be aware, I live in Tanzania where the internet speeds are quite mediocre. I upload images with as much resolution as my upload speeds permit me. Larger files usually fail to upload as my connection dies. Typically a 500kb file takes about 10-15mins to upload, sometimes taking upto 30 mins. You see my predicament :( --Muhammad (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not good enough for FP (lighting, detail, size). Might be a VI though. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When I rotated it into portrait format it looks nice, too --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah but for the sake of reality, I did not rotate; ;) --Muhammad (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral would support at higher resolution, sorry --ianaré (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Alvesgaspar -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I still find this detailed and I don't see anything wrong with the lighting. Maedin\talk 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by Maedin --Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The eyes are definitely not with a black frame and the natural appearance isn't metalic. The harsh flashlight is at the expense of value. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The lighting isn't that harsh(I used a diffuser) and it better to have some detail than none at all due to motion blur. --Muhammad (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
The best is natural looking light without motionblur Face-smile.svg. The max for a flash is 1/200 on your cam but your shutter speed could be much higher - I can reach 1/320 with 400 ISO and f/10 and on that day it was very windy, too. No need for flashlight. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
My picture was taken a few mins before sunset, so unfortunately it was pretty dark and I have never seen the overfly again since then :( --16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the bitter reality of macro photographers :-/ --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. That's why I shouldn't be here. Maedin\talk 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
? I don't understand.--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not being clear! I meant that, as I lack expertise in both the subject matter and in photography, there are times when I should refrain from both commenting and voting, :-) Your comment pointed out the error in mine: that perhaps the lighting isn't ideal. It was my rather obtuse way of showing that I accepted your comments. Maedin\talk 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't wanted being dogmatic, but sometimes there are important points we shouldn't overlook and must oppose when necessary, what doesn't mean that the image is bad or ugly. As en example: At german FPC which has a big community, there are many users which have the opinion that most of Commons FP's doesn't have any, respectively less EV, which IMO is true for some. Our most important guideline which is the only one in bold letters states: Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others - great :-/ - now comes the stupid schizophrenic part - I love a lot of the images I had to oppose - but the problem is the place (relation to wikipedia) and the imperative FPC project scope. Sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard Bartz - we have very high standards for macro shots. kallerna 17:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Nothing good comes easy. I will keep eyes open for this one --Muhammad (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Schweriner Schloss blau.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 14:28:57
Schwerin Castle in the evening Sun

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by backslash - uploaded by backslash - nominated by backslash -- Backslash (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Backslash (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral in general the composition is nice. But I have some problems with it: I would prefer the castle on the left side. This way the bridge or the right side in general seems cut-off to me. The interesting front of the castle should face to the middle of the pic. Overall quality and sharpness is so-so. It looks as if the pic had to go through a heavy noise-reduction (especially on the trees), which I don't really understand as the photo was made with a 50D at iso 100. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Looks very nice in preview. The perspective of the building looks very strange. The towers on the middle corner seem divergent. Quality - could be more crisper, light contrast between front, side and foreground is a tad to much. I like it --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Agreed about the towers — are the edges of the roofs really tilted, or did someone do a bad perspective correction on it? Composition might work even better if one were to crop off the tree in the distance on the left. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't perfect IMHO. kallerna 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wallingford castle ruins.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 21:18:32
Walingford (Oxfordshire, UK) Castle Ruins - Remains of Saint Nicholas college

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pitou250 - uploaded by Pitou250 - nominated by Pitou250 -- Pitou250 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pitou250 (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good overall quality, but crop is too tight on top. Also perspective seems tilted and/or distorted. --ianaré (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Well, I disagree that overall quality is good, even od 1280 px width the tower is blurry, picture is also tilted. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, tilted. kallerna 16:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Lacerta agilis zelenci c.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 16:22:16
Lacerta agilis female

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Lacerta agilis female at natural reserve Zelénci (spring that is the source of the river Sava Dolinka, Slovenia) All by -- Pinky sl (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pinky sl (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 20:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC), added --Pinky sl (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Possible QI, but lighting is not good enough for FP --ianaré (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad angle, artificial background. --Dschwen (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The species' determination isn't correct. This is not a female Lacerta agilis but probably a male Zootoca vivipara. -- Fice (talk) 09:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • How can you tell? Maybe I agree because there were many of them and they were all brown an I am not an expert. --Pinky sl (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • See my answer here. -- Fice (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as ianare said you can try QI, it is a nice catch but for FP not enough --AngMoKio (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'am sorry to say that even the quality isn't that great regarding lighting and composition. Focus is ok. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Dschwen. kallerna 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Jamaica Bay Canada Goose.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 19:32:02
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Sorry, I don't get you --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I mean that the subject is not the same sitting vs. flying bird is quite different for photography so should be the expectations.--Avala (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, now i get you - thought you ment it's a different species. Well, a picture which shows the whole animal including his feet or in an action is much more valuable. In my opinion a featured picture should get promoted for QI and VI with ease but I don't see this here. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Its good but a bit dark in the shadows, IMHO QI but not excellent. --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the two pictures are definitely different enough to warrant both being FPs. --Aqwis (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI, yes, but crop too tight and bad lighting that destroyed the contours around head/beak. Good, but not excellent. --Dschwen (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose i'd also say that you should try QI. For FP it is not enough i think. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Yellow cast. As it stands not even QI for me. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 07:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Bettycrocker (talk) 4:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Storm approaching.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 17:25:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dark clouds and blur in the background trees indicating strong winds, indicators of a storm. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the photo (the composition, more specifically) does not say that by itself. If you would not say about the storm, I would not get what the photo is about. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ??? --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing... ...wait for it... ...special! Oh that feels good. :-D. No sorry, but seriously, what is your rationale for nominating this? I just cannot think of one. --Dschwen (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I saw many ordinary images this week and I took a chance of nominating one of my own. --Muhammad (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't quite understand that. That only makes sense if you were just interested in maximizing your FP count by taking advantage of temporary low standards, rather than trying to help the project by contributing outstanding pictures and keeping the standard at FPC high. Surely you want the latter, don't you? Or were you just making a point with this nomination? --Dschwen (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
        • I nominated the image seriously and in good faith as I though it was a pretty decent image with good mood and lighting. My comment above was probably not required.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmm nothing interesting. --Aktron (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Richard :) --AngMoKio (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Back to my insects I s'ppose Face-smile.svg --Muhammad (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator not featured.--Richard Bartz (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Szubin.Anna.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 13:34:54
Closed church of St. Anna in Szubin - once belonging to the prisoner-of-war camp Oflag 64 and Stalag XXI-B

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not a convincing composition. There are for example parts of trees hanging into the pic especially on the left side. Also the colours seem a bit strange to me. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too straight composition/crop for my taste. Colors are indeed a bit odd (yellow cast) --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per AngMoKio. Plus, the foreground is very distracting. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmm I don't like the colors here. --Aktron (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg Albertus teolog (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Anableps anableps (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 22:45:13
Anableps anableps (Linnaeus 1758)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This Four-eyed fish (Anableps anableps) is swimming in streaming water over white and black sand. The streaming water shows colorfully reflection.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment fish color appears unnatural --ianaré (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thanks. I brightened the blue colour of the four-eyed fish.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated and deformed (by the water). Ideally should show the eye structure, but that may be too much to ask. Lycaon (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please have a look into the Wikipedia. There you can read: "The four-eyed fishes only have two eyes each, but the eyes are specially adapted for their surface-dwelling lifestyle. The eyes are positioned on the top of the head, and the fish floats at the water surface with only the lower half of each eye underwater. The two halves are divided by a band of tissue and the eye has two pupils, connected by part of the iris. The upper half of the eye is adapted for vision in air, the lower half for vision in water. The lens of the eye also changes in thickness top to bottom to account for the difference in the refractive indices of air versus water." It is impossible to see the complete eye in the file. The eye is devided in two parts: one eye is lying over the water, the other eye is lying under the water. Therefore you can only see the upper eye over the water and under that the reflexion of the water over the deeper eye. You write: "Oversaturated and deformed (by the water). Ideally should show the eye structure, but that may be too much to ask." I think: That's no reason to oppose. But you could not know any better: this is in general the only fish with four eyes. Therefore I made this image. I think, it is interesting, to see this.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, sure, that's second year's stuff. That's why I didn't insist on the eye structure, which would have needed a lens at the water/air interface. My oppose is in the first part of the sentence I wrote. Lycaon (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry Michael, I don't like your style. All your pictures here are oversaturated. This type of oversexing may be appropriate for flickr, for commons it isn't. --Dschwen (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Dschwen. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For FP it should be a perfect reference regarding colors. --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. kallerna 16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Wooden cats.JPG, withdrawn -> not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 22:13:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Wooden cats at the Xmas market in Osnabrück, Germany.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but DOF is very low, sorry. I haven't opposed when there was at least 3 or 4 cats in good focus. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dof, composition. kallerna 11:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg -- Meow!!! -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Woof !!! --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Calidris alba group edit.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 22:54:39

Calidris alba group

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now this one works for me. Nice work! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support even better. Lycaon (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Equally fascinating! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unnecessary clone-job :-( --Dschwen (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Where has the clone-job been performed? Now I see, at the left lower corner. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, poor clone job in the lower-left corner. The lower-right corner would be a far better candidate for "clonage", in my opinion. --Aqwis (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I used the LR corner in order to add sand to the LL corner. Do you think you would have noticed it was cloned without seeing the original at the top (no sarcasm intended) ? --ianaré (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Swine Flu Masked Train Passengers in Mexico City.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 00:37:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard Bartz & others ... changed my mind. --ianaré (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It has some 24 feeling about it --Muhammad (talk) 07:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great! --Moise Nicu (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Sorry, but to promote the picture is taking the guidelines way too far. This is hardly a difficult subjet! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very nice image. Quality is ok -- Pro2 (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, bad quality, but quite interesting. --Aqwis (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • weakSymbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition. But there are quality issues. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Quality is really insufficient with all the noise. Lycaon (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose VI rather than FP. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'am sorry but can't see any value because of a missing context. Besides lacking quality, the picture itself explains nothing to me without a description text - but that's not the way a good press picture works. It could be a very good picture when one of the persons would hold a newspaper with a huge headline about swine flu in his hands. A different example - think about a march, a picture of a crowd without signs gives you no context. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Plus, the onlooking passengers add bias: almost looks like they were seeded there. Bobjgalindo (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow included, strong context for me. --Jklamo (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality, no wow IMHO. Sry. kallerna 16:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not special enough. I heard that almost 2000 people died in traffic accidents in Mexico in the time since the flu started. --Estrilda (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Estrilda. --Karel (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a good and strong (in the context) image. --Addicted04 (talk) 02:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:House in Cappadocia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 02:19:41
House in Cappadocia

I do not think it is a good enough reason to oppose the image. This image is a good addition to the one you pointed out because it shows a close up of the house and even some furniture.I'm not sure which one of the two is more outstanding, but IMO each of them is more outstanding than many other cureent FP and FPC on this very page.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Your previous photo nicely shows context (+ excellent composition). I can't tell the same about this one. What I meant to say with "not as outstanding as" was that the composition of this photo does not pay off. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is an absolutely different image of absolutely different subject. I am really not sure how two of them could be compared, but ... Thanks for you vote and for your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Tiago. Can't see an addition --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I think this is a sort of messy, colourless shot with a seemingly arbitrary crop. Lots of things cut off and unfortunately eye-catching trees in the bottom right. Maedin\talk 20:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Maedin --Lycaon (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I agree with Maedin. It's also quite oversharpened. --Aqwis (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks strangely overprocessed. The crop seems arbitrary. And it is not absolutely different, in fact it is most likely taken from the same vantage point as File:Cappadocia_March_2006.jpg (the structures from this candidate are visible in the lower right). --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, although I cannot agree with your assessment of my image, I'd like to thank you for voting on it. I missed your reviews on my nominations for quite some time. I am really glad we're back to normal :), and that you are back on reviewing FPC. I mean it. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. So what did you do with the image that makes it look somewhat like an old photochrome postcard? --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I honestly cannot remember. Maybe sharpened it a litlle bit too much. If you'd like me to I could upload an original image (I hope I still have one) and let you to figure out what I've done to it. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2010 at 10:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Antonio da Trento (c.1508-c.1550) after a design by Francesco Parmigianino (1503-1540) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A version of this was nominated about a year ago; however, this is a completely new restoration.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per lack of issues. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question and what about Il Parmeggiano ? --Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • He was mentioned on the image description page, but I've added in a note here as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Withdraw Due to incidents on en-wiki, I feel ashamed I have ever worked on Wikipedia, and that I ever agreed to return after the first bit of harassment by en-wiki's arbitration committee. It's clear that that is never going to change, that even having been forced to admit, publicly, to major ethical lapses in their first bit of harassment only made them more upset at me. I feel the entire Wikipedia system is corrupt, because those in power have decided they are gods. I cannot continue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Why exactly should we give a crap about en-wiki incidents here? This image may still be usefull for the remaining zillion Wikimedia projects. I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a withdraw! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You want to know why?

I'll tell you why. Here's what the Arbcom on en-wiki has done in just the last month or so. You can figure out the context yourself.

1. Rlevse oversights links to the offline copy of the log about Durova, which was my main bit of evidence against Durova. This greatly escalates the case, forcing me to take it to Arbcom, because that's the only way I can have the log considered, since Rlevse is determined to abuse her tools to protect Duurova. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

1a. I mail the Oversight committee about this. I get a message saing it was awaiting moderation, then nothing. I send it again, I'm told it's being discussed, but they forgot to tell me. I send two or three messages after this, asking if I'll be informed of the result. None are ever replied to.

2. During the case, Durova is allowed to go over the word limit, but if I do, I get a warning. I allow my text to be redacted once, because I was so upset over the Faysall's talking about how Durova should apologise, at which point I will immediately work with her on a project, treating two years of her using me as a scapegoat as something I should go back to, so the Arbcom doesn't have to bother. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2a. When I briefly go over again during the course of a major, three horu revision fo my statement, I get some weird edit conflicts along the way. I don't know why, so I just save over them, so I can get my thoughts together. IT turns out some clerk was constantly reverting to a reduced form of the FIRST EDIT I MADE, even as I was still trying to get my words together. In the meantime, Durova's wordcount stood at about 576, and no redaction happened to hers. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2b. I find out about this when done, and go to deal with it. I tell the clerk it will take a short time to work on it, and point out the problem with Durova. I complain about the uneven treatment, so he blocks me. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2c. The clerk then spends 2 hours being an utter dick, holding the block over my head, while poking me with a stick. He only unblocks if I promise to leave his highly misleading redaction alone. 2d. Durova's statement remained over the word count during this time. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

3. Durova outright lies, claiming, based on me giving permission for her to post a specific log which backed an outrageous claim she made - and was never able to back - that she can post any logs she wants, because her Skype is saved as one log. She actually quotes from e-mails. The Arbcom are unconcerned with her behaviour, or that this new statement of hers is around 1500 words. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

4. The fact that she lied about having permission, was unable to back an accusation which she had made on ANI before, claiming she had the log at that time, does not concern Arbcom. They decide that, despite me having been driven off Wikipedia for 5 months by her actions, and her not having a lick of evidence against me, that they should ignore her behaviour. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA?

5. Durova is allowed to make constant references to the situation which set off the case at en:Talk:The Raven, even make snide comments about logs containing my objection to her orientation. All this questioning was being done by other people. They are fine with this. But, when something I made on commons - which they explicitly excluded from their judgement - having seen what she was doing on en-wiki at en:Talk:The Raven gets put up as an FP candidate on en-wiki, and I politely ask that it not be used, because I had had to make do with some non-FP quality work, they block me for the maximum duration. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA


After Durova spent two years harassing me, they have decided to show blatant and obvious favouritism to her, while poking fun of me. And this while knowing I was in a vulnerable state for various reasons, had just returned after five months away due to the harassment, and had only in the last week returned to participation. Then they pull the last stunt, and taunt me about it.

English Wikipedia's power structure is blatantly corrupt. And anything I do here supports those people over there. That's why you should care about en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, first of all what you do here supports the readers of en.wp. Why punish them? Secondly why punish the remaining Wikimedia projects too? --Dschwen (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Anas Platyrhynchos in Stockholm 090416 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 11:14:01
en:Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) in en:Stockholm. Note that this differs from the rest in that it shows the feet. (Also note that a piece of an icecream cone has been retouched away.)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Peipei - uploaded by Peipei - nominated by Plrk -- Plrk (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Plrk (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Peipei (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- If anyone wants to do a better job of removing the ice cream cone at the legs, drop me a note and I'll give you the source. -- Peipei (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sub-optimal lighting, head out-of-focus (compare with File:Male mallard duck 2.jpg and File:Male mallard3.jpg). --Aqwis (talk) 12:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral right now I can't even find the spot where the cone was - so it seems you removed it quite well :) The head could be a bit brighter otherwise nice shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the dull lighting - the nice species-specific shimmering of the head-neck feathers isn't visible as a example. I'am afraid to say that we have much better FP's of mallards. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, of poor lighting and a high standard for this particular species due to several existing FP --ianaré (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment FPX may be a bit harsh, especially since the image got already two supporting votes. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    Not that harsh, considering that the two supports are the uploader and the nominator ourselves... Plrk (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That said, I do agree with Richard however. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, FPX should be used for obvious cases only. This is, technically, a high-quality image, but with unfortunate lighting. If it didn't have so many oppose votes already I'd have expected it to gain a few support votes eventually. --Aqwis (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • FPX doesn't devalues a picture. It accelerates (in all fairness) the closing procedure when there seems no chance of success - instead of - cashing in a flood of unpleasant oppose votes. FPX is good - a long dead is sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cell 18.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 17:48:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cell 18 of old city jail in Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico. A study in texture and colors. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you.—Notyourbroom (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Location has been added.—Notyourbroom (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like what I see, but would like to see the entire door below the number. --ianaré (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose don't like the composition. Lycaon (talk) 10:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition and context --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor composition. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Maedin\talk 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it too. kallerna 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0195.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 18:11:44
Bald eagle

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Head details of an Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); all done by Jörg Hempel -- LC-de (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LC-de (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would have chosen a slightly wider crop but it is still ok. Nice eagle portrait in a high quality. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Light is very dull. I would support a brighter version. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although I do agree with Richard. --Aqwis (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The crop is tighter than I would prefer and the lighting is dull, but I don't think it detracts from the subject, which is still very clear and detailed, even in thumbnail. Maedin\talk 21:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just minor changes (brighter light) and I would support. I'll make alternative version. kallerna 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Kallerna. --Estrilda (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Cell door detail.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 18:26:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Spider which catches the insect.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 08:53:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by [[User:masaki ikeda (talk)|]] - uploaded by [[User:masaki ikeda (talk)|]] - nominated by [[User:masaki ikeda (talk)|]] -- masaki ikeda (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- masaki ikeda (talk) 08:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry it is a nice idea but it is by far too fast. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose way 2 fast Face-smile.svg .. crazy --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too fast. kallerna 11:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Ktip.svg Idea How about nominating some of the single frames as an image set at COM:VIC ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Can someone please stop the room ? I'd like to get off --ianaré (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somehow causing me seizure. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hmm it is seizure-like, a nice video from tripod made like .ogv would be much more suitable. --Aktron (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the missing inbetween frames causing a too fast and distracting animation --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (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.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. Far too fast. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => FPX -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fallow Deer.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 21:37:19
Fallow Deer (Dama dama (Linnaeus, 1758))

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Spock lone wolf -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Fallow Deer (Dama dama (Linnaeus, 1758))
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can you please add a location info to the image description, where you took the picture .. e.g. zoo, sanctuary --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
This picture was taken in the forest, I added geolocation tag (very approximate though, because I really don't know on which exact place I encountered this deer) --Spock lone wolf (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Was it really not taken in a sanctuary ? I ask because this picture was taken at 17:38, 30. Aug. 2007, 12 minutes later you took a picture of a mouflon File:Mouflon.jpg .. it happens very rarely that one is surrounded by so many wildlife in a forrest. A very short time with such a close distance. I'am a bit sceptical ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground is very distracting --Muhammad (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I never found it that bad, but it's true that it's a whole fallen tree. I had no chance to get above it this time while crawling towards the deer, the photo is taken half second after it saw me and half second before it ran off. Maybe some other time it'll be better :) --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Muhammad, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lucky shot, if it weren't for the foreground... --Dschwen (talk) 01:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice catch of the moment of encounter between the man and wild animal imo, and the quality is very good. --Lošmi (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, it's not just a fallen tree, it's a fallen tree that's completely out-of-focus. If it was (more) in-focus it would at least have fit in with the forest environment. --Aqwis (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although this is not something to put in biology book, it's a great picture and an excellent illustration for tracking/hunting etc. --che 16:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A difficult subject to capture well in the wild, and an admirable effort. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to bring us such an ineresting and unique shot. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose definite QI and a great shot, but unfortunately OOF foreground is too distracting for FP --ianaré (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred lower half ruins it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The foreground - sorry. kallerna 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Chrumps (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Set nomination: The Winterfelds' Diptych, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 23:18:29
The Winterfelds' Diptych - revers of left wing The Winterfelds' Diptych - avers of left wing

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by unknown medieval painter - uploaded and nominated by Ludmiła Pilecka (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ludmiła Pilecka (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Reluctant oppose - halftoning. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support resolution is high and subject commendable --Zakharii 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support strongly nice res, i like when an art scan shows the small details in both art & surface condition. colour seems fine; where do you see halftoning? Lx 121 (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the best scan from a book with disturbing half-toning. Lycaon (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but I have to agree about the halftoning. Where do you see surface condition? --Dschwen (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me, but would probably benefit from restoration. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • So how about first restoring then nominating?! --Dschwen (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Apple blossom 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 01:53:01
James Greve apple blossom

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was surprised to find very few images of apple blossom (unless they have not been put in the correct category) and mostly too low resolution for FP. No apple blossom at all in FP. So here is something to fill that gap. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor composition --ianaré (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot level, sorry. I can't see a planned light - or compositional concept behind this picture. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Richard. You should maybe consider a less centred composition. In general the composition is a bit cluttered, the eye doesn't really know where to look. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Richard. Flowers are pretty, but this picture does not go the extra mile to stand out from the tons of flower snapshots. --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

alt 1, not featured[edit]

Apple blossom 02.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is because I could not decide between the two. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks to MBz1 for the reminder. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the composition here better. The tender new flower suraunded by flower buds is very nice IMO. Please do not forget to support your own Alt 1.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot level, sorry. I can't see a planned light - or compositional concept behind this picture. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The light was full sunlight, with the background in shadow, which is why it happens to have ended up so dark. Which is a good thing as the ground below this bracnh was untidy. I considered lightening the background by adjusting the gamma, but lack the software to isolate the flowers neatly enough. (And printers often lighten the picture anyway.) The change in gamma made the flowers look whited-out. The exposure was limited by the need to avoid saturated white on the petals. And having had another picture taken in passing cloud cover on a sunny day rejected because of the light, I thought it would be better to use he full sun option. (You can't satisy everyone all the time.) Composure, aiming at this bloom as the best isolated bunch at the time, leaning from the top of a ladder, was planned to avoid putting the main bloom exactly central, and this was the sharpest of 3 (there were others, but being perched on the ladder they were cropped) which worked along these lines. Perhaps I should cut the branch off the tree, and place it in a studio with full control over everything. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think a studio isn't needed for such subject. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard -- Pro2 (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Richard. Flowers are pretty, but this picture does not go the extra mile to stand out from the tons of flower snapshots. --Dschwen (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Opposecomposition-wise it is better than the upper one but the bar for flowers is really high as for bugs btw. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lycaon (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard Bartz. --Karel (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 2, not featured[edit]

Apple blossom 02A.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Alt 1 but variant with some cropping to reduce superfluous areas in the hope of improving composition. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per my previous vote --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Alt 3, not featured[edit]

Apple blossom 02B.jpg

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment As Alt 2 but with sharpness and resolution degraded to match more closely the general quality of up to half the existing flowers now in Featured Pictures. And this is still better than any of the previous examples in the Malus domestica blossom category. OK, it may not be good enough for Featured Pictures by 2009 standards, if the bar is as high as AngMoKio says. But it would have made Featured Picture at this sharpness and resolution 2 years ago if the existing examples are any guide. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness and resolution not as good as Alt 2 -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per my previous vote plus no need for bold text. Is everything ok with you ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for lowering the volume --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:President Barack Obama reflects.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 19:26:53
President Barack Obama reflects.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Allstarecho - nominated by Allstarecho -- --ALLSTAR echo 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- --ALLSTAR echo 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't think the image has the value or quality to be featured. Maybe if the man were sleeping?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose When excluding the fact that this person is the new president of the united states I find this picture blank. Besides that I don't like all the surrounding distracting elements. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is really not convincing. There are many distracting things in the picture that don't add anything to the composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)--AngMoKio (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very distracting foreground --ianaré (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I agree that we shouldn't promote all pictures of Obama just because he's president. --Aqwis (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Aqwis. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose kallerna 17:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- it's an important picture (as history) as a part of documenting the obama presidency, & it's not that bad; cropping might help. if skillfully cropped, it might make a media front page, but even then i think it would be, at best, marginal as an FP on here. we should define {categories/rankings} of {merit/quality/importance} with more precision on WMC. the current 3: valued, quality, feature; aren't adequate as a system (more work is needed, as well, on other aspects of the organization of technical categories, such as documentation,tracking, & tagging of how images are altered, for example). i would vote Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose here, but it doesn't seem necessary. Lx 121 (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scene has some potential, but there's too much distracting elements --S23678 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Olga Kurylenko by Mikolaj Kirschke Wikipedia cropped.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 08:54:48
Olga Kurylenko

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Grubel - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please add her telephone number to the summary. It is required for FP right? ;) Ok seriously now, I'd actually prefer the uncropped version, which still needs some noise-reduction. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the tight crop LS and the disturbing shadows on her face. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Agree with AngMoKio, and geolocation would be nice... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • From this description it is apparent that the picture was made in Paris. However, I do not know where. I would like to have the author's comment. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Geolocation Albertus teolog (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm abstaining out of outright envy. Why couldn't I look like that? /me trudges away... Maedin\talk 20:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    • C'mon, chin up! ...if you want you can also give me your telephone number :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, that perked me up! Excellent suggestion, ;-) Maedin\talk 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after a while... nice candid portrait... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer the uncropped one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice-to-have picture, but the composition and background look pretty accidental. I've seen better portraits. --Dschwen (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support captivating and attention catching, that´s precisely what FP should be able to do - to captivate the attention of the viewers. Expressive look and eyes against a dark background serve well this purpose --Zakharii 07:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Richard --Muhammad (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful women --Pudelek (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Chrumps (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as said above...prefer the uncopped version. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Aren't you afraid that by opposing the image, you would never get the phone number for Olga? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Indigents tj.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:33:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition is so-so, but mainly because it's blurry --ianaré (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even though there seem to be some message behind this photo (indigents seating in front of a fast food restaurant), the composition does not pay off. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have no idea why this picture was nominated for FP. --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, overall low quality. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per R. Bartz. kallerna 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not see any reason for nomination. --Karel (talk) 09:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks pretty casual as a shot for me. --S23678 (talk) 05:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Sex shop tj.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:47:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Hydrangea macrophylla petals.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 20:38:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Such a simple subject, yet such a beautiful photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose pretty, but yes, flowers are pretty and I don't see what lifts this picture above the countless other flower shots. --Dschwen (talk) 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's a good point. This photo shows the colors details of an Hydrangea macrophylla that grows in a soil with medium to high levels of acidity (low pH), which results in pale blue colors of the flowers (petals) rather than a vivid blue (that is a color commonly present in this kind of flowers along with pink and white colors). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Dschwen and no bells ringing Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since you seem to be suffering from a lack of bells lately, I went and found you some. May they ring loud and clear for you. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the bells! The metaphor of the 'bells ringing' I heard it a long time ago in a motion picture with the meaning of 'being in love'... FP have both components: the technical and the artistic one. Some prefer saying 'no wow'-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment At least some outstanding sense of humor between these harsh oppositions :D Tiago Fioreze (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, you know what they say, there are two things you shouldn't ever lose; your sense of humour and your towel. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Zakharii 08:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blue color is very nice but that's all what I like, I'am afraid. How about a picture with a comparrison - pale blue, pink and white colors ? Nicely arranged with perfect focus. --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pro2 (talk) 14:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not bad at all. I like the composition. But the DOF is insufficient IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As MJJR but opposing. Lycaon (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Same opinions, different votes... how "unbiased" this is!!! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is no bias at all here. Same opinions, indeed: we both appreciate the qualities of the picture. But for Lycaon the lack of DOF is just a little bit more decisive than for me, I suppose. Hence the difference in the 'final judgement'. -- MJJR (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Exactly how it was meant. Lycaon (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ltshears (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen --Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I really really like the composition and colour, only the dof is insufficient, :-( Maedin\talk 21:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Really beautiful, quality could be better. kallerna 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Old lock 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 22:29:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice eye for composition, good quality, interesting detail study. --Dschwen (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I read the page from top to bottom and didn't see the other version at first. This is nice, but redundant. I prefer the one below. --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Elaborated on description and copied over a geotag from another jail image. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNotyourbroom (talk) 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question It is pretty, but is it meant as an alternative to the other one? To me they look identical, save for the cropping, which is allowed as a derivative anyway according to Common's licensing. We are then basically trying to promote two version of the same image which is unfortunately not allowed! Lycaon (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, I did not present it as an alternative to the other one nor did I think of it as such. Yes, same subject, but different treatment. It is a close up of a section, a different picture that has another level of texture and abstraction. However, I can see your point. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I prefer the one below Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No addition for the one below --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose have to agree with Richard and Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me, but the one below is better indeed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard Bartz. kallerna 16:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Estrilda (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Rockface.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 04:52:17
An eroded rock formation near Furnace Creek, Death Valley, Ca.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] - uploaded by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] - nominated by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] -- ~nathan~ (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ~nathan~ (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, quality is very poor, with obvious artifacts Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- i know the photographer; image was shot on film & digitized in processing. full-sized view is the image max-rezzed; try an intermediate size setting. any image breaks down if you magnify it far enough. composition, colour, focus are extremely good. framing is better than a lot of the FP landscape noms on here. Lx 121 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- the photographer/uploader is new on wmc; pls don't bite! ;P Lx 121 (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Don't panic, nobody will bite him :-) - but I ask myself when he's new why he went straight to the most holy place on commons ? As Lycaon has proposed it would be a good idea to firstly look around at Commons:Photography critiques before cashing in a flood of unpleasant oppose votes. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beginners should try Commons:Photography critiques first, your removal of the FPX template was not warranted. Lycaon (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- it's my right as a voter; try & remember how your first few FP's went... Also, the person who placed the FPX template was in such a hurry, they didn't even bother to correct the spelling in their comment. that suggests both haste & a lack of manners, sorry. Lx 121 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - The FPX template has a dual purpose: to avoid unecessary humiliation to sub-standard nominations and to keep the FPC page cleaner for the pictures which have real chances of promotion. If the closing were done as planned, those nominations were removed from the page in 24 hours after the FPX template being used. There is no intention to punish newcommers but, as Richard Bartz has suggested, this is the right place for evaluating the best pictures in Commons and might not be very friendly for casual nominees. It is really a good idea to start atCommons:Photography critiques or even at Commons:QIC before trying the much harder FPC. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Better Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose now then delist later. Quality is very poor, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture looks really cool too. The texture on the bottom hills remind me of elephants. :D Masterasbian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
C'mon how cheap it is to send sockpuppets. What do you think - FPC is comedy ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
please see my response to your comment on the listing above Lx 121 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose serious quality issue. Scanning of old printouts is not the easiest thing. As Lycaon said: try Commons:Photography critiques, there might be people who can give you tips about that topic. --AngMoKio (talk) 06:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- (for the 3rd time) it's not a scan of an old print. i know the photographer. i asked nathan to join wmc so i could use his material on wikip. he shoots on film, likes colour saturation the old-fashioned way; also likes long exposures & darkroom work old-school. the pics were shot on film & transferred to digital in processing. the full-sized version is a max-res of the original film. i agree the full-sized versions need technical improvements; clearly, it would be good to improve those aspects. frankly, i was more interested in the overall quality of his compositions & their usefulness on wikip articles. the photo-technical details aren't really relevant for my work, as long as the image looks decent on the article & on the file page. i'd also like to get geo-tags (something i have nvr dealt with previously). ...i'm hoping to get some musician friends to contribute next. i hope the jury is more merciful on them! :P Lx 121 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You know the problem is that we have VI and QI to identify pictures of high value and good quality. FP should really be limited to a small amount of pictures that really stand out. But the picture in this nomination doesn't stand out. It is not a too difficult shot and it is of poor quality. In general it is a nice shot - but that is not enough for FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice framing, but image quality is sub-par. --che 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise --S23678 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Originmono.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 04:45:15
Mono Lake, Ca. Small Tufa and the Eastern Sierra Nevada reflecting

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] - uploaded by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] - nominated by [[User:~nathan~ (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)|]] -- ~nathan~ (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ~nathan~ (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, quality is very poor, with obvious artifacts and no detail Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, it doesn't have that little detail but there's too much noise. Was it scanned from an "analogue" picture? --Aqwis (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lots of dirt, lots of sky, very little subject. Quality is substandard, looks upsampled, but could be scanning artifacts. Very noisy. May have been a nice sight, but the picture is not even close to being FP. --Dschwen (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- this is a salt lake, not that far from yosemite & death valley; dirt is what you get... [2] it's an establishing shot of the lake @ ground level. nicely framed, & well proportioned. if you don't like the portrait format, try cropping top & bottom to get a more conventional landscape? but i think it's better this way, it captures the feel of the place beautifully. i know the photographer; image was shot on film, digitized in processing. the full-size view is a max-rez of the film; any image starts to break down if you magnify it enough. try an intermediate sizing? also, the user is new; please do not bite! Lx 121 (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose serious quality problem..is this a scan? --AngMoKio (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment --see above; shot on film, digitized during processing. the full-sized image is a max-rez of the original film; sizing should probably be adjusted for wmc. Lx 121 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar plus composition can't smooth away the poor image quality. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot, the reflections look awesome! Masterasbian (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition and the noise. Nice reflection, though. --che 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad Quality -- Pro2 (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy. kallerna 16:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise --S23678 (talk) 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Dunham Massey Hall 20080803-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 05:48:26
Fallow deer on the lawn at Dunham Massey Hall

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Haros - uploaded by Haros - nominated by Haros -- Haros (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The National Trust property has a flock of fallow deer. They are wild, but reasonably tolerant of people and even dogs.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Haros (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The picture is very dull regarding lighting and colors. Quality is so so - scope is nontransparent --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unspectacular lighting and composition. Durova (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Richard Bartz, but composition is great IMO. kallerna 17:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No apparent flaws, but missing that little something colorwise --S23678 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately let down by the lighting. As well as appearing very "flat", the head of the only deer in focus is dark. I think the subject could be worthy with better conditions and composition. Maedin\talk 12:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Navarroportrait.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 23:35:01

Portrait of José Antonio Navarro from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.

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 image is too small. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:HQS-Wellington-Crossthames.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 23:42:59
The HMS/HQS Wellington, taken from the London South bank.

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is tilted --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (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.
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Caméléon Madagascar 02.jpg, withdrawn[edit]

Furcifer oustelati, Madagascar

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag --Bgag (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Bgag (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Mh, image quality is not too great (and yet it got promoted QI...), pronounced JPG artifacts, not very sharp for the given size, and the background is a bit too messy. --Dschwen (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As above, plus pale colouring due to poor lighting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks good to some degree but I don't buy it :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
It was taken in the wild!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean we should feature it because of that? You can give him a wildlife photographer barnstar if you like Face-smile.svg --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 11:56:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Awkward crop, losing most of the information in the original, no restoration - The bar has been raised far too much for this to remain an FP. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Aqwis (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 11:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I do not like delistings, I consider it to be a FP of 2005. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Chrumps (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment crop is not perfect (mainly at left and righ side, with respect to original reproduction, better crop of down side is not possible) but dust and scratch reduction is well. Uploader can be contacted with request for higher resolution copy, his source 17MB tiff has 4000x3000 px potential (he mentioned scaling at image page). --Jklamo (talk) 14:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • It's from the Library of Congress - it can be directly downloaded from them =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Can you link it? On linked source in description i can see only original uncropped and scratched versions. --Jklamo (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist We can do much better work with this one. Maedin\talk 18:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Maedin\talk 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Chateau de Chenonceau 2008E.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 12:33:12

A cutout from the picture, showing heavy distortions. This is not the worst part, but it is prominently featured near the center of the picture. For a nightmare, look at the right edge...

Panorama of Château de Chenonceau, Indre-et-Loire, France.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This picture should be delisted because it has heavy distortions at the edges of the photo and overall terrible quality, especially noticeable in the water beneath the bridge. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Peipei (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Plrk (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Wow a current finalist of poty 2008 nominated for delisting. Scandal! :) But to be honest I also wondered a bit how it got there as imho the colours are a bit strange. But as the composition is nice and I am in general not a big fan of delistings I stay neutral. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - As most know I'm also not a fan of delistings. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Miha (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Come on now people. Clearly this should be thought of as "should this picture be a featured picture" rather than "should this picture be delisted"? Smihael/Miha and Alvesgaspar, would you support this picture if it was nominated to be listed to begin with? If so, how can you ignore the terrible quality of the image? If not, why do you think it should be kept now? Plrk (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - Because quality is always improving and the gallery of past FP's reflect that evolution. Delisting them is to kill the memory. With the only exceptions of obvious erroneous judgements, which happen from time to time, I see no sound justification for doing that. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It was featured in october 2008. The standards were way higher than this then. Plrk (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a poty 2008 finalist --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
    That is, in itself, hardly not a reason. Plrk (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a reason but decency. I'am not a fan of delisting recently promoted pictures especially when they are part of the ongoing POTY 2008 poll. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The Finalist 2008 I do not understand but you should accept the still --Böhringer (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep, unfortunately, by taking it to the POTY 2008 Final the Community, which is a higher authority than the few of us who actually vote at FPC, has decided that this is a worthy Featured Picture. Myself, I don't think it's anywhere near FP quality at all, but it's got to stay. --Aqwis (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- there is more to a great picture than the technical details of the digitization. that gets lost on here, sometimes... maybe we should consider some categories/sub cats, for quality ratings? Lx 121 (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Brackenheim (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Looks good enough to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Paris 16 (talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 delist, 10 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. --Maedin\talk 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:OFB-Mandschuprinzsatz28-Hölle-Bauchschmetterer.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 12:11:20
Buddhist Hell - the Punishment of Belly Smashing. Set of the Mandschu Prince; Qing Dynasty

This I do not know of as I am not the author. User:Dr. Meierhofer took the photo and is aware of that. I see from description that it comes from the museum in Germany. I just found 3 images depicting buddhist hell on commons. This one offers the best quality. So, from the point of subject value, its quite unique. And on my opinion the value of the subject (whatness) should have a priority in evaluations. As quality without a subject is meaningless. In fact, quality (suchness) is accidental in relation to substance (whatness). By itself the quality is an accident and can not even exist. And my impression is that evaluators here tend to ignore the subject, or at least it does not have the upper hand in evaluations. Hence, the (the value of) subjects in most of already featured photos, as I see, is rather trivial, though quality is perfect of course. Its just a remark.

--Zakharii 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good detail shot, very useful for the subject. is it possible to get a slightly wider view, tho? would like to see the top corner of the "device" in frame, as well as the rest of the edges. Lx 121 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Dr. Meierhofer has it or at least can take another shot, as I am not the author and can not provide such. I merely found it on commons and found the subject quite interesting. --Zakharii 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks cropped. Lycaon (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As there is no response for Alvesgaspar's question about the crop I have to assume that it's poorly cropped, because it looks like that. --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
See above. Sorry for not immediate response, as I have not checked the page since yest. --Zakharii 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Château de Fontainebleau - pano façade.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 13:04:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info ~100° pano from inside a rectangular courtyard, necessarily distorted... --Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of the unfavorable weather it looks very sad/dull and so there is no chance to emphasize colors and plasticity. Can't see any use of creative leeway which would makes it special. Too plain --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard said, too plain lightning, a revisit during better wheatherconditions could be nice. -- Peipei (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be even better with good weather. kallerna 17:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Richard Bartz. --Karel (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard --S23678 (talk) 04:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Plage Whitesunday island.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 13:33:38
Whitsunday Island Panorama

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Grizzy Kret - uploaded by User:Grizzy Kret - nominated by User:Ccmonty -- 69.230.214.180 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- User:Ccmonty 13:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC) No votes from anonymous users, please. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, I didn't notice that I wasn't logged in when I made the nomination. --User:Ccmonty
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've understand that the globe is round but this is 2 much. Besides that overall quality is not very good. I think about FPX --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very beautiful, but bit low quality + tilt + something on bottom left. kallerna 14:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. No way. Tilt is a K.O., center frame is downright blurry, and there is some posterisation in the clouds. --Dschwen (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because image is heavily tilted and quite noisy. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Hauskatze in Abendsonne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 15:16:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sebastianjude - uploaded by Saperaud - nominated by The Evil IP address -- The Evil IP address (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I just browsed through a few pictures here and saw this image. From the first moment, I found it impressing, you know, the look of the cat, the background and the like. I checked the Image guidelines, but couldn't find anything that'd stop this image from being a FP. It may be possible that I've missed some things, since I'm kind of n00b with images and that stuff, but I thought that this image at least deserves to be nominated for FP. Thank you.-- The Evil IP address (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, no. Subject is cut off. --ianaré (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 2 years ago, the picture failed to become FP. And even 2 years later I think it hasn't improved. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because of poor image quality: harsh lighting, geometric distortion and subject cut-off 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:GIPE25 - Ardea cinerea (by-sa).jpg, not featured[edit]

Ardea cinerea

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gilles PRETET - uploaded and nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is not sharp enough for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Actually a nice picture like most of yours but it scrape past FP, I'am afraid. The pose is at expense of enc value - it would be nice to see his feet. Lighting is a tad too harsh and decreases the details of same neckfeathers. General sharpness is average. I appreciate the proper image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not bad, but not great. The bar for this species is high --ianaré (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard Bartz. kallerna 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Richard Bartz. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Bedonia-Panorama-Wide.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 19:38:53
Panorama of Bedonia in Italy.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by J.P.Lon -- J.P.Lon (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- J.P.Lon (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality - there are too much plainly visible stitching errors --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks like autostitch. Blending seams are crude. Better results can be achieved with different software. --Dschwen (talk) 22:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because The images contains obvious stitching errors. Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Lycaon (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

File:IMG 6566.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 01:07:45
Helmeted Guineafowl in Paulínia's Ecological Park