Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2009

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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:Catedral de Segovia.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 13:31:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Much below size requirements, building is nearly cut off by the tight crop, and poor lighting/quality. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Maedin\talk 13:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Not even close to good enough. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Keep them coming. Delisting inferior pictures is a much a contribution to the FP library as nominating new ones! -- JovanCormac 14:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 16:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --ianaré (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Claus (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. --Karel (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Barack Obama speaks at Camp Lejeune 2-27-09 3.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 11:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barack Obama
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Lance Cpl. Michael J. Ayotte, USMC - uploaded by BrokenSphere - nominated by JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An excellent shot of Obama giving a speech. Iconic, of very high quality, and more dynamic than the official portrait that has been nominated before. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agreed --NEUROtiker  11:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree, also the shallow depth of field here gives a beautiful result. Diti the penguin 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problem: too small DOF, bad foreground (very distraction) --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I personally think it is not a quality problem: the main subject is Barack Obama, not the microphone. The creative use of a small depth of field enabled the photographer to get rid of worse quality problems. Diti the penguin 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Mouth and a chin look it is washed away. It is low DOF problem. Part of head really not sharp. I understand that the photographer had no chance to change a composition, however microphones and clothes is very unhappy. It is a pity to me, I'm sorry, but this my fair opinion. I do not wish anybody to offend --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose distracting foreground --Avala (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that the microphone is annoying. /Daniel78 (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, distracting angle and technical equipment in foreground. Does not contribute. No anonymous vote, please. Diti the penguin 21:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Black kitten July August 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Portrait of a black kitten at full sunshine against a white backgroud (yes, it is blown white). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose We have hundreds of photos like this, quality isn't extraordinary. kallerna 11:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burned highlights -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Burned highlights. Diti the penguin 10:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QP but not FP --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 16:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mexican flameknee birdeater
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mexican flameknee birdeater (Brachypelma auratum). Photo with more soft lighting.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Needs geocoding, just as your pics below, so that I know which beach/desert to stay the hell away from! --Dschwen (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I was looking at this about a week ago, and thought it was stunning. It's great to see it here. Julielangford (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition isn't FP. kallerna 20:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ліонкінг (talk) 14:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - composition on the shot below is better --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G04.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 07:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mexican flameknee birdeater
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC) - nominated by --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mexican flameknee birdeater (Brachypelma auratum). Big female. Rare, large and poisonous spider. The first scientific description is created in 1993 only.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice picture. Unfortunately the light comes from the wrong direction. Also the dark areas look a bit grainy. --NEUROtiker  08:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose harsh lighting, too much lost in the shadows. --Dschwen (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Regretful Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF is too shallow (see near legs). Amazing (and I mean it) composition, though. The footprints in the sand are fantastic. Composition-wise, this is one of the best spider shots on Commons. -- JovanCormac 17:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • On second thought, the composition, especially the intimidating footprints, is simply too amazing to oppose. So I change my vote to a weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. If such a great composition isn't a mitigating reason, I don't know what is. -- JovanCormac 17:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is not as good as the one above, but still good. Julielangford (talk) 09:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the footprints and the warmer colours of this one. --Korall (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This composition is better (imho) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others. kallerna 12:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lighting is ok for me, e.g. the majority of the back is exposed to light. The only minor drawbacks for me are the camera limitations (noise at base ISO, sharpness fall-off towards border) but especially subject and composition are good enough for FP. In the long run your contributions would technically benefit from a DSLR. --Iotatau (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not featured, instead File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg is featured which has the better support/oppose ratio. See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#How_far_does_the_rule_of_.22two_versions.22_go.3F for details. -- JovanCormac 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Chichen Itza 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 07:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created & uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Highly detailed (80 Mpx!) panorama of Chichen Itza. Flawless quality. We need this in our library! -- JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 07:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great find, amazing quality. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --NEUROtiker  09:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Very big support --kaʁstn 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This really is excellence! Bravo Julielangford (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know all the ancient structures don't follow our modern construction standards, but most of the verticals on the picture seems to be leaning to the right. The entire scene seems to be tilted CW as well, although it can be the because the temple is build on a slope. Unless you can confirm me that the scene is at the proper level (e.g. if you used a level for your camera, and those verticals are tilted in reality), I think it should be rotated CCW. --S23678 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support /Daniel78 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! -- MJJR (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. But it can be a bit more on the right side. — Jagro (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing work! --Relic38 (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  17:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – very good. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Love it. Wish no people were in it but that just isn't realistic. Nezzadar (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Cinabar on Dolomite.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice crystal. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Where is it from? Please add this info to the image description. Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Lovely detail and great colour. Julielangford (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite good despite the smallish size. Lycaon (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support And a surefire VI candidate as well. -- JovanCormac 16:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you add some info about the origin of the mineral, I am ready to support. I like the recent addition of a CC-BY-SA license to the image Face-smile.svg.--Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll ask the owner if he knows any more. Expect a few days turnaround. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be great, thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  16:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Delicate Arch sunset.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 09:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Delicate Arch at sunset
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ymaup -- Ymaup (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ymaup (talk) 09:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At full size, this lacks the clarity we've come to expect from this type of shots. -- JovanCormac 11:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jovan. There's also quite a lot of chromatic aberration. --NEUROtiker  20:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice, but not as crisp and with as good composition as other FPs from Arches National Park, i.e. File:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg. --Slaunger (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality issues --S23678 (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp and the shadows in the front look bad --kaʁstn 10:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The shadows. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Per others. By the way, the shadow on the left rock looks like a monster of some kind. Of course, that hos nothing to do with me opposing. --Ernie (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Fort Baker on San Francisco Bay.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fort Baker
I fixed it. If you believe it is still tilted please tell me which way and how many degrees?--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I still see a very minor tilt. 1.15 degree CCW adjustment should fix that right up though. Great pano work. Julielangford (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks but are you sure. I rotated the original one 1 degree CW. If I am to rotate as you're saying I will be rotating it back.--Two+two=4 (talk)
That will probably depend on which part of the image the eye goes to when judging the horizon. For me, the horizon is that of the sea, in the upper right. That line is about 1.15 degrees out in a clockwise orientation. Julielangford (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Also look really close at the vertical posts visible at the mid left [around the buildlings]. It really is tiny, when you look there, but it's there, and makes more of a difference up on the sea horizon. Julielangford (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it would benefit from a slight histogram adjustment - it looks underexposed and too contrasty at the moment. Time3000 (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    Thanks. I will work on the image. --Two+two=4 (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I created a new panorama from a different set of the images. I hope the colors are better. Is it still tilted?--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen, please do not keep suspense going on :) Do tell me what side and how many degrees to rotate it to, or beeter yet rotate it yourself please. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Colours are great on this one, but tilt is worse. 1.5 CCW adjustment should sort it. Julielangford (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Julie. I did as you said. I hope it is fixed now. --Two+two=4 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just a panorama. kallerna 20:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Now it's very cool indeed. Great image. Julielangford (talk) 23:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Geocode please. Nice pic. --Dschwen (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I did. The image was taken from Golden Gate Bridge as you could see from the image: File:Fort Baker with shadow of Goden Gate Bridge.jpg.--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Which incidentally is tilted like crazy as well :-) --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I'll let go on it. I would not like to cut off the shadow :)--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You actually shouldn't lose too much of the bridge shadow as it needs a CWW rotation [quite a big rotation though]. The loss would mainly be the upper right and bottom left areas [sky and rock], with some loss on each side. If you make it more panoramic with the crop after rotatstion, it should be great. Julielangford (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Julie, thank you. How many degrees I should rotate it to?--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like you already rotated it by the time I read this, but still needs a further 1.15 degrees. Careful not to lose too much of the sky :) Julielangford (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Man, 2+2 you should really go see a chiropractic ;-). Get that neck straight. Or put some coasters under your monitor (on the left). --Dschwen (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Dschwen, I hurt my neck when I tried to figure out what's going on in your image that is nominated just below Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Ha ha! :-D --Dschwen (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scenery is nice, but the light conditions (mid-day) are pretty dull. Morning or evening shots probably present a more pleasant atmosphere. --S23678 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The image was taken less than 3 hours before sunset. The sun sets behind the hills so let's take one more hour out. The image was taken from the bridge looking down to the Bay. The sun was positioned about right. --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This version's much better. I agree that midday isn't the ideal time, but it's not enough for an oppose imo. Time3000 (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad quality --kaʁstn 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Gavia immer1 BS.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 10:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common Loon, adult and immature
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unusual bird, interesting colors & composition. A quick denoise wouldn't hurt, though. -- JovanCormac 11:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC) The version above is better. -- JovanCormac 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one better. --NEUROtiker  21:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. --Jcart1534 (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 10:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Gavia immer4 BS.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 14:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common Loon
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO this is almost a second version of the same picture. I don't think both should be featured. -- JovanCormac 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is the better one, I have withdrawn my vote from the other picture. -- JovanCormac 14:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info You are right, it is the same individual. But I thought that the pictures being quite different, they deserved to be submitted to the judgement of the community for FP (I actually have a third one coming). --Cephas (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like all variants --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting eye --Muhammad (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like the crop. The one down below is better in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per 2+2. --NEUROtiker  21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Two+two=4. kallerna 10:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Golden Gate Bridge and fog.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 00:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog on Golden Gate Bridge is reducing visibility.
This image is not so much about Golden Gate. This image illustrates fog as a visibility hazard. There two road signs there that one hardly could see. In my opinion this image is the best to illustrate the subject and that's why it is special.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first, I was impressed by the scene, where it seems a cloud is crossing the Golden Gate (more than general fog). However, I realized the fog was digitally added (original version)
I reverted to the original but the only thing I tried to do was to reduce noise in some places, where it was hard to reduce using other ways because of the cables. So I made the image lighter in some places.Here's one of the first images I took on that day File:Fog over Golden Gate Bridge 2.jpg. It is an original image. Then I decided to take shots for panorama. The fog over the bridge is ever moving and ever changing. While I was taken the images of a lower part the fog moved in, while I was taken images of the middle part the fog moved out, while I was taken images of the upper part... and so on, and so on. I like to take images of the moving subjects for my panoramasFace-smile.svg Hugin blended images together and actually reduced the fog in some places I guess. When I made my edit I brought the image back to the way it looked in the reality. --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The alterations are still there (the version you reverted back to still contains the added fog). I think (I might be mistaken) you are fairly new to FPC process, so I will direct you towards the digital manipulations guidelines, especially to the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
You are more than mistaking (about the fog I mean)! Here's one more image I took this very day (also an original one) File:Fog over GGB.jpg. The fog over Golden Gate Bridge is a well known phenomenon.I really wish I could add the fog digitallyFace-smile.svg. I guess I will direct you to learning more about the subject before making such a serious accusations as "adding fog digitally" or you could look over other images that were uploaded to Commons like this one for instance File:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG}{{smile} --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I remove my "Oppose", since it no longer applies to the current FPC (although I would suggest you nominate edits as alternatives). I think there has been some misunderstandings, so I will try to rectify some things: My first comment about the "added fog" referred to a note I made on the image, which got erased when you changed the version of the image. It was about a spot of fog a lot more bright than the fog in the rest of the picture, which is no longer present on the current version. I thought that spot was simply brighten by photoshop (that's where the "digitally added" comes from), but is was actually from images blending. This is still a digital manipulation, hence my suggestion of adding the retouched picture template (since a viewer can be easily mistaken in thinking it's a genuine scene). About my second comment, I added it because the new version of the file was then appearing as being the exact same as the version I opposed (no longer the case now, I don't know why). BTW, I've been on the bridge myself when there was fog, I do not think it's an impossible phenomenon. Face-smile.svg --S23678 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am very glad we cleared the fog up. Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I do the bad puns around here! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I am learning fast Face-smile.svg. --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I found this image after I nominated mine, yet I believe mine is different because it really illustrates how hard it is to see road signs in the fog.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks a bit tiled, and imo it's not a special photo --kaʁstn 10:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Kodiak Harbor after the storm, Alaska 2009 disk 2 129 (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 18:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kodiak Harbor and rainbow
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:NancyHeise - uploaded by User:NancyHeise - nominated by User:NancyHeise -- User:NancyHeise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- User:NancyHeise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture, but it does not have outstanding value and it lacks the necessary technical quality. --NEUROtiker  20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much going on. kallerna 10:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Quick! Let's get a shot of the rainbow!!1! ;-) Sorry, but the foreground clutter spoils the pic for me (and the way everything is thightly cropped). Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Dschwen (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Snapshot feeling --S23678 (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Night Light.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 02:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night Light
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by lvm15 - uploaded by - nominated by -- (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment "Night Light" - from where? Uncategorized. kallerna 09:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose noisy. What ist it? Where is it (camera lacation) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    It from County Durham , England-- (talk) 09:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    OK, thanks for the added info, whitch bridge?. Nice and atmospheric photo but still simple to noisy for FI. Please add the camara location too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise (in the sky), and sharpness is problematic as well. Beautiful bridge, though. -- JovanCormac 10:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, unappealing foreground, too little room at the sides. --Dschwen (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Umnik (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment PLEASE add a better description. Derham County is large, names of bridge, town and river are a must, a geocode would be perfect. -- H005 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, chaotic composition. --Karel (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality issues (noise, CA) --S23678 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Umnik --kaʁstn 10:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Old Tower night winter 2009 G1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 12:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old Tower in Vinnitsia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Created, uploaded, nominated by George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The former water tower in the centre of Vinnitsia, Ukraine. View in the winter evening. Celebratory illumination for Christmas holidays.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and blown whites (lamps). -- JovanCormac 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise ok (almost inevitable for those low illumination photos), but overexposed. Otherwise a nice scenary but a quite uninteresting composition. Is the Ukrainian flag motion blurred due to a long exposure? Hard to tell from the photo as there is no EXIF information (why?) --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noise and general low quality --S23678 (talk) 02:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So a nice motive and so nice photo, but so a bad quality, too --kaʁstn 10:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Ordesa National Park Northwest face of Cirque of Soaso.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cirque of Soaso/Pyrenees
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by diacritica - uploaded by diacritica - nominated by diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Diacritica (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky is a little dull and noisy, but those rock formations are truly something else. Love this. Julielangford (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, chromatic aberration, overprocessed. kallerna 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I sharpen it just a bit in a new version. -- diacritica (talk) 09:09, 26 August (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well aesthetically --George Chernilevsky (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark for my eyes and nothing special. --Karel (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the cliffs are presented in an exceptional way. --S23678 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special, not the best quality --kaʁstn 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Preparation for schooner race.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 20:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Wow, you are a sucker for punishment! ;-) I'm anticipating opposes based on the inward tilt, so can I ask you: is there anything that can be done about that? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I knew it Face-smile.svg ! When I created panorama Hugin select a cylindrical setting. I believe it is the way it should be counting that the image includes both towers of Golden Gate Bridge on the left and Alcatraz Island on the right. I believe this tilt is kind of natural. This image was incredibly hard to stitch. Everything was moving from frame to frame. The weather was also bad. In my opinion this image is interesting because it shows the preparations for the race in the different stages. You could see boats from USA, Germany, Australia, Sweden and Great Britain. BTW thanks for the comment versus opposing right away Face-smile.svg.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Another look, and maybe I will try to correct it. Pictogram voting delete.svg for nowThe images was fixed to the best of my ability. So let's go on with the nomination.--Two+two=4 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I always prefer discussing an image before opposing it, especially considering the immense amount of effort out into the last panorama you nominated. Being a photographically challenged person, I'm generally reluctant to oppose works where I'm out of my depth tech-wise; I don't have the knowledge to tell whether the tilt could, or indeed should, be fixed, so I thought I'd do the gentlemanly thing, and wait until those more informed than myself had comented. I do agree with you regarding the value and quality of the image, and I'll be happy to support it, pending the inevitable barrage of questions and stitchings. Thank you, though, for taking the time to take such wonderful images, and taking criticism in your stride. I don't think that gets said enough around here. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! It is very kind of you. BTW the image is withdrawn only for oppose votes. Everybody, who would like to support it please proceed. Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Horizontal control points should allow you to straighten things out. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please give me a link me to tutorials?Found it.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fantastic job on getting it straightened out. I think this is quite remarkable :) Julielangford (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull light & colours. Bad crop on bottom right. kallerna 09:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes it was a bad weather, a normal weather for San Francisco summers, but the scene was quite unique. About the crop. So much was going on that no matter what something should have been off, and actually nothing is.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I was on the verge of voting both ways already, but simply can't make up my mind. Quality is good, but not stellar; subject is interesting, but colors are dull. So neutral it is. -- JovanCormac 11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it. But there's one stitching error between the second and third boat on the right side. I'll support fixed version. (no need to restich. you can use clone tool for that) --Lošmi (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean between boats 8558 and 8842? If so there's no error. I could upload the original. If you mean something different could you please add a note to the image or the nomination? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fixed now. --Lošmi (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S23678 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, although I see no wow ;-) --kaʁstn 10:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Makes its wow by lack of the usual "wow" elements for sailboat pictures: no sunlight, blue sky or whitecaps. Yet there's activity and a mood here, plus crisp detail. Excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Works for me. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for your initial comment! I believe only a very kind and a very nice person would make a comment as you did versus opposing the image right away for a fixable problem! I was very lucky you were the first one, who saw the image Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Quartz, Tibet.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-1 (by).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aeshna cyanea
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you clone out the bright spot at the top? I just noticed it and now it is very distracting. --Relic38 (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A dragonfly hovering in the air with a blue sky backgroud is a lot of wow for me with or without the bright spot.--Korall (talk) 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree Relic38. But it is excellent shot. I never saw earlier so good a flying dragonfly with folded landing gears ;-). --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive picture, though it would be even more impressive if that spot was removed. Tiptoety talk 22:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The most interesting shot in line --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That was easy. Excellent! --Relic38 (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Julielangford (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea-2 (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aeshna cyanea

*Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now that I think about it more... If you clone out the bottom-left corner, this may be better than the one above. --Relic38 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Blurry even at the small size. Why even nominate this if you also nominate similar better candidates? --Dschwen (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Aeshna cyanea (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Aeshna cyanea looks me.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Argiope bruennichi with his stabilimentum


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Episyrphus balteatus (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Episyrphus balteatus in fly


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Sympetrum striolatum (by).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sympetrum striolatum


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Thomas Bresson - Tachina fera (by).JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tachina fera
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, sharp, excellent colour. Good work! --Relic38 (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good, but composition isn't perfect. Should be more like this, althought it isn't possible with that lens. kallerna 14:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this kind of image gives more information about the insect than the comosition of the one kallerna suggested.--Korall (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also think this is an excellent picture, but I would prefer if it was cropped a little on the left. -- JovanCormac 19:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI like the compsition as it is and think cropping on the left would make the fly too centered and the image less interesting.--Korall (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    What I don't like is the flare/dust spot area on the left side. If this can be photoshopped away, there's no need to crop. -- JovanCormac 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Composition seems fine to me. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This was a hard decision. What bothers me most are the bright areas in the fore- and background. Altogether IMO this picture can't keep up with the other already featured pictures of the same category. --NEUROtiker  18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Tripe seller.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 18:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A tripe seller in Naples
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by sNappy - uploaded by sNappy - nominated by sNappy -- sNappy 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- sNappy 18:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad crop on top edge. -- JovanCormac 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Problems with white balance, crop unfortunate. Lycaon (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The hook covering his face, the white balance and the crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The white balance was quite natural because there was a red light in the shop that lightened everything with red colors, it's quite common in these shops that sell meat.--sNappy 20:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Walter Johnson and Calvin Coolidge shake hands FINAL.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 02:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A former US president (Calvin Coolidge, left) and one of the greatest pitchers of all time (Walter Johnson, right) shake hands. Replaced the original "final" upload with a version further edited by Durova and Adam.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Waves July 2009-2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Playing in the waves. Beach of Cerca Nova, Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF, composition and resolution Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:White shark.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great White Shark
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Pterantula - uploaded by Althepal - nominated by Julielangford -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Julielangford (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is far too small Lycaon (talk) 11:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support When I nominated this photo for delisting, people wrote that the underwater setting acted as a strong mitigating reason. This shark picture is far better than the Canthigaster one. Ergo FPX contested and support. -- JovanCormac 13:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Mitigation for quality (difficult shooting circumstances regarding colours and light diffraction), not size! Lycaon (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • The one I mentioned has about the same resolution as the shark picture, though. -- JovanCormac 14:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Resolution. kallerna 14:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This picture is really really wow to me. Much better than the delist candidate fish below. Also the delist candidate tick is kind of small, and this one is a lot sharper. --Korall (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really don't think that the resolution should be an off putting factor with this image. It is under the size suggested, but it's not tiny, or by any means a useless size. It is large enough to be used, and used well, in some very valuable projects. Also, the lighting is natural, and quite dim [although excellent for an underwater shot]. I could take this into Photoshop right now and increase the file size no problem at all, without changing the size of it - just be upping the exposure a little. But why? just to make it bigger in size? No need, I think it's perfect, just as it is. Julielangford (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The resolution of this image is only a mere 50% of the 2 Mpx that the guidelines require! There is no mitigation for promoting a 'half-sized' image. The image is good (could be a VI for instance) but does NOT meet requirements for FP. This 2 Mpx limit was installed more than two years ago [1] when it was deemed that under 3 Mpx cameras were becoming an extinct species. Two years on and 8 Mpx being the entry-level res for point-n-shooters, you want to start promoting small images? Are you serious? Lycaon (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Normally, I would be one of the first to oppose an image that is way too small, but I think this one is smaller than suggested - not by any means, way to small. I really think in the case of this image, the line above - Happy judging, and remember, all rules can be broken - is appropriate. I could make this 2 mb in the blink of an eye, without changing the resolution at all, and probably get a good result. But, I wasn't the one in the water with Great White sharks, the orignal artist was, and they deserve all the credit. And incidentally, this image was taken three years ago, long before the fight for pixels began. Julielangford (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- TonyBallioni (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The size is too low IMO to be FP. --S23678 (talk) 03:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – per others. --Ernie (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do not like the light spots on shark body. --Karel (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow, IMO.--Claus (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak Support I liked it, but per Karel --kaʁstn 10:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose size --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Too late. -- JovanCormac 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Willis Tower.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently renamed Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoRecently renamed Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower) in Chicago. Establishing shot for the re-branded entrance while showing the distinct three tiered building silhouette - by Dschwen (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dschwen (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good point of look --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. Still can't believe that it's not called "Sears Tower" anymore. -- JovanCormac 17:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the main tower is great, but there is a definate perspective issue on the left tower and also on the posts at the front of the building for me. Julielangford (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question How was this made (EXIF-data missing)? Canon 5D + fisheye-lens? I like this one, but it seems to bee curvy only on left hand side. kallerna 21:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • 5D, 24mm lens, vertical pano (transverse mercator projection, keeps the main subject mostly straight), exposure blended. --Dschwen (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, then it makes sense, Symbol support vote.svg Support, althought the colours are bit dull (cloudy weather, but it isn't your fault). kallerna 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Ahh, so it's is meant to look that way! sorry, I didnt realise and thought it was a verical stitching problem. I change my vote to *Symbol support vote.svg Support after the explanation. Apologies again, but I do not know how to strike out my previous opposing vote. Julielangford (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • With <s></s> tags around your old votr. --Dschwen (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you :) Julielangford (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support really nice! --Leviathan (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting perspective. However, filled with small stitching errors (see notes). --S23678 (talk) 03:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing those out. I'd ask voters to hold off on further opposes based on these, as I'll try to fix them today. --Dschwen (talk) 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Fixed. None of these was more than a one pixel displacement though. There are some areas in the image which are not pixel perfectly sharp. But overall I think the quality compares well with other candidates here. --Dschwen (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Good job. --S23678 (talk) 04:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Claus (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It shows not the real (Verzerrungen) --kaʁstn 10:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Though distortion is always going to be a problem when shooting these types of images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Esemplare di un riccio.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 13:20:55 (UTC)
Photo of a hedgehog

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cemg - uploaded by Cemg - nominated by Cemg -- Cemg (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's good (but i don't speek a good english :))-- Cemg (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute, but not sharp enough in my opinion.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF too low. Also it would be nice to see more details of that cute hedgehog ;-). --NEUROtiker  20:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but bad crop und quality not the best --kaʁstn 09:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Media needing categories as of 28 August 2009. kallerna 12:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 19:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:S.Bartolomeo statua.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:38:17 (UTC)
San Bartolomeo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Cemg - uploaded by Cemg - nominated by Cemg -- ≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head of the statue is out of focus and the image lacks a background. --NEUROtiker  20:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bangkok skytrain sunset.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:15:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Just 1 Mpx resolution. HDR also seems a little overdone. Not HDR, as pointed out by Maedin. As beautiful as it is, there's no way this would get featured today. -- JovanCormac 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Beautiful, I am thinking of it as a 2006 FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I see the beauty of the image as a strong mitigating reason. If a reasonably similar alternative was presented I would change to delist. --ianaré (talk) 05:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Brackenheim (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jovan, this is not an HDR image; stunning sunsets can sometimes be just that. I can appreciate why you would have assumed it was HDR (or otherwise enhanced), but you should have stated it as an assumption instead of misleading other users. No harm done, of course, just keep it in mind, ;-) Maedin\talk 07:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you for pointing that out, I corrected in the description. -- JovanCormac 14:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Size, tilt, (lack of) sharpness. Lycaon (talk) 13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep // tsca (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Voting period has ended. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bodie ghost town.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:03:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution is less than 1 Mpx. Not amazing enough to mitigate, as this can be taken any time. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist I was all ready to stick up for this one...until I saw it a 'full size'. The tag says it's suitable for use as a widescreen desktop background, but trust me, don't try it on a 24' monitor. Also, it seems to have some perspective issues. That said, the composition is great, and I hope we get another, larger shot like this soon. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist as nom --ianaré (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Canthigaster valentini 1.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:03:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution is only a little above 1 Mpx. Sharpness leaves a lot to be desired, too. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Underwater photography is a lot more complicated than phoptography on land. It takes special eqiupment and the light conditions are usually a lot worse. I Don't think it would be fair to judge it by the same standards that we apply to other images, though I am not experienced enough to tell exactly how much we can expect. -- Korall (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I fully agree, but the main problem here is not the quality but the resolution, which is far too low IMO. -- JovanCormac 10:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I think it's a good image, I would not like to see it go away just due to the resolution. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Korall (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Detailaufnahme Weihnachtsstern - groß.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:06:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Folio from a Koran (8th-9th century).jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:09:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Just an ordinary folio, but dirty and smeared in many places, plus the writing on the back shines through. This doesn't to the Koran justice. -- JovanCormac 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 18:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Maybe not the prettiest, but of great historical value (8th-9th century !)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep the extreme age and archaic form of writing is VERY valuable. As the Koran was written in about the 7th century, this very early edition is extremely valuable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Claus (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Good enough to stay. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I talked to a representative of the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin a few days ago (which is considered to be the finest collection of Qurans outside of the Islamic World) and he told me that they were currently in the process of digitizing their entire collection, for making it available to the entire world. Once this is done, we will import literally tens of thousands of beautiful Quran pages into Commons which (I can tell you, as I have had the privilege of seeing the collection with my own eyes) make the candidate look like a piece of scrap paper. -- JovanCormac 15:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep at least until the tens of thousands of beautiful Quran pages reach Commons. Lycaon (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Lycaon --Muhammad (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Voting period was over. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Muybridge race horse animated 184px.gif, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:26:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Grant of arms2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Grant of arms.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Illustration from a sixteenth century grant of arms signed by Philip II of Spain. Digitized directly from the original manuscript.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I think this is a highly valuable historic illustration, and fascinating to look at. I have been looking carefully at the original scan and also your partially restored version where you have not yet brightened it up as much in the colors. The change in colors seems dramatic in your last step. The red colors are really red, and the somewhat blue-grey steel? swordsarm in the original is more clearly blue (further from the original?). I realize that the pigments in the original has fainted during all those years, but how do you "dose" the color correction? Is it by-eye or via a more systematic approach? I guess your objective is to get as close as possible to how it was when the manuscript was written? For me it seems like you have been very bold in putting your own interpretation in the last color step. So bold that I get the impression that there is a risk of adding too much of your own guess at the original colors. Personally, I think I have a greater affection for the colors in the partially restored version. They may not be as colorful as in the nominated image, but perhaps more true? I am aware though that I am not terribly knowledgeable about the area, and I would be interested in hearing what your comments are to those observations--Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Most of the difference comes not from the color adjustment but from the curves adjustment. The brightest data point on the original is at 211; data is minimal between 23 and 202. In context it makes historic sense that the colors would be brilliant: this was a royal grant signed by a king which used the most expensive pigments of its era. Durova (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you for the explanation. I suppose it is well sourced that the king used the most expensive pigments in its era? Very nice image and very professional restoration. --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Durova's explanation - colours certainly seem right compared to other things I've seen. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another great restoration. -- JovanCormac 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good result -George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- GerardM (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

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

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 22:42:32 (UTC)
Lynx lynx

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are a few minor details which strike me as not quite right, like a lightness in the animals left eye over the right, and the distracting glared areas on the background. But overall, the quality is just too good to pass this off with oposition. Excellent detail. Julielangford (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice portrait --George Chernilevsky (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - quality is very good indeed, but the composition is pretty ordinary - no wow. No shadows also. Is it made using flash? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Harsh flash light prevents support. Please add location (Zoo?) in description. Lycaon (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective is not clear and the flash-effect with dark background make the seen too much flat. --sNappy 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, but I don't like the crop --kaʁstn 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:North carolina fireworks.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fireworks over the battleship North Carolina, during ceremonies commemorating the commissioning of a submarine of the same name.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2ND Class Roadell Hickman - uploaded by Beloch05 - nominated by the_ed17. —Ed (TalkContribs) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral While I think could be a FP, I don't know what an image has to be like to be a FP here. As such, I will not !vote. —Ed (TalkContribs) 06:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition, but I think this is too noisy and unsharp for FP. I don't know what settings the camera was on, but it looks to me like a longer exposure wouldn't have harmed the fireworks (much) but would have reduced the noise quite a bit. Time3000 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --kaʁstn 12:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pasterze panoramic view 01 9930px.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 11:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over "Pasterze" a glacier in the Alps.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Matthias Kabel - uploaded by Matthias Kabel - nominated by Matthias Kabel
    Full 360° panoramic view over the Pasterze showing the valley of the glacier which is vanishing to warmer climate. Sharp from the closest to the farest, no stitching errors, no blown highlights in the snow, no real black shadows, tourist to compare sizes. Geo location is there. A full resolution is also available File:Pasterze_panoramic_view_01.jpg. -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very good.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great quality. -- JovanCormac 16:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive. There's just a little spot in the sky above the rightmost cloud that could be smoothened a bit. --NEUROtiker  17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Durova (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems most natural for me, if it the version of the largest resolution, which is nominated. From there, there is a link to this one - for convenience. Would anyone mind if we changed the nom to the largest resolution version? --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The full resolution may cause problems to display on some computers. MatthiasKabel (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That is correct, and the full resolution image also exhausts resources on my not so new nor resourceful laptop. Nevertheless, this is a problem with a significant fraction of browsers/viewers now, but in five years time, it would probably not be a problem for most users, and I think FPs should be long-lasting... --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When I see it in full res in my browser, there is a 1 pixel height grey line in the lower right side of the image - see annotation - can only be seen in full res. Besides that, a very impressive stitch.--Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
corrected, at least in this version. The upload of the full version ends in an error right now. Will be uploaded later. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Resolved
- I have removed the annotation again. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very visible posterization in the sky. I'm sure it can be corrected. Will support if done. --S23678 (talk) 02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
also some improvements with the new version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm... better, but still not smooth as it should be. If this is not from your out-of-camera pictures (which I doubt, since vigneting is not visible in the posterization), I guess at one point in your workflow you sacrificed quality, probably for size. I would suggest you rebuild your panorama directly at the shown size here (preferably in TIFF format). If it's not working, maybe your stitching program is flawed (I never had posterization problems in Hugin, if you're using another program) --S23678 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with S23678 (and on his proposals for improving it) that posterization in the sky is a problem. Strange what the origin of that is? Could you add some technical detail in the file description as to how the stitch has been done? Otherwise a very impressive detail level - there is so much information in that image. I would be very happy to support if the posterization issue is solved. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose posterization doesn't seem to be getting resolved. Lycaon (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm on vacation right now, my laptop is not able to handle the original file and it makes no sense to resolve the issue only on the smaller version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Rhipidura fuliginosa Silhouette.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bird is not very well focused and the background is very distracting, hard to tell whats the bird and whats the background. --Korall (talk) 10:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Korall. Too artsy. -- JovanCormac 16:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportI liked --Econt (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, agree with Korall. Focus and background issues.--Captain-tucker (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Korall --NEUROtiker  20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Kerguelen topographic map-fr.svg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 18:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Topographic map of the Kerguelen island.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Topographic map of the Kerguelen island, with French toponyms. SVG file with an embedded PNG image for shadows only (otherwise everything is SVG). PNG version available for easier viewing. All data sources indicated. Created by Korrigan - uploaded by Korrigan - nominated by Korrigan 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- le Korrigan bla 18:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent in every way. -- JovanCormac 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree - JovanCormac. Julielangford (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Korall (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good work --George Chernilevsky (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A good vector map, rich in labels which is something I like. The linear scale might have been a little more discreet (font size compared to the one of the map itself), additional legend, even if basic, would have been appreciated too, but that's not a big issue. Sting (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic_media/Maps

File:Laptop processor(FG) plus Laptop fan (BG).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 06:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laptop parts (CPU + FAN)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by diacritica - uploaded by diacritica - nominated by diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I strongly believe that this photo combines the awesomeness of the integrated circuits and high-end technology with the good old brass/copper instruments meant to support the former. Thermodynamics in it's various forms, BTW.-- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nearly no post-processing, just erased some dust particles from the laptop lid. --Diacritica (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The fan and the inner part of the laptop are out of focus and noisy, the processor that seems to be the thing that is supposed to be in focus is blurry. Did you use a tripod? With the camera you used, and the static nature of the subject I think you should be able to get much better results with a tripod and proper light.--Korall (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Korall. I can understand the "out of focus" comment (it was intended that way) but not the "noisy" claim. I used a very low ISO speed just to avoid that (see exif metadate). I would appreciate if you pointed me to noisy regions (other than the always difficult pure-black). I did used a tripod. If you find the processor to be too blurry, then I find your opposition legitimate :-)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I pointed out the region where I see the most noise. I do not think 400 is a very low ISO number. That is what I use for freehand macros of living animals sitting on flowers on windy days. For photos of dead subjects with a tripod I think you should be able to use ISO 200or lower. Please look here to see previous sucessful nominations of dead things.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Korall. Lycaon (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus, or was that intentional? No anonymous votes please. Lycaon (talk) 05:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- One of the subject, the CPU, uses a very small part of the image, and the other one, the fan, is so much blurred that it's practically not possible to understand well the purpose of this object (looking only at the picture). A greater DOF would have shown better the whole. Sting (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Lasertests.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 12:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate - uploaded by Cody.pope - nominated by JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A cool photo showing a scientist conducting a laser experiment. This picture contains the "essence" of what modern science looks like in the eyes of many people, and is therefore both highly educational and attractive. -- JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's blurry. Even at that small size it looks upscaled. Lycaon (talk) 13:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
    • But isn't this to be expected from a picture that was taken under such extreme lighting conditions (low lighting contrasted with the extremely bright lasers)? Compare to the FP File:Vitrification1.jpg which was shot in similar conditions and is about as blurry as the candidate. -- JovanCormac 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Possibly, but if the quality is inferior, why do you nominate it for FP?? Lycaon (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
        • First of all IMO the blur isn't half as bad as you make it sound. Second, I think that the sheer visual appeal of the candidate (as well as the vitrification picture) easily mitigates the slight quality issues. -- JovanCormac 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Does not look like lens blur to me. Quite possibly extreme noise reduction. --Ernie (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Cool composition, illumination and intetersting subject. Brings back some good memories of working in a laser lab as a summer student. Not quite convinced about the technical quality though. --Slaunger (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lycaon. IMO the blurriness is definitely worse than with File:Vitrification1.jpg. Plus there are artefacts, e.g. if you look at the red beams on top. --NEUROtiker  20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Curnen (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC) It's a difficult light situation and a appealing motif. Furthermore I think demanding quality for its own sake doesn't help FP in general. The quality should be as high as necessary to show what is to be shown with the image and I think this is the case here.
In general I have read a couple of FP discussions recently, where people seemed to search a little too desperately for any technical flaw in a picture, which to me is ludicrous. 99% of the people will anyway look at the picture in the context of a Wikipedia article and not in full size. Not everybody can afford high-end cameras with super noise performance nor knows how to photoshop the maximum out of a picture, but some of them might instead have the opportunity to take images at special places. I rather like to encourage these people to take nevertheless photos and upload them here, than scaring them off with too harsh criticism.
Please keep in mind that we are reviewing the candidates for featured pictures here. They are supposed to be some of the finest on Commons. Quoting from the guidelines above they should be of "high technical quality". If a nominated picture here is subjected to harsh criticism, that doesn't mean that it's not a good picture and it shouldn't be used. It just means that it doesn't meet the very high standards applied for featured pictures, which are necessary to maintain the high level of quality among them. Of course you don't have to be a professional photographer and possess a high-end camera to contribute to Commons (I myself never shot a photo I would nominate here). There are thousands of technically average pictures out there made by common people with standard cameras (I don't mean this one), which are a great benefit for Commons and the Wikimedia projects. Commons could not exist without them, but they still don't belong here. --NEUROtiker  17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well said. Not every image uploaded to commons has to end up on this page. There is also thousands of pictures taken with high-end cameras that won't stand a chance here (I regularly upload some of those myself) but are still valuable. There are also several FP's taken with point-n-shooters (I have some myself too). But in the end, as NEUROtiker said, we are here to select the finest on Commons. And it is the end result that counts, whatever the hardware, as long as it is very good. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting, but bad quality --kaʁstn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I don't think the quality is too bad. --Aqwis (talk) 12:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Wiki ian 04:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fabulous, interesting, and well thought out. No anonymous votes please. Lycaon (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult to take this kind of image and I think the result is good enogh for me.--Korall (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom --Jklamo (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Re 482 mit Containerzug bei Oberrüti.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 21:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swiss Federal Railways Re 482 with an intermodal freight train
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A Swiss Federal Railways Re 482 (Bombardier TRAXX family) with an intermodal freight train on the "Aargauische Südbahn" between Oberrüti and Rotkreuz, crossing the river Reuss. -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can't see what's so extraordinary about this photograph justifying the candidacy. --NEUROtiker  17:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In contrast to most of the train pictures here on commons it was taken in good light conditions, the train is fully visible, there are no disturbing objects, the scenery is very nice and the photographic quality is fine (obviously, this alone does not make a featured picture, but it was enough reason for me to put it here). Of course, it does not have the fancy blurred background, the nice fur where every hair is visible or the cool lighting of a picture made by night, but that's kinda hard to achieve with this kind of subject :) --Kabelleger (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is really a nice picture and I like it very much. Definitely QI! And we need certainly more good train pictures indeed, as a counterbalance for all those flowers, insects and butterflies. But this is perhaps just not special enough for FP... Btw: as creator and nominator, you should support your own nomination! -- MJJR (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm still trying to figure out what exactly makes some pictures more special than others... Anyway. About supporting one's own pictures: In the German wikipedia, it is considered sort of rude to support your own pictures, so I thought I'll leave it with a neutral here as well. But since this picture is not going to be featured it won't matter anyway. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this picture. —Jagro (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow for me. -- Klaus with K (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent composition. --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Araneus diadematus (Clerck 1757).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:41:13 (UTC)
Araneus diadematus


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:80 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 20:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This picture is 97 mpx. It has been assembled from 3 different exposures, 12 pictures per exposure. It has been downsampled a little in the center (to get under the 100 mpx limit), but it's upsampled on the outside because of the projection choosen (rectilinear), which explain the softer sides. There's some defects I could not get rid of from the method used to assemble the pictures (this is something like my 10th try at stitching it), like 1 pixel shifts between exposures, because of the displacement of the stitching line from one exposure to another (I hope I'm clear), which is happening on less than 1% of the image, and would disappear immediately on downsampling. A drastic 25 to 1 downsampling would still be 2 times larger than the minimum required, and show none of the defects I am talking about. Still, I chose to nominate this picture at it's original size, hoping people will see the size as a strong mitigating factor for quality issues.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Almost one Mb per MP seems a bit much. Looks like you went overboard with the JPG quality setting. Nah well, better than overcompressing I guess. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm now always saving my JPEGs at the highest quality. It's maybe an overkill, but given the huge size of the TIFF files (more than a Gb for this one), the JPEG is the only thing I keep once my workflow is completed. As you said, I think it's better to push it on this side than on the overcompressing side --S23678 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That looks really impressive. But IMO the defects you are talking about are quite serious to me and unfortunately very visible. If this can be resolved by downsampling, I would really like to see a downsampled version. --NEUROtiker  21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A small version will be useful for many people who don't have the bandwith to download this file in a reasonable time. Yann (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Here's a more bandwith-friendly version --S23678 (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I think you should nominate a smaller version (say, 30-40 mpx), and link to this version from the file page. This may be a local occurrence, but Firefox 3.5 refuses to load the picture no matter how long I wait (and the Windows XP picture viewer is unable to zoom in the picture). Additionally, the picture isn't really detailed enough for the 97 mpx - at this size, it is rather unsharp (somewhat similar to how pictures a compact digital camera with 12 mpx don't have enough details for the high resolution to be useful). I appreciate that the full resolution version is useful for certain purposes, such as making huge prints, but even if we feature a smaller version of the picture and link to this version from the file page, anyone who needs the full version of the picture can use the non-FP version. --Aqwis (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that is a sensible suggestion. I can second that. It probably is not worth the trouble convincing that a downsampled version doesn't actually offer better quality, when it will still be huge and suddenly appear immaculate at 100%. --Dschwen (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg True... given the vast amount of comments I've received (within 1 hour of nomination), I'll withdraw my nomination, try to correct it with all of your comments (which are all very good BTW), and submit a better version later. Thank you all --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sure, it takes time to open the image, but I could open it with only DSL 700, Windows XP and T-Online Browser. I saw the enlarged image in the resolution 1600x1200, it is mostly very sharp. It shows the town in warm colors and in many details. Yes, there is also a problem with unsharp and twin-lined small parts or strips of the image, above all on the left and lower margin and on some other places. But all together: it is a very interesting image from Machu Picchu to get a general idea of this old town. I hope you will find a way to repair the image in great detail. Later on it will be easy and quick to enlarge such an image with DSL 5000, 10000.... --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Tree example IR.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 08:47:39 (UTC)
Infrared (IR) photograph of a tree.

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by User:Dschwen - uploaded by User:Dschwen - nominated by User:Jacopo Werther Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tried IR photography once, it is quite hard to get good results. By lack of other nominations, I support this one! Diti the penguin 09:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy and unsharp --Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Its a little bit unsharp - Huib talk 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While it's obviously hard to judge IR photography as there is so little of it on Commons, searching the web for IR pictures it appears that the candidate cannot measure up to at least some of them. -- JovanCormac 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for nominating. Please note that I made this image in 2004 with a PowershotG3, that should explain the quality... --Dschwen (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago sunrise 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 18:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago at dawn
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Chicago skyline at dawn. shot across the harbor from Adler Planetarium. All by Dschwen (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Dschwen (talk) 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow. 100% professional quality. -- JovanCormac 19:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. I'm impressed by your panos. --Relic38 (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXXtalk  04:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I really like the colours and composition! --Leviathan (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent! -- MartinD (talk) 11:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --S23678 (talk) 17:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avala (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:RudkhanCastle.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 13:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rudkhan Castle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Navid.k - uploaded by Navid.k - nominated by Ladsgroup -- Amir (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Amir (talk) 13:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall technical quality not sufficient. --NEUROtiker  19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overburnt sky. --Aktron (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Aktron -- H005 (talk) 21:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per NEUROtiker and Aktron --kaʁstn 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius (6).JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jacky (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jacky (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. kallerna 11:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is far below FP standards. When nominating on FPC for the first time, it is a good idea to nominate a single picture at first (rather than seven simultaneously) to see how it will be judged by the community. I hope you won't take this personally, but from my experience I can pretty much predict that none of your current nominations will be promoted. -- JovanCormac 12:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Again, not a bad composition, however contrast and sharpness are the main issues. --Relic38 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't take this personally, take pictures only for 3 month now. Do it for myself and who knows learn something from your comments.I should opload beter quality Jacky (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Your pictures are actually pretty good, it's just that the standard for insect macros here on Commons is extremely high, as can be seen from their Featured Pictures category page, so it's quite hard to get one Featured these days. This picture is an example of the great butterfly pictures we have already, and any new nomination will inevitably have to measure up to pictures like it. -- JovanCormac 17:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:World Trade Center - Girder 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 19:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A detail of one of the girders from the World Trade Center, on display in Sacramento, CA at Cal Expo.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by J.smith - uploaded by J.smith - nominated by J.smith -- J.smith (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, of course. -- J.smith (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No wow. Just shows some concrete and rusty iron. Lycaon (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Minor point, but that's fire protection and not concrete. --J.smith (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image does not tell its own story. You have to read the caption to understand that it is an I-profile from the WTC. When you just see the image it just looks like rusty construction metal, in a composition which is not particularly compelling/interesting. I prefer more self-explanatory photos. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Lycaon.--Claus (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not "some concrete and rusty iron" but The World Trade Center fire protection.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Might be from the WTC, but it doesn't represent it at all. It's an unimportant structural piece presented in an uninspiring way. --S23678 (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note I nominated this one because I enjoyed the texture and I was hoping others would as well. I'm bias, of course, but I though people would enjoy something outside of the normal landscapes, bugs and flowers. I've nominated another one from the same set. I can honestly say without any sarcasm that I look forward to the same blunt and honest criticism that this one received. --J.smith (talk) 00:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Slaunger. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:World Trade Center - Girder 07.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 00:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A girder from the World Trade Center disaster with various flags in the background.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by J.smith - uploaded by J.smith - nominated by J.smith -- J.smith (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, of course. -- J.smith (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Image Info This is a girder from the World Trade Center disaster on display at the California Expo - the site of the CA State Fair. J.smith (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A lot better than the previous nomination IMO, it's a good picture of the subject, presented in an interesting perspective. However, I do not see the exceptional character of this image (the famous "no wow" factor) compared to FPs in general. --S23678 (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is one powerful image.--Two+two=4 (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per S23678, also the crop at the top edge spoils it. -- JovanCormac 07:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly, as I'm all for nominations that are a little outside the square. However, the crop spoils an otherwise interesting composition. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you are looking at nominating pictures of 9/11, here are some I like. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong focus, no main object, cut flags. — Jagro (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IMAGE:Kleiner Fuchs bmn1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 14:39:57 (UTC)
Kleiner Fuchs auf Blume

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please state reason for opposition as a courtesy to the author/uploader. Lycaon (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, not sharp enough and no good composition. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Focus problems. You might want to try a longer exposure time and higer F number to increase the depth of field next try. I have been getting OK pictures or butterflies with something around 1/200 sec. --Korall (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Image:Тигрята-альбиносы edit01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 06 Sept 2009 at 18:07:34
Little tigers albinos in the Moscow zoo

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Kor!An - uploaded by Kor!An - nominated by Kor!An -- Kor!An (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kor!An (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I found this nomination. It seems, the uploader didn't post it correctly on October 2008. So I did it. Symbol support vote.svg Support - great shot! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A problem for the FPCBot though as it thinks this candidates voting period was over for almost a year ago, it wont help to correct the date string either as the bot base the check on the timestamp of the first revision (as parsing that timestamp is consistant). This is an unusual situation though so maybe we should just let the bot close this one, and not review the result until the real period is over (the bot will not move it away until it is properly reviewed) ? Alternatively withdraw this one and create a new candidate with the same image. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 18:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot in general, but the whites are blown and there is a red dot between the tiger's ears (visible in full size) that appears to be an artifact created by the camera. -- JovanCormac 18:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Considerably blown highlights. Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support also I removed FPCbots closing and changed the close date, hopefully it won't be prematurely closed again. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It will (unless I manually stop it each time), but see my previous comment. I changed the counts to '?' such that a reviewer can correctly fill it in when the voting period is really over. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see your comment, just saw the closing and tried to fix it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support JukoFF (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the quality is not good enough for FP (especially the blown whites). --Estrilda (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Delicatearch.png, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 20:44:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image has a low resolution. It is nice, but its composition and quality is not on par with current FPs from Arches National Park, such as File:Double-O-Arch Arches National Park 2.jpg. (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist This would get FPXed instantly if it was nominated today. Some people seem to think that older FPs somehow deserve to be kept simply for their age even though they have shortcomings that would get them an FPX nowadays ("2006 Featured Pictures") which is a really dangerous development IMO. It shows that nostalgia truly is everywhere, and everywhere equally irrational (or what other "justification" save nostalgia could be given for an argument like "2006 FP"?). I say delist all FPs that wouldn't make FP today! -- JovanCormac 12:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Korall (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I guess I am "some people" :) , I do not see any "real danger" with keeping old FPs though and this one is really nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No strong mitigating reasons for this low resolution --S23678 (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Evstafiev-bosnia-cello.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:50:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 700 × 472 pixels??? That's less than one fifth of the guideline 2 Mpx! Incredible that this was ever featured. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Absolutely Keep Despite its inferior resolution it is a unique and outstanding image from the war in Sarajevo in 1992. It cannot be reproduced, an attempt has been made previously to get original material in higher resolution. It is not possible. It deals with matters much more important to humanity than YAAI (Yet Another Anthropod Image) and every single (OK, thats only five) FP I have created. The image is used on +200 pages on +30 wiki projects and is a perfect example of exceptional value being a strong mitigating reasons for allowing < 2MPx. The image has been nominated for delisting in 2007 and again in 2008 and I very much agree with the detailed arguments for keeping it put forth by especially BenAveling in 2007. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It is an interesting picture, and I haven't nominated it for deletion - merely for removal from the list of Featured Pictures, whose standards it clearly doesn't fulfill. Were this nominated today, it would receive an FPX, and be closed after 24 hours. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I agree with you that it would probably be FPXed by a user seeing the 2 MPx guideline as a strict rule which cannot be mitigated. However, I also think it is likely that it would be contested by another user within 24 h using an argument about a strong mitigating reason. It is close to the lower resolution limit of what I can accept, but for me it would still pass. I am unsure whether it would actually pass if renominated today. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Besides, when you think about it a little, it becomes clear that this photo is most likely not a "war snapshot", but staged to some degree. The image description talks about the musician playing at funerals during war time. That's interesting, and I do not doubt that, but the picture obviously does not show him playing at one of those funerals. He is sitting on a pile of rubble in a destroyed building, and the only one around to watch or listen appears to have been the photographer, who probably asked him to pose for that very photo. Shots like this, showing people doing unusual things in war-torn regions of the world, are a dime a dozen, and, I dare say, almost a cliché of modern war photography. Just look through the archives of the World Press Photo Awards. You will find many more examples there. -- JovanCormac 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I am very much aware that it is probably partly staged (I consider the rubble for real but the pose of the musician staged) and that it has been generated partly for propagandistic purposes. However, I perceive it as way more inventive and refined in its composition than, e.g., the recent File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, and it has an interesting peaceful micro-story about a musician playing at funerals under great danger. Thus, within its genre of war-photography it is very well made - except for the resolution. This micro-story could of course be propaganda in itself. My decision to vote keep is based on an assumption that this part of the story is actually true. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep My vote has not changed since the last time it was tried to be delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've asked the author to provide us a higher resolution of his image. Since his last contribution was more than 2 months ago, I suggest we wait for his response, and possibly his actions before pursuing with the delisting. While doing that, I'm thinking that we could add a step in the delisting process, where the author/uploader/original nominator would be informed about the delisting proposal, so they could take actions for correcting the apparent flaws --S23678 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The author was asked in August 2008 already and declined. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep--2+2=4 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist per nom. Delisting doesn't mean deleting, you know... Lycaon (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep despite my opposition in the original nomination, I consider it bad form trying to delist pictures yearly until it finally succeeds. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • With all respect, that is a pretty stupid reason for voting "keep", as it has nothing to do with the picture itself. It actually makes me consider re-nominating it for delisting immediately after this nomination is closed, should it not succeed. The quality of this picture is inferior, and we all know it. There is no chance in hell this would make FP today. Keeping it anyway means granting special privileges to older pictures by saying they do not have to measure up to today's standards, which is insulting and discouraging for anyone working today. It's the stuff feudalism and fiefdomism are made of, the stuff nobility thrives on. When they do it, they are being criticised for it nowadays, even though some may still consider it stylish. But for a project like Commons, which is barely 5 years old, even talking about "old stuff", much less "tradition", is just plain ridiculous; and pseudo-tradition is the only reason people vote to keep pictures like this. -- JovanCormac 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep extremly strong picture --Jklamo (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I agree with Slaunger. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Ireland cliffs of moher3 Pumbaa80.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:54:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist: 730 × 1,102 pixels. It would have to be very, very special to mitigate this, and it isn't. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist It is good, but not among the finest we have today. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Korall (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per Jovan Cormac --S23678 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Jiuzhaigou Pearl Waterfall 2005-08-21.jpeg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:52:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 1,280 × 960 pixels resolution is far too low for a subject we must have thousands of. -- JovanCormac 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. --Slaunger (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Too low resolution --S23678 (talk) 16:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Polygonia c-album DePanne.jpg, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 16:11:41
Polygonia c-album

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist 1.92MP, not very sharp This and this are better images imho, although I do not think even the better images meet todays standard for FP. --Korall (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) (Original nomination)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist -- Korall (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Per nominator. -- JovanCormac 21:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 14:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Here colours is much better, than an alternative --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Although the two other photos have larger resolution, they are also unsharp. But even if this photo if the best one, I still do not think it meets current butterfly macro standards at FP. Its detail level is not good enough and the composition in rather uninteresting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Innsbrucklarge.jpg, not delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:27:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Noisy, unsharp, next to no detail, shaky camera. Totally disappointing for a Featured Picture. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I don't agree. --Lošmi (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Noise is not that bad. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Nice photo, but betail level, composition and atmosphere not on par with current cityscape standards for FP. --Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep not so bad, used in 18 projects --Jklamo (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
    • When will people realize that delisting does not mean deleting? -- JovanCormac 18:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And for a Featured Picture, "not so bad" shouldn't be a reason to keep. It needs to be exceptional to be Featured, which it obviously isn't. -- JovanCormac 08:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Yann (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep --Karel (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:SalzburgerAltstadt01.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:24:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution too low, bad tilt, noise, color balance (blue!). All in all way too many flaws for a common city shot. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Detail level not on par with current city FP standards. --Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist Agreed. Maedin\talk 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Toda Hut.JPG, delisted[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:22:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): Resolution too low, crop too tight. This can be retaken any time, ergo no mitigation. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 16:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist kallerna 12:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak delist Crop and detail level. Unfortunately we do not see that much image material from India at FPC, which is a pity, because the subject is interesting. It may be easy to retake (if you are there), but unfortunately we do not have that many Commons contributors from that area. --Slaunger (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Delist --Karel (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Kudrinskaya Square Building in Moscow2.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:54:41 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dmitry Rozhkov - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support During the previous discussion we decided the crop question. What about the image itself? -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice view but some noise and not sharp enough IMO. I am not sure what camera you are using but I believe the image might benefit if you will make a panorama. --Two+two=4 (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has an extensive level of noise for a daylight picture --S23678 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 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 poor quality --kaʁstn 09:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Mike Simons, Director of the National Electronic Museum in Baltimore assembles an Apollo TV camera for display.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 08:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mike Simons, Director of the National Electronic Museum in Baltimore assembles an Apollo TV camera for display
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/Bill Ingalls - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info One of the cameras used on the moon in Apollo 11 being re-assembled prior to the Apollo 11 40th anniversary events.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 08:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality is not so good for an image taken in 2009.--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Poor composition, in my opinion. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose focus issues, distracting background. --NEUROtiker  20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it has a very distracting background. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 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.
That said, it is an interesting device he is assembling. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Rosa del deserto2.JPG[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 09:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Il minerale "rosa del deserto"
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Yiyi - uploaded by Yiyi - nominated by Yiyi -- Yiyi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Yiyi (talk) 09:07, 25 August 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 blurred and too 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) 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is possible to do better. I should be able to photograph some myself at some stage. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info now the file has a bigger size -- Yiyi (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like this picture very much, but neither do I feel it should be axed by means of FPX. There is no clear violation of the guidelines, and we've seen far worse here. I'd contest the FPX, but that would require me to support it according to the rules, and I don't want to do that. -- JovanCormac 13:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Salina, KS Tornado ICT-SRM June 11, 2008.png[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 00:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wichita radar's storm relative motion of the a tornado-producing mesocyclone over Salina, Kansas on June 11, 2008. Blue/green shades are winds moving towards the radar (to the south-southeast), while red/yellow shades are winds moving away from the radar.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the National Weather Service - uploaded by Ks0stm - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (TC) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Although I know it falls short on the Mpx guidelines, it was as good as I could do with the program that displays the data, and I think it is an informative image. Ks0stm (TC) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It may be informative but the quality falls far short of what is needed to be a FP. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the featured --kaʁstn 10:03, 29 August 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 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) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Apparently this one isn't going to succeed, but I challenge everyone to find pictures of severe weather that might be worthy of FP status. Ks0stm (TC) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

image:Garmisch-Partenkirchen high resolution.jpg[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 06:29:37 (UTC)
High resolution panoramic image

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 lightning is not consistent from frame to frame throughout the panorama --S23678 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 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.
  • As well, other qualities issues, such as visible stitching boundaries, noise, stitching misalignments. The camera's automatic mode isn't an option for such panoramas. The qualities issues are overwhelming, BUT, I must praise the resolution (136 mpx!), and the great beauty of the scene (especially in the parts of the picture where the colors are bright and saturated). --S23678 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Armillaria sp Marriott.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:53:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Noodle snacks (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the famous "wow" is simply missing here. The composition seems quite trivial. Would make a great VI though. -- JovanCormac 13:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Can it be id'ed more specifically than Armillaria sp. based on its visual appearance alone? I think it would be relevant for you to specify your source of identification on the file page. Is it your own id, did you use a book, which, if you asked at some website, provide a link, etc. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • See: [2] also independently arrived at Armillaria at WP:Fungi too. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you. Please add it this important reference information to the file page (includign a specific link to the query at WP:FUNGi as well), as this is the obvious place to register such information. Nobody will be looking at this FPC page later if they wonder how the id was established. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What's that white, slightly tilted object (fence?) in the background. I find it mildly distracting. Otherwise a very nice photo.--Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it is a pity that it is licensed with GFDL 1.2 only, as it means it cannot be used in all Wikimedia projects, such as the German Wikipedia. I think, it lowers its value. --Slaunger (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, that is not quite true at the moment. In a recent vote [3] the decision was made to allow inclusion of 1.2-only from commons and/or to let commonists decide whether to keep allowing this license. Somewhat of a flip-flopping IMO, but we'll have to accept a majority vote. --Dschwen (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I was not aware of that the de bit had flipped, thanks for telling me. Let me rephrase then into saying that I think it is a pity that it is licensed with only a GFDL license, as this makes its future useability in Wikimedia projects and elsewhere uncertain. The current trend at Commons talk:Licensing is that a GFDL only license for Commons users own work should be "strongly discouraged", and there is apparently a proposal under way to completely prohibit GFDL only licensing of new uploads of users own original works. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm aware of such proposals. I do wish COM:FPC wasn't so politicised however. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm also reluctant to politicise in this way (as you call it). I would like to emphasize that license part considerations have very minor weight in my review here, but it does slightly affect the perceived value I have of the photo, which I think is a fair consideration. Especially, as long as it is not Commons policy to explicitly prohibit GFDL only licensing of original work from Commons users. --Slaunger (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice photo, but adding the slightly distracting background feature with a discouraged license it does not make it over my bar. --Slaunger (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. Julielangford (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose QI   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please explain. That an image has good qulity is in my opinion not something that can be a reasonable reason to oppose. --Korall (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Richard is saying here that while it may be of sufficient quality, it lacks that something extra to make it to FP. --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not artistically or compositionally remarkable. As Richard. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It ain't all about the "wow". Great quality compared to other fungi I've seen. ZooFari 07:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fungi-wow to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose white line in background is distracting --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ianare -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - would support without that distracting white bar. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, featured[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Chaka Demus and Pliers Stockholm 4th august 2009.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chaka Demus, a famous reggae DJ and singer during concert.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Korall - uploaded by Korall - nominated by Korall -- Korall (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Korall (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Snapshotty, tight crop, cut off mike, and hand in bottom left spoil composition, flash lighting and unappealing background. --Dschwen (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The hand on the bottom left is a show stopper. -- JovanCormac 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bottom left hand spoils this for me, other than that, I like it. Julielangford (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

Chaka Demus, a famous reggae DJ and singer during concert.
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I croppped it so the hand in the bottom left is gone now. To get a 3x4 ratio i also cropped a very small part of the top of the image. --Korall (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is better variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Forgot to Symbol support vote.svg Support this one.--Korall (talk) 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop is too tight (it was on the above one as well) and also, it is just a guy rapping, no wow here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good shoot but not very interesting, no interesting position or facial expression. --sNappy 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Vozes Almodovar August 2009-1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info "Vozes de Almodovar" (voices from Almodovar), a traditional folkloric group performing at Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I wish the crop was different but still a very good image--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The crop cuts arms, and part of a head off, which I find too distracting. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop, flash lighting not good. --Muhammad (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop (the visage of the first man is cut) and composition could be better for FP -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose snapshotty look due to: flat lighting, odd crop (hands, right edge of frame), black hats in front of black background, undecided composition (neither an overview nor a portrait shot, but somewhere half-way in between). --Dschwen (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop --Captain-tucker (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative, not featured[edit]

Vozes Almodovar August 2009-2.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info - OK, what about this alternative? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting use of DOF but I liked the original better mostly because of the young boy.--Two+two=4 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Straight flash. Blackpoint. --Ernie (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Light dispersion conceptual waves.gif, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Kieff - nominated by Diti Diti the penguin 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If someone succeeds in creating a bigger version of this animation… Nevertheless, I see the smoothness and usefulness of this animation (remember that the 2 Mpx limit is because of prints, and we cannot print animations) as a strong mitigating reason. Diti the penguin 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the animation itself is beautiful, and definitely big enough, I don't like the way waves are used here with the intention of illustrating the wave nature of light. The illustration gives the impression that light waves are much like water waves, and somehow "run along the ray of light", which is false (and because the truth is very complex indeed, the wavyness should probably be left out entirely). As this is a scientific illustration, IMO this misrepresentation is reason enough for opposing. -- JovanCormac 11:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the wwaves are being used to show that it's the different frequencies that cause the split - which is important information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
True, but imagine a still frame from the animation. It contains the very same information. The only info the animation adds to that still frame is the way the waves move - and it is precisely there where it goes wrong. -- JovanCormac 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree with JovanCormac that the animation transmits a wrong interpretation of the refraction of the different wavelengths and of the nature of light -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the opposers arguing that the animation conveys a wrong interpretation of how refraction works is somewhat missing the point in the purpose/scope of this animation. An animation displaying the full wave-particle duality, the detailed processes leading to dispersion in a reactive medium illustrating is not the scope here, but to portray the wave nature of light in a refractive medium. The file page description also explains this quite thoroughly. So the ambition here is more aimed at primary/high-school level and not a high level quantum-electrodynamic explanation. In fact it is such that in a macroscopic view of the problem it can be considered as a raytracing problem. However, there are certain aspects of the animation, which I think should be clarified to make it clearer. First of all there are six colors shown and the refractive index and dispersion of the prism is relatively low meaning that the separation between the colors is not so large. This means that the animation gets rather busy when the colors split out. This also means that only a careful observer will notice that the wavelength inside the prism for a given color is actually shorter than in the surrounding vacuum. The shorter wavelength is an important aspect of understanding the origin of the refraction (that light travels slower in the prism leading to a shorter wavelength). If the refractive index of the prism was set to a larger value with higher dispersion, the waves would split more out and the wavelength inside the prism would get even shorter. Also reducing the number of colors from six to, say four or five would also reduce the "clutter" in the animation and make it more illustrative. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Why not replace the waves with particles of different colours? That would make the whole thing more clear --Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per JC and Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ks0stm (TC) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The Dark Side of the Moon animated. I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, late vote. Lycaon (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Light dispersion conceptual.gif, not featured[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Here we go (by Alvesgaspar's request). But the animation is not smooth any more. Diti the penguin 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It also has another problem: Inside the prism, the red dots are spaced further apart than the violet ones (different wavelengths). But outside, spacing is the same for all colors. If the spacing of the dots is interpreted as an indicator of the wavelength (which is implied by the varying spacing inside the prism), this means that the picture once again promotes a view that is simply false. -- JovanCormac 19:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not much added value by animating this in any case. --Dschwen (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Imo is the first one better --kaʁstn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Canada Geese and morning fog.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 15:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canada Geese and morning fog
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the image has a great mood, and it must have been a nice view. However, I do not think it quite reaches the level of another FP from Golden Gate Park, File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg. I think the latter also have larger value in clearly showing crepuscular rays. Your photo certainly has some very good aesthetic qualities, and it is something you can be proud of, but I do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional. The image quality is also a little dissapointing when I have closer look with quite some noise in the darker areas. I know it is hard to avoid, but anyway, this is FPC. Could you add a geolocation please? Its odd how your and the now self-excluded photographer, mbz1 creations deal with quite similar subjects. Do you know her? (You do not have to reply on the last question). --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I am a bit disappointed with your oppose reason. Face-smile.svg First you compare the nominated image to the image that got fourth place in the picture of the year competition. Then you say that you "do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional." The images add to each other. They were taken in about the same place at about the same time and show how different the fog could be. The fog is different, the light is different, the sky condition is different. One image has the rays, the other has flying geese. One image has the sun behind the tree the other has the sun behind the fog. One image has a clear sky, the other has a foggy sky. In my opinion they both have educational and informational value, but where it is written in FPC criteria, that the value should be exceptional? I added location. Just copied from Mila's image. I know her. I reduced noise in some areas.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Point taken. Maybe I was coming down a little too hard on your image. I was not aware that milas image came in fourth so I agree it is a little unfair to compare the two. Albeit there is an informational and educational element in showing the fog, I feel we are pretty well covered with fog images on Commons. Almost as well covered as with sunsets. Pleasing to look at from an artistical side, but actually obscuring otherwise informational and educational elements such as the ducks (we have plenty of those here as well) and geese. You are right that it does not say anywhere in the guidelines that the value should be exceptional. It says "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" and it also say "beautiful does not always mean valuable". It would be more precise to point at those sentences for my reasoning. Interesting that you know mila. Did you borrow her camera as well? You use the same camera model - a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi!?! OK, let me just pop a more blunt question, just to avoid any further speculations: Is Two+Two=mila?--Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
What made you to believe that I cannot afford my own camera? Two+two=4 or as you explained to me "2+2=10 in the Ternary numeral system". In my opinion the nominated image is at least as valuable as quite a few current FP images. Of course if you decided to fight for the value of FPC even using my own image as a scapegoat, I wish you good luck Face-smile.svg. I hope to see more oppose/neutral votes from you for the same reason and with the same detail description of your opinion in the feature.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, when two users know each other, shoot the same kinds of subjects from the same locations, with the exact same camera model it could have been the same camera and even the same person... But you have stated now that it not the case, so case closed. Concerning "scapegoat" I want you to know that I try to the best of my ability to review any image as objectively as I can against how I perceive the criteria and not let my review be influenced by who the creator is and the topic. I am not a robot though, nor flawless. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
The best way to check if we're using the very same camera is to check for dust spots. If you find one in the very same place on both images then your quest will be solved, my dear Sherlock Holmes Face-smile.svg. On a more serious note I would like you to know that I have stated nothing except that I am using my own camera and that 2+2=4 that is a well known fact :). With my statement I tried to make you to realize that I consider your questions and statements that have nothing to do with the nomination a little bit intrusive and strange. I am glad you closed the case. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Dust spots can be cleaned, both off the sensor and off the images, and given that the photos you shot and the photos that Mbz1 shot are a couple of months apart, there's no proof either way to be gleaned from looking at spots... For the record, I noticed that you also used the same version of Photoshop CS3, and both saved with progressive JPEG... Just saying... Diliff (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Great, now I'm also being accused in destroying the most important evidences - dust spots:) Diliff, how interesting you mentioned progressive JPEG. As a matter of fact I've tried to use different saving options (I assume you have not looked over all of my uploads :)), and was about to ask you what is the best way to save the files after editing with CS3. I've noticed that every time I do a minor edit and save a file, the quality of the sky is getting worse. So as long as you commented here anyway could you please give me a professional advise what saving options I should use? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well I think it's beautiful. It really gives off a special kind of mood and shows those rays up wonderfully. Julielangford (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow, what a striking image. --J.smith (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull, no wow. Not something I'd consider as the best of the best we have on commons. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 20:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it a lot! /Daniel78 (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image, something I'd put on a wall of a room to relax people, but not an eye-popper. Daniel Case (talk) 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Come on now, man, you came here, voted only on two nominations out of 60+ nominations , and you want me to believe to you that the image is not an "eye-popper"? Face-smile.svg--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it. --Calibas (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image says: "Morning is broken". It remembers me to this song.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello everybody. In case you have not yet heard I am not 2+2=4. I am a notorious Mbz1 with an absolutely horrible block record. All I wanted was a fresh start, but I guess I cannot have one. I should have been threaded differently like infamous Mbz1 and not as an innocent new user I pretended to be. Please feel free to revoke your "support" votes for this nomination as well as for my other nominations. Please feel free to change you "support" votes to "oppose" votes. BLOCKLOG1 + BLOCKLOG2 + BLOCKLOG3 and --2+2=4
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentSigh, well you certainly do your utmost to stir up as much drama as possible instead of pursuing the less dramatic and sensible path which would simply be to link to your previous account and then continue with your fresh start:-( --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There's plenty of educational value in the image: irridesent fog, reduced visibility due to the fog, the flying geese, the reflection, the visibility of the sun behind the fog. Your mention about so called "similar image" shows that you yourself could have learned a lot from the nominated image. The only semilarity between the images are that they were taken at about the same place, but of course "no wow" cannot be helped Face-smile.svg.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd like to thank everybody, who supported the image. This nomination was practically killed from the very beginning first by highly unfair oppose reason, and then for even more unfair interrogation. When the nomination has started, the image's creator was happy 2+2=4, who just got out of the cage and was flying free. Now the nomination is about to end, and the image's creator was put back to the cage with the broken wings. I've done nothing wrong to deserve it. According to Commons's policies I had all the rights in the world for a fresh start, but... I would also like to thank lycaon for two reasons. The first one is that he said "sorry" in the end of his oppose reason. That "sorry" meant a lot to me. The second reason I'd like to thank lycaon for is that kindly he has never taken a part in the interrogation himself. My special thanks is going to diliff. I laughed out loud at his way too serious response to my joke about dust spots. Sometimes it gets really funny to deal with people who're lacking sense of humor, or at least whose sense of humor is very different from mine own. Thanks, diliff, you made me laugh. The nomination still has 3+ hours to go, but no matter if the image is promoted or not, I will always remember your supports for that very special for me nomination Face-smile.svg. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

or[edit]

Ducks and morning fog

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. Did not like the geese, how about the ducks?--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one too. --Calibas (talk) 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no wow, no educational value. Silimar picture already featured. --Jklamo (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

File:A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 04:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn 09:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think too dark, no diferent between background and foreground (heli). — Jagro (talk) 21:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This just isn't special enough, and there are plenty of opportunities to take photos of these choppers, especially for the users in California right now. Nezzadar (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok, althought crop isn't ideal. kallerna 12:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I am already glad I've nominated the image. To get "support" from you most of all now means a lot to me! The crop could have been better, but imagine, we were driving highway, when I saw the fire. I asked my husband to stop, but he said: "Why, have you never seen a fire yet or what?" He was right. Living in California we have seen quite a few wildfires. Besides with wildfires one never knows when highway you're driving at would get closed. So we kept going, and then I saw the helicopter, which we have never seen before. I had a very little time to grab my camera and to take few fast shots.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
IMO this image is very good, the only thing that bothers me is that small bit of electrical transmission tower. kallerna 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

or[edit]

A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good --kaʁstn 12:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strongly Same as above, not special. This time though, the background of clear sky makes the image even less worthy. Sorry. Nezzadar (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Caracalla profile.JPG, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bust of Carcalla
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info uploaded by Urban - nominated by Urban (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Bust of Carcalla
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator. Urban (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --≈≈ Cemg ≈≈ 17:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Contast and crispness are too low, and the shot is taken from just the wrong angle - we can see the bust's profile, but little of the face. -- JovanCormac 14:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too grainy. Are those yellow spots on the bust or is this due to technical issues? --NEUROtiker  17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose White balance looks too red to me. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chapel in Andelsbuch
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I gave a shot at translating the description; if anyone can improve it, please do.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Excellent, however what spoils the perfect atmosphere and composition is that the stool is out of centre. -- H005 (talk) 08:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Funny, I've just looked it up in Google Earth - I passed this place last year in July, and I can't recall seeing a chapel there - it must have been built shortly thereafter. A pity I missed it. -- H005 (talk) 17:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The flaw in the bottom right corner (which I missed before) plus the above mentioned issue amkes me change my mind to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, sorry. A pity for such a great image. H005 (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Back to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral after cropping. -- H005 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support wow --kaʁstn 12:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Econt (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great use of lighting! --Calibas (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great shot, but IMO the technical quality is not sufficient. There's some noise in the darker parts and a very obvious flaw in the bottom right corner. --NEUROtiker  17:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After long deliberation, I'll have to go with NEUROtiker on this one. The flaw in the bottom right corner is simply unacceptable for an FP. Also, the camera appears to have been a little overworked with the dynamic range here. The bright parts on the left side are overexposed, while the table is dark, dull, and unsharp as well. All of those shortcomings together sadly nullify the high aesthetic appeal of the picture. -- JovanCormac 18:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • After edits by Sarcastic SL, I change my vote to Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral. The flaw in bottom right is gone which makes the image a lot better, but the dynamic range and sharpness problems are still to large for me to support. -- JovanCormac 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! --Karel (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support // tsca (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose deformation at bottom right corner. Alvaro qc (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Albertus teolog (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvaro. Will support if its cropped away or fixed in some other way because i like this image.

Symbol support vote.svg Support--Korall (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've cropped 36 pixels of either side to remove the distortion, and rebalance the image. Might I ask that you re-examine it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Alvaro qc (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support surreal --ianaré (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support thanks for supports and kritics --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen Underwater.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 18:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baron Münchhausen Underwater
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gottfried Franz (1846-1905) - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Scan from Russian edition (1896) Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent. Do you have more scans from that edition? -- JovanCormac 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, I do. But this one is the most impressive, IMO --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
      • You could bundle them together and nominate them as a Valued Image Set. It would be a great service to Commons. This nomination would not be affected. -- JovanCormac 21:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 00:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent work --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wonderful. --Calibas (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen with a half-horse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 04:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baron Münchhausen with a half-horse.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Gottfried Franz (1846-1905) - uploaded by Dmitry Rozhkov - nominated by Dmitry Rozhkov -- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator. Another interesting picture from the same edition-- Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I remember that story. His horse was cut in half by a gate and could still walk on its two front legs, but when it drank, the water flowed right through it. Those scans are fantastic! -- JovanCormac 06:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Excellent. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAndrei S. Talk 14:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Isola di Pag panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]