Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 00:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:STA71103.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:STA71103.JPG
Oppose a mess. Doesn't tell you much. Tomer T (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is below requirements. Tomer T (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
What do you mean by doesn't tell you much? It's a picture to describe a deforestation. What else do you want a picture to say? And i think the size is fine because it's 1.92 Mpx, just little bit less than 2Mpx.Trongphu (talk) 06:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It shouldn't be less than 2 Mpx. This is the minimum. A clear border line should be crossed somewhere. Anyhow, to me it's just a bunch of wood sticks lying on the ground, it doesn't have much value imho to understanding deforestation. It could also be garbage waiting to be collected, in my eyes. Tomer T (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be useful at least it should be specified where was this taken. This is not explained in the description, nor is there a geocode. Also see Commons:File naming. Also agree with Tomer T that the composition is not up to FP standards, and minimum size requirement is not met. --ELEKHHT 21:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 02:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Night.jpg
Oppose Looks over-saturated (sky), over-exposured (building) and the vegies in the foreground obscuring the building do not help the composition. --ELEKHHT 08:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
Saturation level is standard. RAW is available so I can change exposure if several users insist. As for the trees, this was taken from a parking lot. There are only 2 positions where you can get this view. Each with its advantages and disadvantages. At this position the trees cannot be avoided and at the other position there is this massive Arrival/Departure signboard as seen here.
Oppose I like the buildings of Eero Saarinen and especially Dulles International Airport very much. But this picture is as ELEKHH mentioned overexposed. Sadly the trees are disturbing the view of the building. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination in favour of the new nomination above. Jovian Eyestorm 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 02:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- The animal looks caged inside the frame. Let the poor thing breathe!Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Overly tight crop around the head. --99of9 (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As opposers. พ.s. 05:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per above, sorry. --Cephas (talk) 16:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since all oppose due to little space near the head, would some photo-shopped space be acceptable? --Muhammad (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Just leave as is. It is a good species picture. Is it a must to be FP? Shopping won't necessarily improve it. พ.s. 17:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 03:55:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chupaflor Margariteño.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chupaflor Margariteño.jpg
Comment -- A superb composition! It is a shame that image quality is so poor (artifacts, chromatic noise). The camera is to blame, I belive. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Is it fair to say 'so poor'. Could you elaborate on where you see the 'artifacts' and 'chromatic noise'. 184.32.80.7 02:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice picture. For birds it's hard to compete with the huge telescopic lenses! --99of9 (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 22:32:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blitz über Diekholzen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blitz über Diekholzen.jpg
Oppose -- Not special or interesting enough to reach FP status. There are many similar pictures in Commons, some of them better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 20:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Habichtspilz-Sarcodon-imbricatus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Habichtspilz-Sarcodon-imbricatus.jpg
Support Very detailed and nice.--Jebulon (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very interesting kind of mushroom. --Ximonic (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Good quality and probably a valuable image. But not special enough to reach FP status. I find the backgorund, with the curved line dividing the image in two parts, too distracting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 18:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Light Shining Through Clouds.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Light Shining Through Clouds.jpg
Oppose Sorry, but a lot of jpg-artefacts in the sky, noisy --Llez (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Berthold. --ELEKHHT 15:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeCrepuscular rays are a very tempting thing to shoot. So we get enough pictures of them here. If you want it to be featured, it better make us think we've never seen them before. This is in some ways a commendable image, but it doesn't cross that threshold, not in the least because the HDR makes it look too arty IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 14:07:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taleghan-lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taleghan-lake.jpg
Neutral That's a really stunning landscape, in part of the world that not many of us have seen. The image is well composed. But... there is a lot of colour noise in the reflection of the dark mountains. Overall, I'm not convinced that this is high enough quality for FP. But thanks for getting the author to place the panoramio picture under a free license. --99of9 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral very nice landscape.. there are some quality issues that don't let me support it.. next time I will visit Iran (one of the most nice countries I have been) I will have in mind Taleqan lake for a visit. Ggia (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2011 at 16:43:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Women football youth olympic games.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Women football youth olympic games.JPG
Oppose Nothing special with this picture... moreover, the ball hides a face, the composition is messy and there's a strange halo around the players. --Gzzz (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not a very good quality sports photo, a bit too busy and nothing special. Sorry! Missvain (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 20:17:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea cinerea qtl3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ardea cinerea qtl3.jpg
Info
A Grey Heron (a wild animal in a zoo). Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The horizontal logs in the background cutting through the subject make it non-FP composition IMO. --99of9 (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2011 at 07:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La ventana de Punín.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La ventana de Punín.jpg
Comment -- It is an interesting subject and could produce a nice FP, but more attention is needed to the technical details. Three suggestions: (i) take the shot from a larger distance so that the geometric distortion is minimized and the window is shown as rectangular as possible (use a lens with a larger focal distance, e.g. 100mm). The remaining geometric distortions can be corrected later in the computer; (ii) don't use automatic exposure. The unnecessary high ISO setting of 400 produced a lower quality image because of excessive noise. I would have underexposed the shot a bit, so that the brighter parts we can see through the window are not overexposed. This will be corrected later in the computer; (iii) increase color saturation to correct for the washed-out paint of the window and make the reds more vivid. I can't promise that these suggestions will produce a FP but I believe they will make the photo more interesting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Thank you for your suggestions Alvesgaspar, I'm an amateur but I'll continue learning. I'll work this picture as you said.--Dabit100 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 17:23:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leucanthemum .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leucanthemum .jpg
Comment Doesnt it feel a bit overexposed in the whites? 193.235.138.40 11:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- The composition is unbalanced and image quality is poor. The main subject is overexposed, affected by chromatic aberration, unsharp and lacks detail. In my opinion the picture is way below the FP standards -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --Gzzz (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2011 at 17:32:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SNCB EMU624 R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SNCB EMU624 R01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2011 at 21:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Verbrennung eines Zuckerwürfels .pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Verbrennung eines Zuckerwürfels .png
Comment Thanks for the interesting subject. I agree with Archaeo, but I think this subject has great potential if you are willing to do some experiments and get it right. (PS Each frame should be of equal width.) --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I'll try to get it right. Thank you for your "PS-idea" --Brackenheim (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with the comments and the oppose above. But very interesting indeed! Not only I would like each of the photographs the same size but I'd also like if the pictures were taken from the exact same direction and so the subject would be the exact same scale too. Shortly: I would like them if they were identical except the condition of the situation. I would give bonus if there was something like a glass table under the subject or perhaps a less detailed background. That would make it look more professional and uhm... ”studio like”, I guess. --Ximonic (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 09:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2011 at 14:01:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Villa Deste park central 2011 18.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Villa Deste park central 2011 18.jpg
Oppose blown skies, making the trees a bit unclear, and also composition is somewhat messy IMHO. Tomer T (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Tomer, it also seems like it "should be" centered, but it's not. Missvain (talk) 04:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose blown out sky, messy compo. --ELEKHHT 01:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 01:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Xiangqi1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xiangqi1.JPG
This one is better organize, better lightning.Trongphu (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I know you retook the photo, and this one is an improvement, I'm just not sure this qualifies for the best of what we have on Commons. It still seems too much like a casual snapshot, perhaps it's better for a quality photo nomination. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I did the best i can to show the Xiangqi table. It meant more than just a picture. Xiangqi is a most famous chess in Asian (i think) origin from China. I don't see any problem with the picture quality, it shows everything needed about the Xiangqi. If this one fail again by many oppose then i guess it's time for me to try my luck at quality photo nomination.Trongphu (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeBarrel distortion. And please notice that "FP picture" does not mean "better than QI picture". It is a common misinterpretation I try to fight again. The technical quality requirements are almost the same in both pages (maybe less severe in FP, because of mitigating circumstances, not allowed in QI). Maybe could it be interesting to read the two guidelines entirely. I think this one should fail in QIC page too, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 08:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Trongphu, featured pictures are "special" pictures, which not only should have excellent quality but stand out by their extraordinay beauty, perfection, rarity, value, whatever. You image is a plain depiction of a board, nothing more, and no reviewer will probably acknowledge any magic in it. I'm not sure it will pass the QIC barrier either, due to the tight crop and geometric distortion (due to the small focal distance of the lens). Another issue is the camera. Yes, it is possible to shoot a FP with a point-and-shoot camera like yours, but the odds are against it, due to the poor image quality given by the small sensor and image compression. Please take the example of my Eiffel Tower nomination below. It is a high quality very large picture composed of several individual images, taken with an expensive camera. Still it won't probably pass the FP barrier due to both quality (poor lighting) and composition (lack of magic) issues. Please don't give up, anyway. Go on practising, use this place to learn from our photographers and reviewers and ... try to get a better camera. Regards. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I fully agree with Alvesgaspar. Especially when he says "Don't give up" !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I feel like giving up already. There are so many things that i don't even understand what you're trying to say. I'm not even an amateur photographers or reviewers. I don't know much about camera and stuffs about it. Things are more complicated than i thought. I bet to understand all of these things i must take a class specific about photograph. Guess i just upload pictures for fun then since it's impossible for my pictures to qualify to any of these.Trongphu (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 14:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gröndörrsstöten August 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gröndörrsstöten August 2011.jpg
Info
Small creek on Mount Gröndörrsstöten, Ljungdalen, Härjedalen. Created by Ankara - uploaded by Ankara - nominated by Ankara -- Ankara (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 11:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Church at the village Kerk-Avezaath in the Netherlands prior to 1938. Created by Unknown - uploaded by Saberfrog - nominated by Saberfrog -- Saberfrog (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The framing of the photo is a bit off IMHO, and the other building overlaps into the focus building, deterring the eye. Missvain (talk) 04:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 20:00:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
It is a nice stairway but still lack significance.--G Furtado (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why? Handrails have they own category and when I check the images it doesn't seem to be so simple making a good image of this so that the viewer can capture the object instantly. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You got a good point, it is one of the best pictures of a handrail in the Commons, but I still think a handrail lacks significance for a FP (although the arguments). Anyway, I won't oppose (even if I could), it is just my personal opinion (people here seams to call it wow factor). On the other hand it seams that it sparkled interest in your picture and people started voting. Good Luck. --G Furtado (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support minimal and nice Ggia (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support handrails for the win. they prevent us from slipping on icy winter ways, assist us when we are short on breath and help us to find the way if there's a blackout. as significant as sliced bread. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The subject is more complex than it seems. The woodwork is very difficult for the elbow. The contrast between the wood and the wall is interresting. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support per other supporters, and because we need to keep our minds open. No need of special significance IMO, and FP is not only for "spectacular" pictures. I find this one more than good.--Jebulon (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 19:59:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Sorry but the (barrel)-distortion is to much for my taste. The idea and the exposure blending technic is pretty good, but at a shot like this the lines have to be straight. --mathiasK 09:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As per Mathias K. Yann (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 16:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Matterhorn (2).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matterhorn (2).JPG
Oppose The concept is cool, but, I don't think it's the highest quality it could be, and per Alchemist-hp. Missvain (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 16:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
CommentMy initial thought is that it's really small even for this kind of .svg. Even if there is not much anything that people would miss from this because of the resolution, I would still like it bigger when one is willing to see it in full resolution. Otherwise, not bad work at all. --Ximonic (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 00:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:3 filters.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:3 filters.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2011 at 23:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BantulKid.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BantulKid.JPG
Comment Nice picture, but more information is needed for FP. Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing is wrong with the image, but this doesn't look like one of the best pictures from Commons. Try maybe Commons:Quality images. —stay (sic)! 10:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2011 at 03:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala headshot.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Male impala headshot.jpg
Oppose -- The subject (the mating flies) is too small and lacks detail ;-). As for the background (the mammal), this is a far cry of the portrait recently promoted. Maybe if the photo showed the whole animal? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 07:19:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Abeja Margarita Riobamba.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abeja Margarita Riobamba.jpg
Oppose -- A nice shot but far from the present high standards for macro pictures of insects (the so-called 'bug bar'). Image quality just not good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Strong post-processing artifacts around the border of the flower. It looks like a large circular blur-brush has been run around the edge, leaving it noise-free, when the rest of the background is very very noisy. --99of9 (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2011 at 19:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Leon architectural detail.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leon architectural detail.jpg
Comment @ --Archaeodontosaurus Webster defines contrast as the “juxtaposition of dissimilar elements (as color, tone, or emotion) in a work of art.” In this case, from the photographic perspective, your opinion contrasts with the reality of the image. This image has a very wide tonal range, that is, it has pure blacks and pure whites, with lots and lots of grays in the middle, therefore, is not a contrasted image, but the opposite, it is an image with a wide tonal scale. In order to illustrate the point, I have uploaded an image that I posterized with 10 steps of a gray scale, and that means that there are 8 shades of gray between the pure blacks and the pure whites This is the posterized image, compare!. If you look at the image, the posterization is hardly noticeable. And more interesting, look at the histogram of the image, and you will see what I mean. In fact, by looking at the posterized image and the histogram at the same time, one gets a sort of visual cognitive dissonance, due to the fact that the image, instead of becoming very contrasted as it would be expected by a posterization process, somehow manages to maintain a visually acceptable grayscale. So, your evaluation of contrast contrasts with conventional wisdom. Data is data, and the data shows wide gray scale, not contrast. On another note, this image is informative in several ways: it is a dated and geographically localized architectural detail and it is a decent study of a subject interpreted according to zone system photography. It´s ok to oppose and not like a photograph, just use the right reasons. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose To high juxtaposition of dissimilar elements. พ.s. 05:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment w.s. lycaon, hans, or whatever other name you go by, why am I not surprised? If anybody here knows about photo theory it is you. So it is back to the good old days with you! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence. Very much appreciated. พ.s. 14:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I do acknowledge your photographic skills, our differences reside in another dimension.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If were all equal, we wouldn't have this conversation, or an FPC for that matter. พ.s. 14:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know we are not all equal hans, but you can still learn a few tricks!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every day, Tomás, every day... พ.s. 18:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lol! The good thing is that we still have a good sense of humor! We´ll save a space for you! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2011 at 01:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache dolls.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican paper mache dolls.jpg
Comment There's minimal CA (see annotation), imho reduceable. Also, an FP should be categorized properly. - A.Savin 18:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oversaturated And some DoF problems in the rear. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The color rendition of these dolls is as close as you can get. Original image shot in raw, and I compared the lighting conditions to the auto white balance, with no noticeable difference. The truth is that these Mexican dolls, as well as a lot of things Mexican, make use of vivid, saturated colors. If you look at the whites, you can see that there is no color bias in general. Also, in the exif info, you can see that the scene capture is standard. So basically scene is captured as is, colors represented as they are in real life. On the other hand, from the anthropological and historical point of view, these dolls are the legacy of early 20th century tradition, which to some academics and art historians is of interest. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The colors seem fine to me, but I would prefer a larger composition. The heads are cut off at the top, and the bottom is too tight IMO. Yann (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support overally good, although I do agree with Yann about the tight crop. Tomer T (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yann, Tomer. Both of you are right with regards to the tight cropping. I chose it over a wider crop because of the visual impact, a personal choice I guess. Basically I wanted a variety of facial expressions, but for that I sacrificed general detail. I have uploaded 3 additional photographs of this type of dolls that will give more specific information on the dolls without sacrificing image size. You can find them here: [[1]], [[2]] and [[3]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No improvement = no support. A.Savin 17:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2011 at 02:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Washington Dulles International Airport at Dusk.jpg
Info
created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye. This has been taken from arguably the best position. -- Jovian Eyestorm 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2011 at 14:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Climbers Roque-Gageac.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Climbers Roque-Gageac.jpg
Support An interesting circumstance in a nice landscape. A cliff, two historic monuments, a landslide over a village, two professional climbers at work, checking the erosion. Drama ! Suspens ! Well... Unusual. -- Jebulon (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Jebulon but the few interesting details are not enough to mitigate the poor framing and uninteresting composition. Maybe a more generous frame (or a pano) would work better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment The subject is the climbers. I think they have enough air to breath around them. I don't understand what you mean by "uninteresting composition"... Everybody can say that about any picture...--Jebulon (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is difficult to explain subjective feelings about aesthetics. The composition seems uninteresting to me because there is no central subject to which our attention is automatically attracted. If the subjet is indeed the climbers, then a much tighter crop should have been made around them, even running the risk of sufocation :). If not, a more careful framing is required (notice, for example, the cropped roof below). The somber colors and angle (from below) don't help either. Anyway, this is only a personal (and honest) assessment and the photo will probably get very different ones from different reviewers. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for further explanations. I've no doubt about the honesty of your assessment. The crop of roofs is to suggest the village under, and the dangerous situation of it. IMO this picture has many to show, all around the two climbers (see annotations, for example). The circumstances of this image are not usual (maybe they are unique) and I hope it will get other honest reviews (with honest supports !) ;)...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another honest Oppose. If the subject is the climbers, they are too small, and one is in shadow. To me a cut in half building suggests a building brutally cut in half by a photographer :). --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes subject is the climbers, but climbers are here because of some events in surroundings, which were interesting to show because of the circumstances, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2011 at 14:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Harpa davidis 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Harpa davidis 01.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2011 at 21:06:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:My Tho, Vietnam. A Viet Cong base camp being. In the foreground is Private First Class Raymond Rumpa, St Paul, Minnesota - NARA - 530621 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:My Tho, Vietnam. A Viet Cong base camp being. In the foreground is Private First Class Raymond Rumpa, St Paul, Minnesota - NARA - 530621 edit.jpg
Info
created by an unknown photographer - restored, uploaded, and nominated by PETER WEISTALK 21:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Charlie don't surf!
Support They had to burn it in order to save it... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Chromatic aberration and noise, but I assume you cannot get a better version without ruining it. And it is very valuable for the historic significance. Tomer T (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Tomer T. พ.s. 05:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Where do you see chromatic aberration? Regards, PETER WEISTALK 09:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see terrible noise and heavy posterization. พ.s. 10:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Where do you see "terrible noise" and "heavy posterization"? Regards, PETER WEISTALK 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This is a restoration of either a negative, slide or print. It really does not matter, for in any case it is a well done restoration. From the photographic perspective, it mainatins a decent dynamic range and more than adequate detail of the objects present. But more importantly, it is a restoration of an image that is so iconic of an event that convoluted the world at the time. As a visual document it brings down the tragedy to a simple level, to the one soldier cassually passing by what must have truly represented a tragedy to the owners of that home. The Zippo lighter and the Winston cigarretes add a strange intimacy to the image, a strange familiarity, a contrast of worldy comforts and the tragedy of war. It is foolish to reduce this image to expectations of what would be possible today with digital technologies. This image is an elocuent and social document of incredible value, both historically and as a photograph standng by itself.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An image that needs a thousand words to explain why it should be featured, may not be worth it in the end... พ.s. 14:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I could agree with such a patronizing sentence, if I were sure that all reviews were careful enough ...--Jebulon (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty of images need explaining, for not all images contain all the necessary information for the viewer to understand. Many images need to be understood within a certain context, and it it capital cultural, or the lack of, that leads to different degrees of understanding. If we were to reduce pictures in Commons only to those that have a universal message or understanding by the general population, then we would really be in a sorry state. We would be reduced to liking pretty pictures of sunsets, flowers and cute animals, without necessarily even knowing of the relevance of such subjects in the real world outside their aesthetic characteristics, and even then, aesthetics are not necessesarily universal. So, yes, many pictures need explaining in order to realize their importance. A picture is worth a thousand words is a partially true statement, but more than anything, it is a cliché applied to a very small segment of the photograph population.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 23:19:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Gouna Three Corners R02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Gouna Three Corners R02.jpg
Oppose Nothing special and maybe oversaturated.. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Nice place for resting but trivial photo. Quality is just average despite the good camera (ISO 200?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 10:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I was hardly going to do a three hour natural light exposure, and it was taken quite a way away from home, so I didn't have access to more complicated lighting gear. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2011 at 09:48:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris July 2011-35.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris July 2011-35.jpg
Info
A natural complement to the existing FP, which was shot from the other side (southeast). The lighting is probably not as good but the compostion and the sky are more interesting imo. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Ahah ! Fallait passer me voir !--Citron (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Peut-être l'année prochaine, j'en suis pas sur. On pourra faire un double workshop: sur les photos ... et le pinard français! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dans ce cas-là, j'en suis ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Would be nice if you could provide additional information on your settings via {{Photo Information}}. How many images were taken to stitch the current resolution? What software did you use? Reminds me of Where's Wally?. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 11:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done -- The stitching process destroys the Exif info and I had no idea that such template existed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry Alvesgaspar, but in comparison of your below comment of the climbers in Dordogne (you called "uninteresting composition"), I'm not sure you show us here an "interesting composition". There are dozens of dozens of this picture all around by the post-card sellers, and this "composition" is especially boring IMO. I think there is no "composition" at all... Nothing new, nothing original, no wow.--Jebulon (talk) 12:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not an original composition and you are right that it has already been shown in thousand of postcards. But the purpose here is to produce a high quality and high resolution depiction of the subject, using a balanced composition. A conservative view, in other words. Whether it is good enough for reaching the peaks of FP (like Benh's photo) is another thing. Anyway, I'm tryng to be coherent with my own rules (especially #8)... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In life, being coherent with our "own rules" is the very least we can do... This picture is nice. But should it be FP because of size ? Anyway, you are a good rhetorician, my friend...--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, is it really? It depends of course of the rules but sometimes it is the hardest thing there is! That is why people tend to adhere to pre-formatted moral and ethic codes: they are much easier to follow! Coming back to our little world here, I think you should oppose the nomination (like I did). You have already been didactic (#5), now you can be ruthless (#7) and brave (#8). You were right, the talk is sometimes much more interesting than the pictures :-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose tight crop in the bottom and the lighting condition can be better.. ie. in a sunny weather will have better contrast between sky - tower. Since it is a trivial subject it is easy to have a better version of it. Ggia (talk) 03:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Uninspiring composition, bad lighting --Muhammad (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Another oppose (Nothing against you, I like giving my opinion on pictures of Paris). A bit too crowdy to my tastes, and not perfectly centered (this is noticeable even on the thumbnail). This is not acceptable on an architectural and trivial shot like this one. - Benh (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 07:18:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-07-25 21-20-41-spines.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-07-25 21-20-41-spines.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 07:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-07-12-hyeres-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-07-12-hyeres-2.jpg
Oppose Periodic dark patches in the sky suggest exposure stitching issues. --99of9 (talk) 01:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- The picture shown in this thumbnail is not the same as in the file. I could support the first, after the road at left were cloned out, but not the second. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- OK, I got it. Too wide for my taste, bands in the sky due to stitching. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 07:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower head 2011 G1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower head 2011 G1.jpg
Oppose -- Sorry but I don't like the composition, with the dark leaf in the background. It would be much better without it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I too am not convinced by the composition. --Jovian Eyestorm 14:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Don't like the angle at preview, but ended up liking the quality and this unusual choice of perspective overall. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 17:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not the usual "fresh" state --Llez (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose IMO trivial, not aesthetically pleasing composition. —kallerna™ 19:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Composition doesn't work. Also, photographing a sad, wilted version of something that can be perfect and beautiful is "different" but no reason to feature. --Colin (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment "Sad" and "wilted" one side, "perfect" and "beautiful" other side, are concepts we can discuss for ages without to find a consensus, IMO... --Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'm responding to Llez's support comment, but also trying to question why this photograph was taken/chosen -- it would be interesting to know what the photographer was trying for. The older sunflower head is interesting from the side but has been neither isolated successfully nor pleasantly surrounded by its background. The large dark leaf leads the eye away. The symmetry of the head is lost by it. The lighting is harsh. The camera has done its job admirably, but I see little other reason to feature a pic of a very common flower. Colin (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for answer and very interesting explanations.--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2011 at 05:11:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Hirano family, left to right, George, Hisa, and Yasbei. Colorado River Relocation Center, Poston, Arizona., 1942... - NARA - 535989.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Hirano family, left to right, George, Hisa, and Yasbei. Colorado River Relocation Center, Poston, Arizona., 1942... - NARA - 535989.tif
Support Historical image from the NARA collection that shows the Hirano Family, who was interred in a Japanese internment camp in Arizona. IMHO, a very powerful and haunting image, and historical despite noise. Missvain (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Photography as a social document. Restoration should be done, however.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Should be restored and the frame removed before being nominated. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I understand that Commons loves to restore images, but, as someone who works in the GLAM industry, and works closely with staff and folks who are involved in image donations, it's a general belief that to have people restore the images on Commons takes away from the historical and archival importance of the images. Of course, you can do what you want with the images, since they are on Commons. I disagree that an image needs to be restored in order to be considered a featured image. I also come from traditional photography and honestly, at times, the history of the photograph - the marks, the wears, the tears - are sometimes as important as the image itself. Lost cause I'm sure sharing my thoughts, but, worth a shot. Missvain (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I agree with you in the general sense, so much that I voted support of the image. There are, however, a lint and dust specks that are not part of the image itself. That is the restoration I refer to. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 13:09:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mongolian yurt in steppe.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mongolian yurt in steppe.jpg
Support -- It so far is the best in the relevant category so I was, like, why not? This being pure luck shot, I'd also be interested in feedback from more experienced contributors as to how I can improve my technique (e.g composition or retouching). Popo le Chienouah 13:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why was this a luck shot? It's beautiful, but I think the ISO is off; the sky seems noisy. Also, while it's only a minor detail and I can't see what they are anyway, odds are still pretty good someone, perhaps W.S., would oppose this just because of the cut out stuff on the right. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 17:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
waow! That's what i call a nice personal attack, if I'm not wrong . ;)--Jebulon (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Don't you have a version with the yurt slightly more to the center? In this one we can't see completely the objects around it. --G Furtado (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What sticks on the right side actually is part of a huge pile of junk they hadn't moved from another yurt they were building. I wondered if I could/should photoshop it out. Popo le Chienouah 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think in this case photoshop would go against guidelines. Too bad, is such an interesting house with a nice landscape. --G Furtado (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Most probably a VI but not a FP due to poor image quality and ... unfortunate crop at right. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 15:10:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dolphin leap.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dolphin leap.JPG
My guess is an Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) from this article, but I am definitely no expert. Sbork (talk) 08:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I can imagine that this shot was not easy to take and the photographer is proud to have it done. But from photographic point of view this angular perspective is not really good. The head of the dolphin isn't well composed. And the ratio of this picture isn't harmonic too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Wladyslaw. --ELEKHHT 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 03:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:"An MP on motorcycle stands ready to answer all calls around his area. Columbus, Georgia.", 04-13-1942 - NARA - 531136.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:"An MP on motorcycle stands ready to answer all calls around his area. Columbus, Georgia.", 04-13-1942 - NARA - 531136.tif
Info
created by U.S Army- uploaded by NARA - nominated by -- agr (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This is a great docummentary photograph. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Really great and powerful photo. Missvain (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Maybe we are spoiled here but I'm used to assess historical photos after they were restored. In the present case there's much to do. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. This image definitely needs restoration work. --Jovian Eyestorm 14:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I love this photo and think it would be a great candidate after some work, at the very least some cropping. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 20:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:CotopaxiSE.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:CotopaxiSE.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small --G Furtado (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 20:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Galapagos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Galapagos.jpg
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --G Furtado (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small --G Furtado (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 20:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Virgen de Quito-2.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Virgen de Quito-2.png
Comment -- You better nominate one photo at a time or all of them in a group but not in a single file. --G Furtado (talk) 01:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small --G Furtado (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 21:27:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skydiving Parachutisme.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skydiving Parachutisme.jpg
Info
created, uploaded and nominated by JEF132 (talk) 21:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I would have supported if the lighting was better and the lens flare was avoided. Otherwise good, even the tilted horizon feels natural for a photographer spinning around mid-air. --99of9 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good picture. I oppose because the "vertical" choice is too artificial to my taste, and dangerous for my neck. + the lens flare (minor issue).--Jebulon (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Falling vertically is "artificially"? Did France adopt new laws of physics when it joined the EU? -- One, please.( Thank you.) 04:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-1)Yes I'm french, but "France" has nothing to do with this discussion. -2)"France" did not "join" the UE, because "France" was one of the founders of UE. -3)Maybe could we have an interesting discussion about the laws of gravity and vertical falling, but it is not the place here, is it ? -4)I never told about "falling", but about the positions of the bodies, related to the tilt of the horizon. I would have preferred a rotated picture... But i'm sure you were kidding.;)--Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 20:36:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea odorata PP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea odorata PP.jpg
Oppose I don't like the lighting, and the harsh shadow. ■ MMXX talk 16:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm happy with the lighting, the shadows are aesthetically interesting, and don't obscure the subject. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with 99of9; in fact, I think that the "harsh shadow" is something different and pleasing. --Gestumblindi (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 19:05:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
created by Urs Graf (1516), scanned, uploaded and nominated by Gestumblindi. Very original pen drawing by Swiss artist Urs Graf (ca. 1485-1528). The Archangel Michael as the weigher of souls; a common theme, but depicted in an uncommon way - not the usual angelic face; instead striking features, sneering as he prepares to strike down the little demons trying to weigh down their scale. Praised as "aussergewöhnlich eingehend und fein" (extraordinarily detailed and fine) in the catalogue of 1926. Not quite sure whether my scan is good enough, but I think the resolution (3.8 MPx) should suffice...? -- Gestumblindi (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2011 at 17:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Taleghan Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taleghan Lake.jpg
Oppose -- Very poor image quality: hyper-saturated, noisy, lack of detail. Considering that the shot was made with a good camera, this might be the result of overprocessing. I suggest going back to the digital lab (if the original picture was preserved)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 00:21:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti and Honda CM125 Rue Vian Marseille .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Graffiti and Honda CM125 Rue Vian Marseille .jpg
Info
Graffiti and a Honda CM125 on rue Vian in Marseille (VI), France. Colorful street art and two wheelers are typical of the narrow streets around the Cours Julien. All by ianaré (talk)
Weak oppose - Very nice and nice graffiti and the quality is good, but the angle we see the motorcycle at is IMO boring. Can this be reshot? Maybe around dusk? -- One, please.( Thank you.) 06:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Confusing composition: pole in foreground and motorbike mixing with graffiti. BTW what about the graffiti painter's copyright? Yann (talk) 09:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2011 at 21:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tiroler Bergschaf Kopf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tiroler Bergschaf Kopf.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2011 at 18:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zayandehroud .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zayandehroud .jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image quality is very poor (noise, artifacts, lack of detail) Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- National voting is not welcome here. We do need good pictures of Iran and of other parts of the world less covered by our galleries. But this is not the right way to do it. It won't probably affect the outcome of the nomination but is not good for the credibility of our forum or the reputation of some reviewers. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2011 at 17:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iran - Yazd.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iran - Yazd.jpg
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image quality is very poor (noise, artifacts, lack of detail) Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Actually I find the colors here very pleasing. Yann (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added a support vote according to the rules. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar, + Perspective distortions, + lot of Chromatic aberrations etc...--Jebulon (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose very poor quality. --ELEKHHT 08:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 06:21:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 09:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grasfrosch-Rana-temporaria-side.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grasfrosch-Rana-temporaria-side.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 10:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barcelona in Parc Güell.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barcelona in Parc Güell.JPG
Info
created, uploaded, nominated by --Marrovi (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Too bad the weather wasn't sunny. Also, I have the impression that it shows more of Barcelona than the Parc Güell itself.--G Furtado (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing really featurable here. Random composition, centered horizon, cut-out buildings, lack of a defined focus... --MAURILBERT(discuter) 14:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice scenery but the composition is not outstanding. --ELEKHHT 12:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2011 at 20:06:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dog In The Grass.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dog In The Grass.jpg
Comment The expression is very nice. Currently the dog looks centred. I think a crop might make it more appealing. --Jovian Eyestorm 18:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alvesgaspar would say you are trying to suffocate the poor animal.--G Furtado (talk) 20:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I find nothing exceptional in this picture for the label FP.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose same as Archaeodontosaurus --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I find the composition a little dull. I would probably be neutral on the suggested crop. --99of9 (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Archaeodontosaurus.--Jebulon (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 14:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Matanuska Glacier mouth.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Matanuska Glacier mouth.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 01:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pleurodictyum americanum Kashong.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pleurodictyum americanum Kashong.jpg
Neutral -- It would look better with the scale in gray or in a more neutral color to fit with the rest of the image. Also you may consider using this style. Anyway, good picture. --G Furtado (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The type of scale you showed is better IMO, it suggests and agrees with smallness, but I think more grey would be too boring. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 17:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But yellow is just to vivid for such an image. I would use a color tone closer to that of the object. --G Furtado (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question What is it? A lifeform? The background could use a little help, I see flecks on my left. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 17:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a Devonian Tabulata (see categorization). พ.s. 10:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too many blurred areas. Poor lighting. The scale should be more discreet. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 14:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 18:59:47
Info
Quality is average. Image is over-exposed on the whole and the rock in bottom left corner is severely blown. This image is unlikely to pass current FP standards. (Original nomination)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 13:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Adult Long-tailed fiscal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adult Long-tailed fiscal.jpg
Comment Excellent shot... except for the distracting round spots (lens reflections?). They could somewhat easily be cloned away. Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm disappointed as always when I see 1.2-only, but it's big enough and good enough for me to support anyway. --99of9 (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question 1 What do pictures of Tanzanian birds have to do with Wikimedia CH? พ.s. 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question 2 Can you please geocode? พ.s. 10:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geocode not possible. Location is Mikumi National Park --Muhammad (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try this. Geolocation is always possible (be it sometimes with a low resolution of only a 100 m). พ.s. 14:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is if you know where you are. I just know I was somewhere in the 3000m sq+ area in the park. Also, I don't particularly see the benefit of geocode in this case --Muhammad (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine. Maybe next time you should geocode immediately after you return, it's not that hard if you don't wait too long. What about question 1? How come? พ.s. 18:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2011 at 10:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Château Chantilly 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Château Chantilly 1.jpg
Support I didn't notice any problems, and it's an engaging subject. --99of9 (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support As author. Thanks for this surprising nomination I was not aware of. It is a very nice place to be visited, anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2011 at 19:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier du Mont Mallet (Glacier du Géant) & Mont Blanc, 2010 July.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glacier du Mont Mallet (Glacier du Géant) & Mont Blanc, 2010 July.jpg
Info
This is an aerial view to Glacier du Mont Mallet and some large crevasses on it (the glacier can also be considered as a part of Glacier du Géant). The approx. 4,810 meters high summit of Mont Blanc is above in the middle. Picture was taken in July 2010. Created, uploaded & nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ... and a tip. In photoshop, do control L, then click on automatic. It removes the haze and cleans up the white of the snow... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like I don't have such automatic option there. Do you mean the levels adjustment? (I'm having a different monitor too and its colors slightly differ from my previous one.) Nevertheless I'm currently testing some color balancing adjustments. --Ximonic (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, levels adjustment, automatic in this case works pretty good. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 21:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/image:Gabriele Dannunzio Grave.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/image:Gabriele Dannunzio Grave.jpg
Neutral It looks tilted (clockwise). It should be easy to correct. --G Furtado (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poorly cropped at sides, strong distortions to stairs, and feels tightly cropped at the bottom. All a bit grey too. --Avenue (talk) 04:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose like Avenue + seems a bit tilted. Tomer T (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2011 at 11:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spilosoma glatignyi caterpillar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spilosoma glatignyi caterpillar.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2011 at 20:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-08-17 Cidade da Cultura. Santiago de Compostela-C04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-08-17 Cidade da Cultura. Santiago de Compostela-C04.jpg
Comment This is a nice image, the people sitting on the slope make it an interesting composition. Not sure if is FP though. In any case, the grey triangle on the lower right corner should be cropped (QI reviewed?). Same issue with File:2011-08-17 Cidade da Cultura. Santiago de Compostela-C07.jpg. --ELEKHHT 02:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I think that I must take out the template and propose the image to QI again. Thanks--Miguel Bugallo 07:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support though it might stand a better chance if the rest of the building was shown. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 16:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2011 at 14:00:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Atylus falcatus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Atylus falcatus.jpg
Comment Good detail of a small beast. I've added some image notes which appear to be problems with the masking. --99of9 (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Thanks for fixing. --99of9 (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Not easily reproducible, good details --Muhammad (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per Muhammad - Benh (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 22:38:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weymouth beach in July 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weymouth beach in July 2011.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 08:23:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Yes, snapshotlike like e.g. this or this but unlike this. พ.s. 14:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bad quality, blown highlights and messy composition would hardly compare with this one --Muhammad (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Squirrels aren't know for patiently posing for pictures. I might've liked to see more green to my left and the rest of the tail would help Commons shut up about a lost minor detail of a couple of lost hairs support this image. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support because Wetenschatje is a cool user --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose 1.2-only gives it only limited value, and per other's comments, it's not amazing enough to overwhelm that. --99of9 (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 09:54:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose looks like over-processed / unsharp. Ggia (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Schade, sensationelle Stimmung, Farben und Motivauswahl aber leider zu unscharf für ein FP :-( --Böhringer (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral In der Tat. Schau doch mal, ob du hier mit Hochpassschärfen noch ein wenig rausholen kannst. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 16:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Soll ich etwa den gewollt unscharfen Vordergrund nachschärfen? Das Boot ist scharf, der Gletscher ist scharf. Was soll denn da noch nachgeschärft werden? Hochpassschärfen kenne ich ansonsten gut. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Der Fokus liegt ja in der Bildmitte - also auf Höhe der Pfeiler. Auch das Boot könnte im hinteren Bereich noch etwas Schärfe vertragen. Habe soeben mal mit Radius 2.0 und Ebenenfüllmethode Weiches Licht inklusive Maskierung auf die Bereiche getestet - schau es dir selbst an. Die Krux ist hier eindeutig der Nebel. Knackscharf ist dadurch hier leider nichts, daher auch die Gegenstimmen. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 22:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Die Unschärfe unterstreicht das Nebulöse, das Unwirkliche, das Mystische. Das Hochpasschärfen habe ich ausprobiert, aber dadurch kommt wieder mehr Rauschen in die Wolken. Ansonsten habe ich genung Arbeit in das Bild gesteckt. Das reicht mir. Mit den Contras kann ich leben. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 21:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Marrus orthocanna.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Marrus orthocanna.jpg
Info
created by Kevin Raskof - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 12:11:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I'm a huge fan of good action shots, and am willing to overlook the (fairly severe) noise on the back wing given the overall beauty and need for a fast exposure. --99of9 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2011 at 12:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schlachtengalerie Decke.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schlachtengalerie Decke.jpg
Support Nice, symmetrical, sharp and accurate. The geometric distortion of the corner pillars is inevitable. --99of9 (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry to spoil the party, but unsharp and tonemapping seems to be needed. Yann (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm afraid it is not 'oval' in real, but perfectly circular. I'll check this asap.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Info
Done. I've send a messenger from the french wp project "Château de Versailles" for checking de visu. He told me that there is no mistake, it looks so in real. Then, I'm happy to Support.--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 19:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Glashaus3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dornach - Glashaus3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2011 at 21:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SBB RABDe 500 bei Twann.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SBB RABDe 500 bei Twann.jpg
Two RABDe 500 tilting trains on the Jura foot line, near Twann, Switzerland. Up to 10 trains/hr pass the single-tracked bottleneck between Twann and Ligerz.
Comment I wanted to nominate this for a long time because it's a very nice view, but I wasn't happy with the original version from 2010, so I gave it another try a few weeks ago. Even though the trains are not that quick here (maybe 130 km/h), motion blur is a bit of a problem.
Support despite the slight blur brought by the motion. --Ximonic (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Motion blur is not too bad. I can even make out that the trainset at the front is the one named "Jeanne Hersch"... well, if you know the names, it's easier of course; I could also recognize "Jean Piaget" in the former version (by the way, maybe it would be a good idea to upload the older version separately? After all, it's the same train type in the same location, but not the same specific train). Gestumblindi (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 14:51:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Atacama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Salar de Atacama.jpg
Support For me it's hard to decide whether it looks natural or not. But I'd really like to believe this scene is presented about in the same colors it probably was for real. A lovely view! --Ximonic (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 12:59:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Very nice, but there are blown highlights in the clouds on the right which are pretty bad. Steven Walling • talk 21:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The minimum blown area doesn't bother. -- -donald- (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral from the author. Thank you for the unexpected nomination! I still give it a neutral vote because of the somewhat blown area which either bothers others or not. So, it depends on other voters now... =) --Ximonic (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2011 at 22:22:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pleuronectes platessa side portrait Meeresmuseum Stralsund HBP 2010-07-02.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pleuronectes platessa side portrait Meeresmuseum Stralsund HBP 2010-07-02.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2011 at 15:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2011 at 13:40:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ukrainian MChS Mil Mi-8 Belyakov.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ukrainian MChS Mil Mi-8 Belyakov.jpg
Neutral It falls way below the 2MPx mark, but it's such a great photo that I simply cannot vote against it. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral This might be quite an useless kind of a vote but... The big concern is the small size of course, wish it had even just a little bigger resolution. Really impressive looking picture nevertheless – that's what I think about the content. --Ximonic (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There might be problems with the first one due to the awkward idea dominant here that airplanes should be given breathing space, thus the picture is likely to fail due to too tight crop. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment You all are right, but Dura lex, sed lex, IMO. Should be FPXed.--Jebulon (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2011 at 20:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Panorama um 9°° Uhr Morgen. Der Weg führt vom Lünersee hinauf zur 2.965m hohen Schesaplan. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2011 at 19:01:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Lacking wow for an FP. พ.s. 11:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess only an aquarium with some arthropods in it in front of the church would make "wow" to you. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 11:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse in California.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pigeon Point Lighthouse in California.jpg
Support but the sky is really boring. A cloud or two might've been a nice touch. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 04:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 22:01:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skydiving Parachutisme - another version.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skydiving Parachutisme - another version.jpg
Abstain Not so long ago there was a nomination of this same photograph, see here. I just like to test how it makes now after some big or not so big changes have been made in this new version... -- Ximonic (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Confusing. The other version was better and more realistic. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2011 at 23:20:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Windsurfer at Davenport Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windsurfer at Davenport Beach.jpg
Support the brightness contributes to the feeling of a sunny day. --Tomer T (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not FP-composition for me. --99of9 (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been asked to elaborate, and I might as well do it here. Something like this (non-commons) impresses me for its composition. On commons I guess this is up there for a striking pose. Your subject is too small in the frame, and the sail is pointing almost directly away from the camera. --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have cropped it a bit more. For me the composition is not the surfer, it's about both the surfer and the environment something similar to this. For some users on commons that would be very tight composition. --Jovian Eyestorm 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain Everyone knows that I'm all for delisting anything with low resolution, and my fingers are twitching to vote delist here. However, I have decided to not vote at all anymore until we have reached a consensus on what FP is about. -- JovanCormac 13:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 20:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Many parrots -Anangu, Yasuni National Park, Ecuador -clay lick-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Many parrots -Anangu, Yasuni National Park, Ecuador -clay lick-8.jpg
Oppose Sorry. I can't support because the full size quality isn't so great and I also find the framing/crop quite tight and busy (I don't find the ”harmony” in composition). Otherwise, a featured picture of such parrot crowd would be fun. =) --Ximonic (talk) 16:01, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Perhaps this can be a good image, I think it's a nice concept, but, a little too much chaos...I agree with Ximonic. Missvain (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 20:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:OCASO PLAYERO.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:OCASO PLAYERO.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2011 at 15:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sveta troica bansko.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sveta troica bansko.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 18:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Battle in the Bubble.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Battle in the Bubble.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 13:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tramonto sul Salar de Atacama.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tramonto sul Salar de Atacama.jpeg
Oppose -- centered horizon and completely blank water (nothing in the foreground to break it up) Foolip (talk) 14:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2011 at 12:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin reichstag west panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Berlin reichstag west panorama.jpg
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. Either it is rotated counter-clockwise, or it is slightly skewed in the same direction. I noticed that the horizontals are not exactly horizontal, yet the verticals appear to be vertical. So maybe it is not tilted, but rather skewed. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2011 at 13:52:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pollinationn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pollinationn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 09:49:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qasr Kharana in Jordan.jpg
Support Simple, clean, great atmosphere and colors, majesty, rare. Featurable IMO. -- Jebulon (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, clean and simple, great qualities in a photograph, however, the image lacks two key attributes: volume and texture. Those two elements would have given it added value in terms of aesthetics and architecture. Picture was taken at the wrong time of day. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. I find here enough volume and texture.--Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As far as texture, of course there is, just not enough given the possibilities. Volume? Come on Jebulon, lighting is flat! If the picture had been taken from the right corner, the story would have been different, for give the direction of light one wall would have been in the shadow, the other in the lightm hence giving it incredible volume! and the texture would have been enhanced tremendously! And I correct myself, wrong angle, right time of day. The way it is now the photograph was taken almost from the same direction of the sunlight, texture and volume have to do with direction of light, and in this case the choice, given the conditions and possibilities, the best angle was not chosen. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...in your opinion. This was the best angle to avoid disturbing shadows on the ground, and I think it is good in this case. In my opinion...--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my opinion is based on well established photographic practice and technique. What I say is hardly revolutionary, on the contrary, it is very conservative photographic practice. If you take the time to read a little about direction of light and how directional lighting affects volume and texture and how it brings three dimensionality to a two dimensional surface, you would not have any other option but to agree not just with me, but with just about any well informed photographer. This particular photograph is a clasic example of what should not be done, any way you want to put it. Look at the round columns on the left wall, it it were not for the contour and perspective, you could hardly tell that they round. If the photographed had placed himself on the other corner, he would not have disturbing shadows, but shadows that would have given the image volume and texture, making the image much more pleasant. You can read a little bit about light direction, shadows and texture here [[4]], here [[5]], here [[6]] and here [[7]]. Finally, this is a good example of backlight and texture [[8]] This is really so elementary that this argument is foolish. Almost like arguing the wetness of water. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is another example of direction of light and photographic texture. Given a good exposure and subject and lighting within the dynamic range, shadows and highlights will come out nicely. [[9]] --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please have a look on your talk page. --Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The light is rather soft, but that's a quality here, as the light in the desert is mostly too harsh. -- MJJR (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Yes, it is an impressive building and composition. But the lighting is dull and the image quality is poor, as if some agressive softening process were applied. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 17:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardín de Cactus - Lanzarote - J06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardín de Cactus - Lanzarote - J06.jpg
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't really feel that the photograph is that special that it should be considered for FP. Cool cactus though! Missvain (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Sorry, I do not understand what can be “WOW” (es: Corto de mente, quizás). Perhaps if I propose many images I can understand it--Miguel Bugallo 19:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I can't understand what means "Cool cactus though". I suppose that it is a respectful expression --Miguel Bugallo 19:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2011 at 20:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lissewege Oude Pastoriestraat R03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lissewege Oude Pastoriestraat R03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 01:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Échangeur Turcot.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Échangeur Turcot.jpg
Oppose Not bad, but the framing appears somewhat random, with objects hanging in on the side, the tree top, than there is CA and compression artefacts. --ELEKHHT 05:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the composition too but I see the same points like ELEKHH that are against FC. I think the quality is even not enough for QI. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 14:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nelumbo July 2011-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nelumbo July 2011-3.jpg
Info
A bud of an Indian Lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) seen against its leaf. Yes, there is already this FP with the same subject but I believe that the framing and light of this one is slightly better. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per Archaeo. And I may say that it is not enough centered, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed! I was advised, off record, to clone out the offending part. But I couldn't, it would be like cheating to me (an overreaction, of course). What I did instead was to make the unfortunate thing more discrete. Keeping it there is just a sign of rebellion against the tirany of (boring) symmetry! Does this last part sound like rethorics, Jebulon? Well, it is! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow to me: The background is not sharp enough to me--Miguel Bugallo 17:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Boring centered composition and color balance is unnatural IMO. Oversaturated green. -- George Chernilevskytalk 19:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support simple, effective, perfect. --Diligent (talk) 22:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the idea but the centered composition is not perfect. The origin of the nerves of the leaf should have been completely hidden IMO. พ.s. 11:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- I can't satisfy neither Greeks nor Trojans: the composition is either boringly centered or not centered enough. Maybe I'll try later with a faked version. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 11:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Castle gardens 2011 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Castle gardens 2011 3.jpg
Oppose Přesyceno/Oversaturated :-( --Aktron (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Gratuluji ke zraku Supermana, jste lepší než Fotoshop, který mi na žádném kanále přesycení neukazuje. --Karelj (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose not the best framing of the topic. --Diligent (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 19:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 19:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Commons is not censored, yet this picture is, imho, in bad taste. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 11:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Maurlibert. Buttocks. Tomer T (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was thinking that the "bad taste" was because this is a monument and people do not have to ascend. To me, the image is not pornographic, it's natural, it's life (for you bad taste, for me no)...until it could be a denunciation photography--Miguel Bugallo 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment What do you think you are seeing in this image? I am having trouble spotting it. Rmhermen (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, if you speak with me, I can not understand. I can speak Galician language, Spanish or portuguesh.
With my dominion of the English, if you wish to squash to me, you will have it easy (words with automatic translators)--Miguel Bugallo 00:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Otherwise, I think that you can imagine my words--Miguel Bugallo 00:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if I understand. If I understand, Buttocks (Tomer T)--Miguel Bugallo 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 09:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2011 at 17:22:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig meisje.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Prachtig meisje.jpg
Oppose -- I can't see any educational value in this picture other than the beauty of the child. Purely artsy pictures have little chance of success here. Image quality is on the poor side too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barely, in my opinion. The educational value of the picture would be greater if the whole head were depicted, image quality were better and some information were given on the age, region and ethny of the child. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll have to explain to me how some more visible hair could bring something more to show a facial expression ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I don't know because I didn't see it yet. But there is much more in a portrait of a child than the expression of the eyes. Remember, Commons is a repository of useful media, not an art gallery. Browsing the existing FP of children may help to understand what I mean. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respect your POV but I strongly disagree. If you need to illustrate a child's facial expression, you don't need a wider shot (actually a wider shot may be less efficient for that). And that picture is also a great example for illustrating what a artistic photographic portrait can be. Last thing : I'm sometimes disappointed to see that "quality", on Commons, means "stereotypical" and/or "normative" (cityscapes have to be sunny, portraits have to be standard...), as if nothing else could be of quality. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't comment further on the subjective matters. But "quality" on Commons is more or less well defined in here. Yes, it is possible to challenge some of those rules and get out with some extraordinary creation (that is what many artists - not all, btw - have done and continue to do). But that way seldom works with ordinary people... Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. And what about parents' consent? พ.s. 11:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 16:25:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Urgehal Metal Mean Festival 20 08 2011 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Urgehal Metal Mean Festival 20 08 2011 10.jpg
Neutral -- A shame that the crop is so extreme, leaving the arm of the guitar (and of the musician) out. I could support this horrible image despite the so-so quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentThanks for your comment Alvesgaspar ; I agree the picture is too tight on the right, but I can't improve it because it's the original shot, and I'd prefer it a little sharper too. I'm conscious that this may be an "horrible image" for most of people...for my part, as a fan of this art, I'd rather speak about the peculiar aesthetic and the paradoxical beauty of Black Metal, but I may understand that one feels differently at first glance !--Vassil (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 15:34:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flohkraut-Eule-Melanchra-persicariae.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flohkraut-Eule-Melanchra-persicariae.jpg
Oppose I'd really like to support this one. The pose is great. But the crop on the right is too tight, I'd also like to see the flower. Tomer T (talk) 15:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 19:46:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:NYC Panorama edit3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:NYC Panorama edit3.jpg
Info
created by Jnn13 - uploaded by AzaToth - nominated by AzaToth; It's an restitch of the currently featured panorama File:NYC Panorama edit2.jpg, which contains stitching errors and is more blurry than the originals. -- →AzaToth 19:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2011 at 19:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Patrouille de France 8904.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Patrouille de France 8904.JPG
Support IMO better than the polish one (the picture !). Nice cloning job ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just the picture. They are also better than the Polish team as far as skill is concerned. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2011 at 19:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Dresden Frauenkirche.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Dresden Frauenkirche.jpg
Comment quality not the best, some len distortions are visible.. but the the stamp of the date and time on the photo will not give success to the image! Images should be uploaded without watermarks - time stamps etc.. Ggia (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as long as there will be the date and hour on it. --Diligent (talk) 22:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2011 at 08:53:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Carpocoris purpureipennis LT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carpocoris purpureipennis LT.jpg
Weak oppose The quality is great, but the colors are bland. These bugs have a bright coloring ranging from orange to wine-red (see the category). --Quartl (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are not completely right. Color depends on the type of habitat. In this case, it is a meadow. Pale in color, because it is easier to hide from enemies. Darius Baužys→ talk 11:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the coloring is variable (I know these bugs), but there still seems to be a lack of light in the picture, imho. --Quartl (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to upload soon my first bug in "Commons" (not FP candidate !!) which seems to me to be a Dolycoris baccarum. But now, I've a doubt, because it looks like this one. What is/are the difference/s, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dolycoris baccarum is hairy and has striped antennae. Much more difficult to distinguish from this one is Carpocoris fuscispinus. Just upload your picture, we can correct the filename, if necessary, afterwards. --Quartl (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Image quality seems good enough though the depth of field is a bit short. What I don't like is the composition and the framing, with the bug oriented along the diagonal and the crop too tight. In my opinion, this is way below this other picture of yours. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2011 at 07:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Papillon feuille MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Papillon feuille MHNT.jpg
Support although I have the feeling that the butterfly could have been placed just a little more to the left. --Ximonic (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support And I agree with Ximonic.--Jebulon (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried several options,: a square frame... the butterfly on the left ... To choose the first version. But this I really questioned. I find it hard to get out of scientific photography.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry to be the dissident vote, but I don't like the background. พ.s. 11:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How could you choose? white, black? The gradient in this direction suggests the action: the butterfly is drinking the trunk deployed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support the background is a good idee, much better than a "clinic white" --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Technically the photo is almost perfect. What I don't like is the grey background (did you a try another color?) and the dull eye (I suppose the butterfly is dead) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Butterfly is naturalized. It is part of a series that shows the animals that are drinking. It is naturalized in physiological position and is intended to be placed on a support. I have not tried other colors, I knew that the gradient is already a problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 08:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rienza before Toblach Lake.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rienza before Toblach Lake.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2011 at 21:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Lembeck, 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Lembeck, 3.jpg
Support Could be a bit sharper at high-res, but given that so much else is right we cannot be too picky. Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 09:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mushroom cluster.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mushroom cluster.jpg
Info
created by [[11]] - uploaded by AA - nominated by AA -- AHURA♠ 09:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too low resolution →AzaToth 16:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too low resolution - Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 16:09:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 15:38:08 (UTC)
Info
Example of oil wrestling (the game is finishing when a man is able to establish superiority) created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Somewhat deviant subject and presentation. Nice set. --Ximonic (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- All images are underexposed and I don't like the composition, with the jury's heads cut off by the shadow. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Cluttered composition and rather standard perspective. Foolip (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
the people in the shadow are not the jury's head. most of them are officials (like mayors etc). Ggia (talk) 07:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:47:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bitis gabonica 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bitis gabonica 01.jpg
Support -- Good picture! I often tried to make a picture of this species, too! But I have always problems with the curious iridescent dark scales. Therefore a clear support!--H. Krisp (talk) 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 10:10:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 17:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Auto-Cross-Rennen auf der Teufelsgurgel in Trossingen.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Auto-Cross-Rennen auf der Teufelsgurgel in Trossingen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2011 at 11:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Serge Gainsbourg par Claude Truong-Ngoc, 1981.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serge Gainsbourg par Claude Truong-Ngoc, 1981.png
J’ai posté une image en haute résolution. Cordialement, --Ctruongngoc (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Den senaste bilden har inte tillräckligt hör upplösning; jag kan rekommendera dig att ladda upp den högupplösta som en JPEG. →AzaToth 13:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resultion is too low →AzaToth 11:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 09:02:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zerynthia polyxena Russia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zerynthia polyxena Russia.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 00:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment -- I dont understand. The intention of the nomination should be to promote the picture... Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support sheer quality. The other image looked good too, aside from maybe the sheen on the cheeks, though everyone else would complain about f16. Could use some background color. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 23:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The different crops on each shoulder unbalance the image. The two white squares in each eye also detract. I agree it's better quality than the other one linked... but perhaps you can "validate" that in QI?? Since there's nothing unusual here, I'd probably only support sheer technical perfection. --99of9 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Jovian Eyestorm 23:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 20:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Slot Bossenstein R01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Slot Bossenstein R01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 19:05:35
Info
Two images (the other is File:Echium wildpretii LC0204.jpg of the same subject, in near identical compositions, was pushed to FP at the same time, imo one should be delisted, and I think this one shows less of the subject in detail than the other. (Original nomination)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 22:28:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iskra Radom 3 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iskra Radom 3 1.JPG
Comment I was a bit disappointed when view at high resolution, because not so sharp IMO --Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undoubtedly, you are right, and I will find it understandable, if you decide to vote against on this basis (any basis is OK, as long as it's not too tight crop). However, with the 7 MPx resolution the slight lack of sharpnesss will be invisible even in smaller print sizes. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon's comment. Crop is fine though ;-). พ.s. 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 08:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Not the best quality (QI???). Not exactly sharp and missing details. Processing also yielded halos. พ.s. 11:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 08:05:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-09-03 09-49-18-fort-lomont.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-09-03 09-49-18-fort-lomont.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 08:07:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2011-09-03 11-19-57-fort-lomont.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2011-09-03 11-19-57-fort-lomont.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2011 at 19:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jardín de cactus pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jardín de cactus pano.jpg
Oppose Oversharpened. พ.s. 11:26, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Sorry, this is simply taken with a Canon L lens and 50% downscaled. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What? Sorry, but then how come the mountains have black outlines? พ.s. 15:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done I hope you don't mind. I tried to reduce some black/white fringing and also some minor chromatic aberrations. --Ximonic (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Interesting. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is that for an unpossible argument??? Is the size of 5.555 × 2.500 pixel not big enought for you? The donwscaling of a distorted image is a normaly step for a panorama image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not against the rules but it is not usually recommendable. I think, otherwise the guideline would be ”...must not be downsampled” instead of ”should not be downsampled”. What I would advice is to consider all the processing in each picture case by case – including downsampling. If we must not lose any information from any picture then any kind of improvement or fixes made in photoshop etc would be against the rules, so every picture should be RAW and completely untouched. Fortunately, that is not the condition in Commons. --Ximonic (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And furthermore, there is no way to watch all the media and be sure that the downsampling did or did not happen – if it wasn't informed by the creator. I guess it might be quite difficult to fight against this habit. --Ximonic (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. And as a side note: Images should not be downsampled. Should not, not must not. Łukasz Wolf Golowanow (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 08:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:St. Andreas (bei Etting) HDR.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:St. Andreas (bei Etting) HDR.jpg
Neutral Can't really describe it, but the leaves on the trees looks really strange. Is it some result of compression or some post processing sharpening? →AzaToth 20:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Cool place. However, very strong chromatic aberrations especially on the right but also on the left (somewhat a fixable issue). The picture is quite noisy (somewhat difficult to fix properly) and the sky has a quite big blown white area (unfortunately, one might not be able to fix this). Therefore I don't really think it's a featured picture. --Ximonic (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2011 at 21:30:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hl Viktor 360° Panorama Viktorsberg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hl Viktor 360° Panorama Viktorsberg.jpg
2141
905
449
808
9039
2072
Stitching error
7216
1506
262
497
9039
2072
Stitching error
7030
1506
235
407
9039
2072
Stitching error
8024
1720
262
332
9039
2072
Stitching errors
5800
629
235
1423
9039
2072
Stitching errors
6512
14
207
1008
9039
2072
Stitching errors
3798
642
200
463
9039
2072
Stitching errors
5517
670
159
546
9039
2072
Stitching errors
4813
870
304
808
9039
2072
Stitching errors
836
1112
166
421
9039
2072
Stitching errors
608
1285
290
780
9039
2072
Mega-stitching error, a.k.a. WTF
4109
1361
304
704
9039
2072
Stitching error
580
1927
387
138
9039
2072
Look here!
Info
Hl Viktor 360° Panorama Viktorsberg. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Böhringer, but this is too much as I see little beauty or usefulness in an extreme panorama like this. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose way too many stitching errors, especially strange is the major one in the rear road... →AzaToth 21:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question if possible, could you upload the individual frames to commons? →AzaToth 21:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 20:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose - bad color composition, blurry image, clearly visible chromatic noise, over exposure over the far end of the bridge. →AzaToth 21:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 04:40:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Black-Tailed Prairie Dog.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Black-Tailed Prairie Dog.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 22:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poeke Kasteel R03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poeke Kasteel R03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2011 at 14:13:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tarvurvur.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tarvurvur.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2011 at 16:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Escalier spirale voûte château de l'Herm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Escalier spirale voûte château de l'Herm.jpg
Oppose -- With nothing to "anchor" the image, it's hard to get a sense of perspective (up/down) or size. What is it? Foolip (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Maybe a very short transit to the file description page could help... There is an english and french explanation (rare bilinguism!). By the way, how a review can be serious enough without a look to the file page ? Not only Exif metadata are interesting...;)--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And if you stay some seconds with your pointer on the image, you will obtain a short description...
BtW, if one don't understand at first what is it, it is for me a kind of compliment--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 02:54:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fighting impalas edit2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fighting impalas edit2.jpg
Isn't early morning light shifted red? Just like sunset. 99of9 (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just trying to do an edit to improve the colours, but I also noticed some fairly severe lifted noise on the right animals jawbone, so I'm an oppose for two reasons now. --99of9 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 13:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Drottningholms slottskyrka september 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Drottningholms slottskyrka september 2011.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2011 at 11:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Veste Niederhaus by Pudelek 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Veste Niederhaus by Pudelek 2.jpg
Oppose Darkness on the left a jarring contrast with the whiteness of the buildings. Also, distracting light reflections on the water. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 22:03:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vila Viçosa April 2011-3a.jpg
Info
The ducal palace yard of Vila Viçosa, showing the Convent of Saint Augustin and the statue of King D. João IV of Portugal. What I like more in this picture is the contrast between the orderly yard and building and the chaotic sky. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the lighting is unfortunate. --Jovian Eyestorm 11:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question is the image tilted? The lower row of windows are not straight in the image. →AzaToth 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think so. That is the effect of the perspective, as the line of sight is not perpendicular to the building. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the composition: "Convent of Saint Augustin" or "statue of King D. João IV"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I think it is actually the square (per the description). The people are captured with interesting postures, but pity for the car in the background. Some sunlight on the buildings rather than the clouds only might have made the difference for me to support. --ELEKHHT 05:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The silhouetted statue is far too distracting for me. Cpl Syx (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good quality, but most important, very interesting for an encyclopedia. Yann (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Agree using the same arguments as Yann has pointed out above. →AzaToth 20:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Maybe a VI set but not a FP, imo. Obvious educational value but little magic justifying the FP status. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alves (this isn't wikipedia), and third pic of 2nd row doesn't even match the others for the ratio. - Benh (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Benh and Alves. although I really like this set, IMO nominate it for VI. ■ MMXX talk 12:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2011 at 14:55:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Simplon Pass Switzerland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Simplon Pass Switzerland.jpg
Oppose - Blown highlights are far too distracting. Cpl Syx (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: High degree of JPEG artifacts
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2011 at 15:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Castle gardens 2011 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Castle gardens 2011 4.jpg
gah, bloody spellchecker. Off course I saw I've spelled it wrong, but I just blindly chose the first alternative without thinking... thanks for pointing it out :) →AzaToth 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment May I ask you, in which part of image your eagle eye found these aberrations? --Karelj (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I must believe you, my eye is probably to old for recognizing it. --Karelj (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 08:43:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Green Grass With Dew.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green Grass With Dew.jpg
Oppose -- Sorry but this is a confusing composition: too many elements attracting our eyes, disturbing unfocused foreground and distracting background. Keep trying and compose carefully the image before shooting! Please take a look at these FP: one, two ... and three. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks for your opinion. However this is my cind of photography (example the unfocused foreground, it was my purpose), I diden't like the picture you link at all. They all are boring, but if I hade to choose one I will say the last one. But it is all in the eye of the beholder :) Danielåhskarlsson 10:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Those pictures I pointed to are considered among the best photos Commons has to offer. Of course, you may follow your own way and feel great with it. But your chance of success in this forum will be small if you don't also try to see through the eyes of experienced and talented creators, like the author of those pictures Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- I like the photo. The ones pointed out are really beautifull but they have a different message. I understand the unfocused foreground, that is the way I also see and photograph things.--Celia Ascenso (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I really wanted to support this photo as I like the composition a lot, however the DOF is too shallow and the central blade of grass is lost, which is a real shame.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 16:41:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Adam Brody Jennifers Body TIFF09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adam Brody Jennifers Body TIFF09.jpg
I did read a bit more before voting and knew that the guy was an actor (probably a fashionable one). But there is no useful information, either in the picture file or in the nomination, and I don't think it should be the reviewers' responsability to go looking for it! A careless nomination, one could say... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very emotionally, even it is only "snapshot". Festival atmosphere is well shown too -- George Chernilevskytalk 20:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain: where is the emotion? And what is that emotion about? Maybe I'm missing something important here... Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Centered image. Too tight at top--Miguel Bugallo 00:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Notable or not, I am with Alves on this one. Harsh lighting, cut off, the list goes on...--Muhammad (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2011 at 11:12:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Please note: This picture came about a special agreement between the General Anthroposophical Society and me. I was allowed to take pictures of all objects and upload them under a free licence. Otherwise there is a restricted photo ban inside Goetheanum. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposeQuite noisy for a simple static object. Also light balance is a bit unfortunate. Crop/composition looks like an afterthought IMO. พ.s. 06:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noise is within the limits of the long exposure very good. This picture was made by ISO 100 and a tripod was used; any proposal what have been done better? Why is the light balance unfortunate? What is wrong with the composition. Please specify. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support nice composition; I really like that green light coming from below, but at the same time doesn't overtake the picture. One question: what are the two boxes in the middle of the pictures for? →AzaToth 20:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly I don't know exactly. On this picture you see actually three boxes [12]. But I have asked some experts and as soon I get an answer I will let you know. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info
The boxes with the windows are not part of the pipe organ. They are for the simultaneous translators looking from the second gallery into the Great Hall. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I feel like I want to see a wider view of the room, to give it more grandeur and oomph. (PS I looked for noise and didn't see any significant noise... are you sure you weren't just seeing the texture of the materials w.s.?) --99of9 (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@99of9: You may have a point with your noise comment here. The structure is at some places very similar to camera noise, which is while quite distracting not a reason for opposition, so I struck that part. พ.s. 10:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but your argument is not comprehensible for me. Topic of this picture is the organ and nothing else. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The organ itself is quite simple (I realize that's probably intentional, but that doesn't make it a striking image), I've seen many more impressive. The wall shapes add interest, and if it were shown in the context of a wide view of a grand room, it might get over the line for me. Also the music stand is distracting. --99of9 (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I think it is a very exceptional organ and object for this picture. Maybe you did't find it so impressive. But I don't understand how the Hall should be included in this picture. The problem would be that the Hall would deflect from the main object. I made also a picture of the Great Hall File:Dornach - Goetheanum - Grosser Saal3.jpg, but this is a different topic. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of interest (this is unlikely to change my vote), but what makes you think it is a very exceptional organ? --99of9 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mister Hillewaert: instead of running against established rules like keeping the chronological order in discussions it would be very nice if you answer my questions about your questionable arguments. Your first argument (noise) was weak as well. Constructive collaboration is much more useful then your narrow-minded behavior and troll-like editwars (not the first time as we know) --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Though the tilt is small it becomes worse (in the horizontal lines) towards the top of the image. And it is disturbing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't see s.th. tilt. Please specify. Anthroposophic architecture does not align to regular and rectangular structural shape. Maybe you find this type of architecture disturbing but this should not be basis of valuation for this picture. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, no. Please use the left/right symmetry of the subject and try to align on the same horizontal line corresponding points on both sides. The tilt will become obvious. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SORRY NO, THE LAST VOTE IS ANONYMOUS, AND THEREFORE DOES NOT COUNT. Support = 7, Oppose = 3. --> FEATURED. --Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just forgot to sign is not important for a formal thing ? OK. Do you know, 99of9, that you are now member of the french Foreign Legion for the 15 next years ? Yes it is true, I have your employment contract just here on my desk. You just forgot to sign, but no matter, indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
:-) Thanks for doing the paperwork for me, I hope they don't mind that I would fail their physical test, did you do that for me too? --99of9 (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2011 at 18:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lactarius torminosus September 2011.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lactarius torminosus September 2011.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Extensive JPEG artifacts →AzaToth 18:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Ok. Close my nomination. I just tried to do something useful using my camera. Maybe another time... --RussianSpy (talk) 21:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 05:34:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rotkehlchen bird .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rotkehlchen bird .jpg
Info
uploaded by RG - nominated by RG -- RohG ??· 05:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- RohG ??· 05:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Mauvaise luminosité, support artificiel, contre-plongée,pas très net, il y a beaucoup mieux déjà dans FP --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- I've been undecided for a long time about this nom but have to agree with Luc. Yes, it is cute, but no, it is not up to the average FP quality on birds. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2011 at 16:51:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf den Grimselsee und den Raeterichsbodensee.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blick auf den Grimselsee und den Raeterichsbodensee.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2011 at 09:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dalat Palace Hotel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dalat Palace Hotel.jpg
Info
created, uploaded and nominated by -- 113.170.1.232 09:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral No wow, could use a perspective correction, framing seems somewhat random. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I see only a part of the hotel: bad cut. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong perspective distortion, tilt, bad crop. Far below from FP standards. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 04:07:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Przewalski's Horse.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait of Przewalski's Horse.jpg
Weak Support - I wonder if it might've looked nicer cropped with more space to the left if there wasn't anything distracting there. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 14:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 16:37:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support For me the crop doesn't seem so bad. But maybe it could also work if it was cropped from the left side of the tree at left and maybe from the right side of the tree at the small white car (Ford Focus?) + a little from the top – maybe. This was a quick thought. --Ximonic (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2011 at 19:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Militärparade 2011 auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Militärparade 2011 auf dem Roten Platz in Moskau 01.jpg
Weak support I like their faces, and the quality is adequate for FP. The focus is a bit out (should have been on the first one imo), but it's ok. →AzaToth 20:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have deleted this photo due to uncertain licencing information. Some of maiak.info photos are their own, but this one is from may9.ru, and their terms don't allow for usage on Commons. It would be wrong to keep this nomination going only to have to delete it. If licencing can be arranged, I'll revisit this photo in future, but for now, the image is being deleted. russavia (talk) 04:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2011 at 21:50:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alpe Batzen Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alpe Batzen Panorama.jpg
Info
This media shows the protected monument with the number 129422 in Austria. (Commons, de, Wikidata)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 09:21:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baby mushrooms .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baby mushrooms .jpg
Comment -- Please try to identify the mushroom species, otherwise promotion will be unlikely. The same for the nomination above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--So peacefull... Hope you can find mushroom speciesCelia Ascenso (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- it would perhaps have even better if the greens in the foreground were more out of focus Foolip (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the quality, composition and cropping (especially on the right) are far from the best on Commons. No identification either (it's your "little brown mushroom" with thousands of look-alikes). --TheHighFinSpermWhale 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- As above. Cutness is not enough... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 08:21:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Curve Leicester full panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Curve Leicester full panorama.jpg
Support I like it. Only one person outside of it, not crowding or obstructing but adding a size scale. The image also reminds me how it always feels like its nighttime in a theater. -- One, please.( Thank you.) 14:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Well, I don't. The camera was so close and the crop is so tight that much is lost about how the building really looks like. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support IMO there's enough space round the building without introducing distractions. It is difficult to isolate a building in a city. Colin (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2011 at 20:42:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Санкт-Петербург. Собор преподобного Исаакия Далматского.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Санкт-Петербург. Собор преподобного Исаакия Далматского.jpg
Oppose -- A vey nice subject, a perfect framing ... and a very poor image quality, sorry. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose If not random shot, looks much like so. Featuring this (and thus putting this at same level as others FP) would ruin the many efforts some people do here. - Benh (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- I endorse Benh's concern and ask the reviewers, especially the less experienced ones, to read carefully our technical guidelines before voting. This is not a popularity contest, we are supposed to choose here the very best Commons has to offer! I have noticed that some of those users never opposed a nomination. If everybody acted that way, the forum would loose its credibility and the FP star wouldn't mean anything. Also, and according to my own experience in FPC, we learn much more from the opposes (when justified) than from the supports. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Correct remark. However, in addition to the basic requirements spelled images in the rules, there are aesthetic evaluation, and from my point of view, it is also important for the project. We choose what is done with high quality and beautifully done, what pleases the eye. Sorry for the bad English. JukoFF (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem here is that it is not beautifully done. The framing and point of view are not the best and image quality is very poor. Please open the file in full size and notice the chromatic noise and lack of detail. Looking only at the thumbnail is not enough for a carefull evaluation. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2011 at 07:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Looking at the tree I think the image is tilted. I find it hard to believe otherwise since it is such a large tree. (I could be wrong though) Additionally, it is quite noisy. --Jovian Eyestorm 11:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose sophisticated composition. nonetheless the image quality is rather deficient - largely due to the high iso and its effects. focus looks okay, yet its hard to tell if considering the lacking sharpness. regards, PETER WEISTALK 15:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I love the composition and the mistiness, but it is rather noisy. Was it really dark? Why did you use ISO 2,200? As for the tree, I've seen larger ones tilted, so I think the image is straight. --TheHighFinSpermWhale 17:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry Luke, but even the best cameras (and the best photographers!) have their limitations and this seemed like an impossible task. Though it is an inspired composition, image quality is way below FP standards. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice atmosphere. Acceptable noise. --Lošmi (talk) 01:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support despite the noise. If we can make allowances for the constraints around sports photos, for instance, I think similar leeway is deserved here. Lovely atmosphere and composition. --Avenue (talk) 21:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Why not?? RohG ??· 05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2011 at 07:35:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Technically fine, and reasonably well lit. But perhaps the subject is not striking enough to be featurable. In particular the cropped edge of the door arch interferes with the coat of arms. --99of9 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2011 at 12:18:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Peklo 2011 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nové Město nad Metují Peklo 2011 2.jpg
Oppose The statue seems a bit lost in all that green, and the central composition doesn't help. A crop might have potential, e.g. a bit to the left of the middle half. --Avenue (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2011 at 11:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Thalassarche cauta portrait - SE Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thalassarche cauta portrait - SE Tasmania.jpg
Oppose -- Great detail and quality. But the composition is ruined by the unfortunate background (the wing) and, in a lesser way, by the shadow in the neck. Sorry to spoil the party! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I agree with the minor criticisms of the pose, but its such a wonderful shot that it's clearly FP for me. --99of9 (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2011 at 10:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Green fly, white flower.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green fly, white flower.jpeg
Info
Oppose a mess. Doesn't tell you much. Tomer T (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Support -- Jovian Eye storm 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination in favour of the new nomination above. Jovian Eye storm 02:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC).jpg)
Comment -- A superb composition! It is a shame that image quality is so poor (artifacts, chromatic noise). The camera is to blame, I belive. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Neutral That's a really stunning landscape, in part of the world that not many of us have seen. The image is well composed. But... there is a lot of colour noise in the reflection of the dark mountains. Overall, I'm not convinced that this is high enough quality for FP. But thanks for getting the author to place the panoramio picture under a free license. --99of9 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Strong support handrails for the win. they prevent us from slipping on icy winter ways, assist us when we are short on breath and help us to find the way if there's a blackout. as significant as sliced bread. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
.JPG)
Oversaturated And some DoF problems in the rear. Daniel Case (talk) 01:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Question Where do you see chromatic aberration? Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Done -- The stitching process destroys the Exif info and I had no idea that such template existed! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
-1)Yes I'm french, but "France" has nothing to do with this discussion. -2)"France" did not "join" the UE, because "France" was one of the founders of UE. -3)Maybe could we have an interesting discussion about the laws of gravity and vertical falling, but it is not the place here, is it ? -4)I never told about "falling", but about the positions of the bodies, related to the tilt of the horizon. I would have preferred a rotated picture... But i'm sure you were kidding.;)--Jebulon (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Weak oppose - Very nice and nice graffiti and the quality is good, but the angle we see the motorcycle at is IMO boring. Can this be reshot? Maybe around dusk? -- One, please. ( Thank you.) 06:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
_%26_Mont_Blanc,_2010_July.jpg)
.jpg)
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Request - Retake picture. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 09:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Keep not a proper reason to delist imo. Tomer T (talk) 09:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
chromatic aberrations. See note--Miguel Bugallo 12:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Downsampling is against the rules, see Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_featured_photographic_images →AzaToth 14:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)_HDR.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
--Jebulon (talk) 10:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Weak support I like their faces, and the quality is adequate for FP. The focus is a bit out (should have been on the first one imo), but it's ok. →AzaToth 20:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
_&_Mont_Blanc,_2010_July.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![164 File:"Русский Музей", г.Санкт-Петербург.jpg, not featured](#File:"Русский_Музей",_г.Санкт-Петербург.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_paper_mache_doll_01.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_paper_mache_doll_02.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mexican_paper_mache_doll_03.jpg){kind=link}
_%26_Mont_Blanc,_2010_July.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%26_Mont_Blanc,_2010_July.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Drought.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Directional_light_and_photographic_texture.jpg){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_HDR.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
