Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2014

File:Maslenitsa kustodiev.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2014 at 16:56:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Boris Kustodiyev. Maslenitsa. 1919. Oil on canvas. 71x98 sm. Maslenitsa (Maślenica, also known as Butter Week, Crepe week, or Cheesefare Week), is an Eastern Slavic religious and folk holiday. It is celebrated during the last week before Great Lent—that is, the eighth week before Eastern Orthodox Pascha (Easter). Maslenitsa corresponds to the Western Christian Carnival, except that Orthodox Lent begins on a Monday instead of a Wednesday, and the Orthodox date of Easter can differ greatly from the Western Christian date. Created by Boris Kustodiyev - uploaded by Ghirlandajo - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support From Commons:Featured picture candidates#Artworks, illustrations, and historical documents (trimmed):

"Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:

Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy...
Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject."

I don't know much about art, so I can't say with certainty the artist is a "major artist" but Boris Kustodiev has a Wikipedia article, which is noteworthy and suggest he is an important Russian artist. Otherwise, I think this certainly meets the second criteria above. -- AHeneen (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Saw this before, very picturesque, lively. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is above the size limit, but image is still rather small. Wouldn't it be practical to require more than mere 2 Mpx from a photo, that is taken from a static object, like a painting? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kruja Castle (by Pudelek).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2014 at 16:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically well done (although maybe something could be done about that darker area of sky in the top center—stitching problem perhaps?) but compositionally wanting, as too cluttered. QI definitely but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cut-off house on the right as well as the partly obstructed building make it look a random shot. Crop suggestion added. --Kreuz schnabel 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky has some colour banding. --Ivar (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it as it is! I think, the uncropped version is better for the composition. --Hubertl (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Photo with crop --Pudelek (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kasteel Schoonselhof Antwerpen.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2014 at 19:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Jules Grandgagnage -- Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moderated support Good architectural front view, although I'd like to see something done about that dark area on the left. Daniel Case (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If promoted add {{Wallpaper}}. Aspect ratio 4:3 (0.75). Josve05a (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- {{Wallpaper}} is deprecated. --Kreuz schnabel 13:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI agree with Daniel, however good. --LivioAndronico talk 21:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weißstorch Walsrode 2014 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2014 at 20:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
nice stork, but bad contrast on left side --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The stork is in nice morning sun light. Due to the dark background the animal comes out quite well. IMHO a dark background is the best choice for a white stork. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally yes, but not for its dark side. --Kreuz schnabel 05:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ Support the black background on the left is a bit problematic, but overall quality is just too good not to support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done, Wladyslaw, Kreuzschnabel and Martin: I've selectively brightened the background. Please take another look. An improvement? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- imo it is --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit better but the main problem isn`t eliminated. I´ll not oppose, but this is for sure not a FP compared with the other excellent birds images we already have. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support, aber er ist halt ein armes, trauriges Viecherl. Wie bestellt und nicht abgeholt... --Hubertl (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hubertl, es war noch recht früh und kalt (10:30 Uhr), vielleicht war der Herr (oder Frau) Storch noch müde :) Auf mich wirkten die Tiere im Weltvogelpark Walsrode nicht unglücklich - im Gegenteil. Die Pfleger haben die Tiere mit großem Respekt behandelt, was man z.B. gut bei der Flugshow schon sehen konnte. English: The birds seemed to me not unlucky - in contrary. The stork was photographed in the cold morning and was probably still tired. My impression from the very nice Weltvogelpark Walsrode was that the animals were treated very respectfully by the zookeeper as one could easily observe during the great flight show. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No misinterpretation please, I remember the disput you have about pictures from the zoo. I am pretty relaxed with modern zoos.--Hubertl (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support for overall quality, however I still find the dark background on the left disturbing. Takes some effort to tell what’s bird and what isn’t. --Kreuz schnabel 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bennu's Journey.webm, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Nov 2014 at 23:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA's Goddard Space Flight/Center Conceptual Image Lab - uploaded and nominated by Ras67 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Animated movie about the asteroid Bennu and the formation of our solar system.
Support Breathtaking! -- Ras67 (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Turn685 (talk) 01:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing!!! Thanks a lot. --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I hate to poop the party here, this is a great video, but ... shouldn't it at least have subtitles? It wouldn't be too hard to write some in TimedText; someone who can't understand spoken English is going to be totally lost watching this video without at least subtitles (and once there's a set in English, they could easily be translated as desired). We really need to consider the systemic bias and accessibility issues here before we just wow ourselves with this one. SupportDaniel Case (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you miss the CC button? There are the english subtitles, albeit very long. If desired, i make it finer, this work remembers me on my BASIC time. I need the Renumber command! ;) --Ras67 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies. When I had first checked there weren't any. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 11:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baroña. Porto do Son. Galiza. 2013-10.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2014 at 11:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice and good as always however the mid-day harch light don't help for to make pleasant colors. -- ChristianFerrer 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but image taken at 9:36 UTC because Spain are in the same time zone than Germany. See Time Zone Converter--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In summer Spain have the same hour than France, I think. But the important is not the UTC hour but most the sun hour for the place where you are. In Spain or in Australia 11:36:47 is more near to the mid -day rather than the golden hour. -- ChristianFerrer 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jurty w Parku Narodowym Gorchi-Tereldż 02.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2014 at 22:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The place is charming --LivioAndronico talk 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The place is certainly charming but we are assessing images, not places. There’s severe chromatic aberration on this one (visible e.g. in the rocks on the left, or the dark ribbons on the yurts), and large parts of the roofs are blown. This is not sufficient on an 8 mpix FPC. Not even QI for me, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 11:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuz schnabel here isn't QI i see other,like a observatory and don't the door of the observatory is for me out of nomination...--LivioAndronico talk 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite aware that this is not QI but I want to see a reasonable technical quality on an FPC as well, sorry. Anything technical flaws to mention on my part of an observatory? --Kreuz schnabel 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Kreuz schnabel I am very sorry . I definitely wrong to express myself. I just wanted to make a comparison, to make you understand, about what I see as possible FP. I still I have not voted against at you .--LivioAndronico talk 16:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to oppose my nominations if you think they are not featurable. This is not a personal thing for me at all, like "I dont vote against you, so please do you not vote against me" – I judge images here, neither places, nominators or photographers. Whenever I think a nomination doesn’t meet FP standards, I oppose without regarding the author, nominator or other votes. --Kreuz schnabel 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vista de Reikiavik desde Perlan, Distrito de la Capital, Islandia, 2014-08-13, DD 134-145 HDR PAN.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2014 at 19:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info (Pseudo-)HDR (out of 3 frames) panoramic View (4 frames, 12 in total) of the city Reykjavik from the landmark Perlan (on the Öskjuhlíð hill), Capital Region, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sunset, nice details --The Photographer (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very well done! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 6... ArionEstar (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siena Cathedral - Coronation of the Virgin mosaic.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2014 at 19:39:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mosaic of Coronation of the Virgin, Siena Cathedral. Photo of upper part of Cathedral facade, which can be seen in full here. All by -- Mile (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Svjatogorsk, Lavra 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2014 at 23:55:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brizhnichenko - uploaded by Brizhnichenko - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit oversharpened (slight pixeling on edges) but not too bad considering the size. --Kreuz schnabel 11:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — NickK (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Street musician Handschoenmarkt Antwerp.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 15:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Jules Grandgagnage -- Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - I like this photo, but I the crop is a bit tight, and I also would like to see the face of the musician --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hi, thank you for nomination, but I have to vote against this image. As the technical quality seems to be OK for me, the composition is not good. I do not like that the face of musician is not visible (OK, I understand why is it so), but the crop seems to be to tiny to me. I'd expect that there will be more space around piano and the downer part will be not cut. Sorry for it. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 19:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight on the piano, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I obviously chose to focus on the mechanism of this rare Phillips pianola, made in Frankfurt Mainz. Jules Grandgagnage (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cabaña subterránea en la región de Búðahraun, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 046.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2014 at 02:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Abandoned Icelandic turf house in the region of Búðahraun, Western Region, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, it's good (and even necessary) to see the surroundings; nice mood. --Kadellar (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting somewhat dull to me, and I’d prefer to see the background mountains sharper. Lacks wow. --Kreuz schnabel 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the lighting fits that harsh environment very well. The scenery reminds me of how Jackson made Tolkien's Rohan look in the movies. --El Grafo (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kadellar · Favalli ⟡ 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Gjirokastёr (by Pudelek).JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2014 at 13:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Im. / Fav.} 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please remove the white fringe on the bottom (from rotating I suppose). Otherwise nice. --Kreuzschnabel 05:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment corrected :) --Pudelek (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. --Kreuz schnabel 05:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but the problem pointed by Kreuzschnabel must be fixed. --Kadellar (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Hubertl (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertl two times,brat --LivioAndronico talk 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Jean Cocteau b Meurisse 1923.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Nov 2014 at 16:11:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown photographer of Agence Meurisse in 1923 - uploaded and nominated by -- JLPC (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JLPC (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 16:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer ^{Talk / Im. / Fav.} 05:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Yann (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, worth a FP star! --Halavar (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting document, nice portrait of a master filmmaker --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Question JLPC, what is the best gallery? People or Historical? -- ChristianFerrer 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leopard Tree AdF.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Nov 2014 at 18:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Isn´t it a little too much yellow? This is not just the only problem, it´s partly extreme over- and underexposed (You have the RAW?). With the JPG, there is no chance to fix it! --Hubertl (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very good shot in the wilderness! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks a lot Hubertl, you are absolutely right. I have updated the file, after substantially reducing the overexposed areas. Now it look a bit dark but this makes sense given the thick vegetation. --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 19:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support, but it is a very special shot! --Hubertl (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good moment, and good to solve overexposed areas. --Mile (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Vischering -- 2014 -- 5492.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2014 at 11:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 11:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 11:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support A bit soft ~~for only 7 mpix~~ but lighting & composition make up for that. --Kreuz schnabel 05:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry. Forgotten. An image with a better resolution (with more than 11 mpix) is uploading.--XRay ^talk 06:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think the quality is absolutely sufficient and the light is great. The crop on both sides though, although I know it's often hard to get wide enough in such a photo, is just too close to the building in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the crop is a bit tight, as mentioned before, but still awesome mood and colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice. A little bit more space would have been nice, but it's good as is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. --LivioAndronico talk 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Todi panorama.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Nov 2014 at 21:03:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Todi is a town and comune (municipality) of the province of Perugia (region of Umbria) in central Italy. It is perched on a tall two-crested hill overlooking the east bank of the river Tiber, commanding distant views in every direction.

In the 1990s, Richard S. Levine, a professor of architecture at the University of Kentucky, chose Todi as the model sustainable city, because of its scale and its ability to reinvent itself over time. After that, the Italian press reported on Todi as the world's most livable city. All by Livioandronico2013 -- LivioAndronico talk 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- LivioAndronico talk 21:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe a bit underexposed? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment Martin Falbisoner. Anyway I don't think,also beacuse is a quality and valued image. I think that the others could tell me me this. --LivioAndronico talk 10:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Martin. If this is getting direct sunlight, it's a bit underexposed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Martin and Crisco I increased the brightness, now what do you think? thanks --LivioAndronico talk 14:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak~~ Support Better now. Maybe it could further help to increase saturation a bit? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Martin You haven't signed the edit ...anyway more saturation. What do you think? thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very nice, now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 are you with us? --LivioAndronico talk 10:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it is possible that nobody votes??? It's possible that there are people here who put their photos but don't care to review each other ??? From now on, I will abstain from voting people who do not reciprocate by voting other people (of course I'm not saying they should vote favorably) that leave at least one comment or vote to photos of other users (and there are many). Thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 12:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I vote when I feel it, not because you wish it. This looks like racket, and is not the right attitude. Yann (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For you Yann to be educated is a racket? Receive consideration from others and not caring to give it to others is a racket? How sad just sad. --LivioAndronico talk 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yann a right attitude is not to say anything if you do not have something intelligent to say. --LivioAndronico talk 13:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses --Hubertl (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ciao, as you are insisting to request a vote, I do not hesitate to oppose your nomination because I truly believe that this photo is good in composition and the object is interesting but unfortunately the light and the sky are pretty flat and boring (pardon me for beeing sincere). That#s for the photo. In regard to voting, I strongly believe that nominations for FP are not supposed to be as reciprocal as nominations for QI, where it is expressly stated in the guidelines that you should review one image for every nomination. I personally do not feel to be able to judge most of the time if a picture is adequate for FP and I refrain from voting even if I have abut 40 FP. I, personally, do not feel very comfortable to judge FP candidates and I am more than happy to leave the burden to others. Please consider also that I have plenty of gratitude for your support and appreciation of my work. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Wolfgang Moroder but i I don't require a vote for a vote, but at least a vote, comment or suggestion every 10, it isn't good to be ignored !!! At least for me.I prefer a negative vote that spurs me to improve myself that nothing and for that I thank you.And then if everyone did like you .... here we would do? --LivioAndronico talk 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support nevertheless, with the last,slightly corrections, its a pro for me. Please, don´t try fishing for votes. This can turn against your interest! --Hubertl (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Hubertl but i don't looking for votes but consideration.Danke. --LivioAndronico talk 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Beautiful. Very good lighting, good colors, very sharp and last but not least a good motif. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically not perfect, but beautiful --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Viborg Power Plant 2014-11-17-1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 22:09:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Viborg power plant in Denmark is in my opinion an architectural gem, when it comes to modern industrial buildings (and we have FoP for architecture in Denmark). I live nearby and I have photographed it from different angles, in different seasons and different times of day over several years. This summer I tried to nominate an early evening photo with little success. I was recommended to get a prime lens. I have gotten that since. Now, I have tried again, this time using the exact same workflow and tools (but not an equally fancy camera) as a certain well-known church interior photographer here;-) And I have tried to do a night shot using PTGui Pro to make an tone-mapped 32-tiff from a 1×3 pano in four different exposures using my new Canon EF 40 mm f/2.8 STM prime lens. Then tone-mapped exclusively in Lightroom - with faithful colors. I have previously attempted that back in 2010, but with much worse image quality than here and a far from optimal workflow. I have used the nominated pcture as a desktop background the couple of days, and I appreciate it more and more. What is expecially challenging is the extreme difference in brightness of the neon sign to the left and the very weak light hitting the sides of the building. I actually have two further exposures at 8s and 30s to dig even more into the structures of the dark shadows, but it creates such a dominant bloom and glare from the purple-blue neon light, that it becomes very distracting, and so dominant that I cannot find a way to tone-map it, which makes it useful to look at. Thus I have discarded those exposures after several different attempts to find a best compromise. Created, uploaded and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work, excellent result. Congrats. --Kreuz schnabel 05:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but why did you add a "watermark" ;-) Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for your support, Villy Fink Isaksen. "Watermark", you say - with a . Could you please enlighten me, what you are hinting at? I do not get it;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay - I think you got it, I my self thought that the lighting text was a watermark. (jeg måtte se nærmere på det for at finde ud af hvad "watermark"et var) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nåeh, nu fes den ind;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you corrected the perspectives, the vertical inside the power plants seems to leaning in, at least more than in this image where the verticals are also a bit leaning in. The image seems also a bit tilted on right. -- ChristianFerrer 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian Ferrer. Thanks for your comment/question. The center line around the chimney is vertical as far as I can tell. You are correct that the verticals inside the plant (the ones on the windows are the only ones seen) converge inwards as you go up a bit. I tried to make them absolutely vertical, but the vertical field of view is so large that it results in a disproportionate looking geometry. Regarding the apparent tilt, I had a look at this for a long time when I perspective-corrected the image. The base landscape in the foreground is not horizontal but falls off to the right. I think this gives a visual, but wrong impression of a tilt. The fact that the power plant, which has a vertical mirror plane is not centered in the composition (because I wanted to include the neon sign) also results in some "mind tricks". -- Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with Villy Fink Isaksen. --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hehe, the "watermark" is really funny, but image is cool with it. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support · Favalli ⟡ 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry

File:2014 Szalejów Dolny, kościół śś. Szymona i Tadeusza 03.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 19:20:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good picture, FP for me after clearing dust problems! See notes! --Hubertl (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I like pictures like this one! --Hubertl (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Beautiful. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours --LivioAndronico talk 09:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice light. --Kadellar (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot --Chmee2 (talk) 18:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice for sure, but the crop is a bit tight on top. Rule of thirds is not well observed. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose per Uoaei1, and I don’t approve of the shadow parts on the right and bottom. Would much prefer to view this scenery from about 20 metres ahead. --Kreuz schnabel 10:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Church of Saint Marie Interior 1, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2014 at 18:12:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another nice one with that bit of light from the stained glass window on one buttress. Daniel Case (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is it necessary that Diliff must go through this bureaucratic procedure?, maybe we could create a special attribute for this user to autocall a picture as prominent --The Photographer (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I don't know about that, but it would be nice to be able to nominate more than 2. I have quite a big backlog of potential images after a busy summer of photographing in Lithuania and the UK. Diliff (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This was a joke logically, however, I believe that your images of architecture, are very good. You can publish only 2 nominations, but I could help nominate two more if you so desired. --The Photographer (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not a bad idea, Wilf! We ought to found a group called DING (Diliff Images Nomination Group), distributing 2 images to each member respectively to nominate. As Diliffs work Support usually passes through quick promotion (no opposes), 20 members could easily get nearly 3000 images featured per year (assuming they don’t interrupt the process by own nominations). --Kreuzschnabel 18:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hello and welcome to the very first DING meeting. I hope you've all had a chance to introduce each other. Right, let's get down to business. Item one on the agenda: Nominate more images. Item number two: Nominate more images! Item number three: you get the idea. Go forth and let the nominations multiply. :-) Seriously, if you do want to, please feel free, but don't feel any pressure. I have a gallery on my userpage on the English Wikipedia for my UK Cathedrals Photography and another for Lithuania, which is still being updated with new images as I get around to uploading them. Certainly not all of the images would be FP quality though, but I think there's some potential in some of them. Diliff (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Some potencial in 99.9% of cases :P --The Photographer (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support DING DONG ;-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Steindy (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Interior da Catedral de Amiens by Jules Victor Genisson, 1842.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2014 at 16:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior of the Cathedral of Amiens, oil on canvas, 1842. Created by Jules Victor Génisson - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, some shapening problems on top, but its ok for me --The Photographer (talk) 11:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Support Nikhil (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC) Voting is closed. Yann (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a pity. 😞 ArionEstar (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Keila-Joa mõisa peahoone õhust ida külg.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2014 at 12:22:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kaitike - uploaded by Kaitike - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museo Arqueológico de Palencia - 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2014 at 17:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior of the Archaeological Museum of Palencia, House of the Lace, Palencia, Castile and León, Spain. In the lower floor we can see the 4th-century Roman mosaic Ocean and Nereids, found in Dueñas in 1962. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has something that recalls the scale of the Vatican Museums, then the mosaic is adorable in the center.Gran trabajo. --LivioAndronico talk 19:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good. Great perspective and great control of light too --Arturo de Frias Marques (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all for your support and your comments. --Kadellar (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Päiksetõus rabas.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Dec 2014 at 20:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Rutake - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry the light is too strong --LivioAndronico talk 20:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too big in size, but atmosphere make it. --Mile (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another attempt to make me drop whatever I'm doing and go hiking in Estonia. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting light skilful handled. --Kreuz schnabel 21:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Any chance for higher resolution? --Ivar (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cobwebs ruin it, unfortunately. They spoil the composition. Gidip (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don´t know what more to say, I just like it.--Hubertl (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:St. Peter and St. Paul's Church Ceiling, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2014 at 18:15:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff This is the ceiling counterpart to a previous FP nomination of the same church. (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool and impressive :) Great job! --Chmee2 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Support Great! --Steindy (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Godot13 (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Монастир над Латорицею.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Dec 2014 at 21:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moahim - uploaded by Moahim - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Saint Nicholas Monastery in Mukacheve, Ukraine.--Anatoliy (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- oversaturated or colours otherwise unnatural. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 11:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per Saffron Blaze. If ever in my life, I see a sunset with those colors, I surely suffer a stroke of pleasure --The Photographer (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron Blaze. The composition and mood is very good though. It also appears the light conditions were very good. If you still have the raw, I think a few featurable version could be developed, which is more faithful. For instance the green walls of the monastery look completely artificial in this edit. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white balance seems to be too reddish or yellowish. --Ximonic (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose; looks like it was shot through a cup of tea. Daniel Case (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edited version edit

Colours are changed by author.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support WB solved but now we have a Overexposed problem, however, its ok for me --The Photographer (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is really good. Previous seemed more like a background from a computer game, but this is much better. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Kruusamägi. Yann (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Kruusamägi too. Best regards --Chmee2 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Very good light and atmosphere! Building still seems unrealistically green, but I could be wrong... -- Slaunger (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

The chosen alternative is: File:Монастир над Латорицею - 2.jpg

File:Onagers Negev Mountains 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 16:26:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Not the best quality but I really like the composition. All by me -- Gidip (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Gidip (talk) 16:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can deal with the quality. Denifitely not among the worst either. Very nice situation! I also concidered a crop with wider aspect ratio. Might work as well. --Ximonic (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very good composition, beautiful colors, sharp and nice. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good idea and fine quality --Kreuz schnabel 05:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Ximonic, I think a more panoramic crop could do. Maybe 16:9 or 3:5, but it's ok now. --Kadellar (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The crop below is better. Why ISO 400? Yann (talk) 08:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine for me, good ratio! --Hubertl (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt edit

Info Wider aspect ratio. Gidip (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both, in my opinion this one is better. --Kadellar (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You ought to withdraw your vote on the other version then so the bot won’t be led into quick promotion :-) --Kreuzschnabel 05:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the bot will not quick promote if it notices the existence of an alt. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kadellar --Kreuz schnabel 22:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support visualy better -- ChristianFerrer 20:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 09:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Better. Always focus on the subject. :) --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting period is over. Gidip (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Gidip (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

The chosen alternative is: File:Onagers Negev Mountains 1.jpg

File:Avena sativa subsp. Nigra. (Zwarte haver) Locatie De Kruidhof 02.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 05:57:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Avena sativa subsp. Nigra. (Black oats) Location The Kruidhof. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but too harsh light (overexposed) for an FP-image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me isn't overexposed...or not too much --LivioAndronico talk 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support New version FP for me.--Hubertl (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe red flowers behind the main plant are still distracting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice detail but looks oversharpened to me (especially in the closer unsharp parts, something tried to sharpen them), and there’s pixelization at the stem. See annotations. --Kreuzschnabel 18:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kreuz: Ich habs mal gemacht, gerade die unterbelichteten Bereiche. Ein paar ganz wenige sehr scharf belichtete, jedoch nicht ausgerissene Teile sind geblieben, ist aber mMn. vernachlässigenswert. Schau nach.--Hubertl (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ... disimproved ... I think: learn from this image a take a new shoot with a better background und better DOF (f/16 and a tripod). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ....I take all my pictures on tripod with remote control.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batticaloa landscape.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 07:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Anton^Talk 07:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton^Talk 07:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sides leaning in, chromatic aberration, white areas blown, and overall rather soft. Insufficient quality IMHO, sorry. --Kreuz schnabel 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't see enough "wow" in this. The composition looks a bit too flat; the diagonal leading line should have more impact. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canoe Dordogne.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 02:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The bridge is distorted. Daniel Case (talk) 03:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Support now. Daniel Case (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes indeed, and there is absolutely no valid reason for that. I'll correct soon, thank you (and thanks to Claus for surprising nomination !).--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Done The bridge is straight now.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cesis castle in the spring.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 17:12:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AgrisR - uploaded by AgrisR - nominated by AgrisR -- AgrisR (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AgrisR (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs perspective correction. --C messier (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Tree National Park (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 18.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 18:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by XRay - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. Rather dark, and the composition is too centered. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I just saw this image. It's now brighter (and a better resolution). IMO a better crop would be better. Please have a look to the alternative. --XRay ^talk 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support What problem the image is too centered? ArionEstar (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Comment Another crop without the disturbing plant bottom left. It's a little bit centered too, but another crop would cut the plant on the left.--XRay ^talk 11:32, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:140823 Märchendom Saalfelder Feengrotten.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 06:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Code (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Code (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! --Hubertl (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry there are areas overexposed,the part on the left is disturbing --LivioAndronico talk 07:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crop on the left (dark area) would be nice. --Anton^Talk 08:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment, Anton. I would do the crop but I am not sure whether this is allowed after exactly this version of the picture was promoted as a VI. Wouldn't I have to upload it as a completely new picture? --Code (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Some parts are too bright, others too dark, but IMO it's OK. But: IMO you should crop out the dark area at the left.--XRay ^talk 08:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I checked it with LR, I could´nt find any burned out areas. Hubertl (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I leave some notes for burned aereas,anyway one vote is enough Hubertl --LivioAndronico talk 09:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, one vote is enough. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked it with lightroom as well and in fact there are no burned out areas. I don't understand your critique anyway, LivioAndronico, since it was you who promoted exactly this version of the picture as a QI without any concern about burned out areas or a bad crop just one week ago. --Code (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Code, first thing you should write under the comment of the person that you want answer. Anyway a thing is QI and another is FP. It IQ is given the quality of the picture and I felt that burned parts were minimum standards for the quality of the same. In FP is different, the picture has to be perfect it whole and these areas or the dark part on the left does not make that, again in my opinion of course. Let's do this, cut the dark part on the left and i can review my vote.Grazie. --LivioAndronico talk 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Yann (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the crop on the left. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also agree about that crop. --Halavar (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See above - I would do it but I'm not sure whether this is allowed after the actual version was promoted as VI? --Code (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it makes common sense then it is allowed. Cropping that black off the left is common sense. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Support, but do the cropping. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support how it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alright everybody, the cropping is done. Do you like it better now? Especially Anton and LivioAndronico? --Code (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look nice, and i support. --Anton^Talk 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok accetable now --LivioAndronico talk 14:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new crop is better. Thanks for it --Chmee2 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and rare.--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, organy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2014 at 16:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great work of organ-maker and photographer. Colours seem a bit cold to me though. --Kreuzschnabel 17:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. --Kreuz schnabel 21:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me; the crop is also not the best, and noise is quite strong --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support szumy są akceptowalne --Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zgoda z przedmówcą:) --Halavar (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Longjoe (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bledule jarni.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2014 at 11:12:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Luboš Pechar - nominated by Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Leucojum vernum in the Czech Republic.
Support -- Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's CA in the flowers. --Kadellar (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Out of focus parts in the foreground are distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buccinum undatum - Hydractinia echinata 07.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 07:14:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snail fur on a shell of a Common Whelk
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 07:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting, look like chocolat --The Photographer (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 12:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And the colors of your nick looks like a candy bar. --The Photographer (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Hubertl (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Château de Restinclières, Prades-le-Lez 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 06:24:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- ChristianFerrer 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version with cropped sky. -- ChristianFerrer 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly distorted, it's not a good idea to take side faces like this with wide angle (14 mm focal length). Beside of this the upper 1/3 of the image is in unhandsome shadow. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Detail of Mulher do chale verde by Cyprien Eugene Boulet.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 10:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Detail of Mulher do xale verde, by Cyprien Eugene Boulet. Uploaded and Photo by -- The Photographer (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice painting, very good reproduction. Great colors. Yann (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and very nice painting --LivioAndronico talk 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes. I did not know this author so little known, however, for me was a shock to see this painting in the room where it was --The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support · Favalli ⟡ 01:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Is there a reason that only a fraction of the painting is nominated? --Godot13 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the parts of the assembly is out of focus. I would say that as the mona lisa, I wanted to capture and enhance the look in her eyes. --The Photographer (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand cropping a landscape/cityscape for a specific feature (particularly if the whole image has issues), but dramatically cropping part of a painting to be a featured picture because the whole image had flaws just doesn't seem, well, like a featured picture...--Godot13 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been honest, despite my mistake, I must admit that some wonderful things come from errors. --The Photographer (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree with Godot. I'm curious as to what the whole painting looked like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the full peinture in description of this image. --The Photographer (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the one that you took. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this crop is much more interesting than the whole painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want more paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have photographs, paintings by Brazilian artists. Your mission @ArionEstar: , if you want to accept it, will apply for a permit at the São Paulo Museum of Art. --The Photographer (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: read this: [1]. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With the permission you can take pictures with tripod and profesional camera, however, you need send a formal permission. It's what he told me, museum director --The Photographer (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Fish in El Manglillo e.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 11:26:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Intersting subject, however centered subjects not really centered, it's a bit disturbing. The position of the second boat in background is much disturbing for me. For info 2 dustspots (see notes). -- ChristianFerrer 12:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow for me -- Jiel (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others; looks like a competently-taken vacation picture but that's it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the return after a fishing trip, is the daily life of these people. This photograph was taken on an island where I lived for 30 years. --The Photographer (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine but that doesn’t make the picture special. --Kreuz schnabel 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is not tourist for me, however it is special. For some it is touristy and bit special, so important in FP is average in both cases. Because evaluations are subjective, and of course, your opinion is valid. I am constantly looking for how special for most people, however, the special varies from experiences of each. To better understand this section I had to imagine myself as a citizen of the first world who are amazed with iguanas or completely normal situations around me. Understand that every opinion is important part of mutual respect and understanding of the universality of thought, there is obviously sync assertiveness and respect for voters. --The Photographer (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gobi, Klasztor Chamaryn (07).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 23:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 23:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chyba leci nieco w lewo, widać to zwłaszcza po tym białym obiekcie --Pudelek (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ja nie wiedziałem, aby przechylało się, ale obróciłem zdjęcie minimalnie w prawo. Na siatce pokazuje, że linie pionowe są proste, więc myślę, że jest okej:) --Halavar (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support – good composition, just a bit richly exposed IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 17:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kreuz -- ChristianFerrer 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good, and high value.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Gothic Chapel Peterhof tonemapped.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 19:41:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pavlikhin - uploaded by Pavlikhin - nominated by -- ChristianFerrer 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Code (talk) 12:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7 --LivioAndronico talk 14:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Jiel (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tonemapped, or true HDR though? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --Steindy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Gothic Tower - City Observatory of Edinburgh - 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2014 at 10:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Gothic Tower of the City Observatory of Edinburgh (Scotland, UK) is the oldest part of the observatory and was designed by architect James Craig and built in the 18th century. It was the only gothic tower built of all that were planned because the project ran out of money. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 10:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 12:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, great job. --Chmee2 (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Mile (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support am I too late? --Hubertl (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Melitta maura female 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 13:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice picture ! Mathis73 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another one of those spectacular animal pictures, love them :) EoRdE6 (talk) 21:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 13:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry this is not an alternative but another nomination of a completely different picture.--Jebulon (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - But only one of them, if any, will become featured. Gidip (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - ? I don't understand this way to do. I think it is against the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - If others think so too, I will remove the second picture. Gidip (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The rule says : "Two different versions of the same picture cannot both be featured, but only the one with higher level of support [...]". Two different versions of the same picture. This is not the case here.--Jebulon (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        The rule says also Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken. Specially when the purpose is clearly to find the finest, what is also the purpose of this page. -- ChristianFerrer 12:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on this one the insect is a bit less visible and the composition less good IMO -- ChristianFerrer 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera

The chosen alternative is: File:Melitta maura female 2.jpg

File:Museumsquartier Wien, Vorweihnachtsstimmung 2014 HDR - 5575.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Dec 2014 at 03:49:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Hubertl -- Hubertl (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 03:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The left aerea with the tree is a few diturbing anyway nice and good --LivioAndronico talk 07:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good -- ChristianFerrer 19:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! Mathis73 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGreat--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Paul Gauguin - Fatata te Miti (By the Sea) - Google Art Project.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 14:44:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paul Gauguin, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very high resolution of a beautiful painting by a famous painter. -- Yann (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work; helps that I'm sitting here watching a documentary on Gauguin at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, could you tell me where?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On a DVD playing on my TV set in my living room. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Schloss Charlottenburg nachts (Zuschnitt).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 18:49:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald. (See also: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schloss Charlottenburg nachts.jpg.) -- Wolf im Wald 18:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 18:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's "biurifôu"! 😉 ArionEstar (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much nicer than the non-cropped version. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support better -- ChristianFerrer 11:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! Worth seeing in full res, nicer than thumbnail. --Kadellar (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Steindy (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work with the cupola statue there ... that had to be tough. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support outstanding technical quality. Nikhil (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very nice control of exposure, and very sharp and high res. Perfect. Diliff (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Senecio leucanthemifolius on the beach close to Órzola on Lanzarote, June 2013 (4).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Dec 2014 at 18:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Chmee2 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 21:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support strange plant! --Kadellar (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support light a bit harsh but ... -- ChristianFerrer 19:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good ! Mathis73 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Stiftskirche Göttweig Orgel 03.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Dec 2014 at 12:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nave and organ of Göttweig Abbey Church, Lower Austria. Baroque case of the organ by Ignaz Gatto 1761. All by me --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steindy (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Up to the standard of other church interiors we regularly see here . Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Stucco ceiling, Patio de los Leones, Alhambra, Granada, Spain, crop.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 17:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this squared stucco ceiling in the "Patio de los Leones" in the nasrid palaces of the Alhambra of Granada, Granada province, Andalusia, Spain. This is a 13th-century CE work, and the muslim kingdom of Granada, which was the last muslim possession in Spain, fell on January 2, 1492.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nearly perfect, could be more symmetric. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting --The Photographer (talk) 10:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A marvelous subject and a difficult shot. Not perfect but a good enough job concerning the geometry and sharpness. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My own newfound appreciation for photographing ceilings enhances my appreciation of this one. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Bukit Bintang Train Station, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 01:36:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by myself -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christopher Crouzet (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colors. ArionEstar (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment place with potential however, a bit noisy, no corrected perspectives, not the best crop/centring for this place IMO (too much of the roof at top IMO) -- ChristianFerrer 12:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeLooks complecated. Cant figure anything. --Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really an appealing composition. Unfortunate crop of persons. Also the magenta light looks unnatural; I cannot remember, that Bukit Bintang has magenta light. --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lower Manhattan from Jersey City November 2014 panorama 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 22:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and nice view --The Photographer (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Really good i don't like normally the pictures of skyscraper but this is relly spectacular --LivioAndronico talk 10:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment good and nice however problems in the sky (see notes) -- ChristianFerrer 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Ferrer, PetarM: Fixed. You gotta love sensor auto-cleaning; as soon I turned my camera off and back on after taking these four shots the dust was gone. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 18:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per User:Christian Ferrer, there are 2 pretty big smudge tracks. Better now. --Mile (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not wow for me, classical photo -- Jiel (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought at first, that this skyline would have lots of photos available on Commons, but I was surprised to find that there really aren't that many decent pics of this particular view. Also, the WTC has only been completed recently. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Because I will support a set.--Claus (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that set nominations were still banned? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I prefer a set like this. ArionEstar (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Claus: I have nominated a set below. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ but I prefer the blue hour one. --Kadellar (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kadellar: I was planning on nominating it later. But that might not be necessary; see below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture capturing what the Lower Manhattan skyline is now (This was purely accidental, I'm sure, but I like that little plane in the far background at right ... a subtle acknowledgement of how it got that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Halavar: Since you added your vote under the three images but before I made it officially a set, could you please clarify your intentions? Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I would like to vote here, for a single image. --Halavar (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Paris 16 (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Set edit

Info OK, so it looks as if the ban on sets has been de facto lifted per the recent FPC mentioned by ArionEstar. And I feel like three photos taken from the same angle on the same day at different hours ought to qualify under any sensible definition of "set." So I'm officially adding a set nomination here as an "alt." (Though it's not really an alt; if both happen to pass, then it would make sense to promote the set rather than the single image regardless of the relative levels of support, no?) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all the three "single" photos, but I'm missing a night shoot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 06:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Each of these is just nice, but as a set, they show something more. Yann (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 13:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 8... ArionEstar (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great works--ArildV (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agree with Yann's assessment. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:UK-2014-Oxford-Corpus Christi College 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Dec 2014 at 18:12:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pelican sundial in main quad, Corpus Christi College, Oxford - created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Dec 2014 at 21:37:23

Info Very small, not even sharp at this size (Original nomination)
Delist -- Yann (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not really unsharp, and the size is not a big issue IMO. -- ChristianFerrer 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Yann. --Kadellar (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Pearl Jam --The Photographer (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist While it’s a nice shot the image itself isn’t FP for me. Besides the small size there are JPEG artifacts visible in the fur. --Kreuz schnabel 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think it's very unfair to deselect the photo. The technical standards are very different today than ten years ago almost. And the demands placed on today photos are also considerably higher. Following this motto thousands of other photos should also be deselected. --Steindy (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment *sigh* Do we have to go through this again? FP rules clearly say that any image may be delisted as soon as it no longer meets FP criteria (which, of course, rise with the technical possibilities) though it did so when it was featured: Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. So, this is by no means "unfair" but a plain straightforward procedure. Being an FP once does not mean being it for a lifetime. On the last delisting discussion about an image of the same author a few weeks ago, even the author agreed to delist! --Kreuz schnabel 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we must not. But I can have an opinion on such actions... --Steindy (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you can, just refrain from blaming others to be "very unfair". --Kreuz schnabel 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , btw that's funny :D --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Yann (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kongensbro gravel pit 2014-09-17.jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Nov 2014 at 22:16:36

Info This upper image was promoted with overwhelming support (19/0/0) a little over a month ago: (Original nomination) However, meanwhile, Diliff has restitched the image from the original raws (lower image), using only non-destruvitve editing in Lightroom. This has resulted in higher image fidelity, more faithful colors and better tonality in the sky. Moreover, by using content-aware fill, he has been capable of extending the sky, thus managing to produce an image with a less extreme aspect ratio. The process is described in detail at the English Wikipedia FPC process. I am very, very gratefull for and impressed by this edit, as the raws do not appear promising at first sight.
Info Since we do not have replace-and-delist nominations very often, just a reminder, that the only allowed templates are {{Keep}} and {{Delistandreplace}}. (I had to look it up). -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace -- Slaunger (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delist and replace Per FPC talk --DXR (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace As promised in FPC talk. It is the good solution, don't worry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per Slaunger. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Speedy! -- Ram-Man 00:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace I liked the more colorful sunset, but the newer one is more realistic. Daniel Case (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace - Per EN Wiki. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace but keep the annotations --Kreuz schnabel 05:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Thanks Slaunger, you've been very gracious throughout the process. I'm just glad we ended up with a better image that all parties could be satisfied with. Diliff (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I am grateful for you being willing to invest your time in these piles of gravel in Denmark and spare the time to explain your superior workflow. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Very gracious", Slaunger ? Oh yes, he is. I think we are lucky with such a guy among us.--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find the image notes/annotations of the old version very interesting. Would it be possible to copy them to the new file? --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point about the annotations El Grafo and Kreuzschnabel!: Done migrating 30 minutes later, pheww. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Yann (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 13 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. Yann (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Proclamação da República by Benedito Calixto 1893.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 10:16:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benedito Calixto - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Historically important. Fine reproduction. --Pugilist (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - fine, more paintings --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture, good quality and high EV --The Photographer (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Tiškevičiai Palace at dusk, Palanga, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 13:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Waaayyy overprocessed. Whites are blown, colors look unnatural and the resultl ooks like la nuit americaine in reverse. Kleuske (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand your comment about it looking like la nuit americaine in reverse. The colours look perfectly natural to me though (given the lighting conditions), and the only whites that are blown are directly next to bright halogen spotlights. Not really easy to compensate for that. What specifically do you think looks overprocessed? Diliff (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - La Nuit américaine probably refers to w:Day for Night (film). Regards, Yann (talk) 10:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks Yann. I guessed that much, but I don't understand how it relates to this image. La Nuit américaine is when daylight footage is artificially darkened to make it appear to be at night. So I would guess that Kleuske is suggesting that it looks like a night time image brightened to look like daylight. Well, that's just what long night time exposures often are. You don't really see star trails when you look up at the sky, but it's a legitimate type of photography nonetheless. Not every image should look exactly as it appears to the human eye, especially not night photography. Diliff (talk) 14:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the subject were star-trails, i would not have that much of a problem with weird lighting, and long exposures sure have their place in photography. This however, is not a very good example in my opinion. There's no apparant reason for or advantage to a very long exposure in this case. The same image taken by daylight would have made a better image. In this case it just looks weird. That's entirely your artistic freedom, but I do not consider it FA-material. Kleuske (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a bit bright IMO -- ChristianFerrer 12:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry! The photo seems to me completely unnatural colors and do not fit in your other photos. I'm afraid that you've edited it broke with photoshop. --Steindy (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what you are interpreting as unnatural colours is the result of the white balance being set for the incandescent lighting (so that the building itself is creamy white). This has the effect of making the garden and flowers tint quite cool. Other than that, I really don't understand the problem. Perhaps someone can explain in more detail. Diliff (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support unusual and very good, right for me both color and exposure (considering the different light sources) -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Building in São Paulo city.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 23:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A normal QI of a boring building, rather ugly, nothing extraordinary IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon --The Photographer (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 16:15:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue, São Paulo, Brazil. Created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FritsHG ^{eh? 12:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)}. ~~Not valid vote. You need almost 100 edits for vote here. I am sorry --The Photographer (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)~~ According the rules, it takes more than 50 edits for vote. This user has the necessary. ArionEstar (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it needs a geotag? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Villy Fink Isaksen:

Done. ArionEstar (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support wow what a building --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support, as it's an interesting building, but it seems clear that the brightness is not consistent in the building. It's much brighter at the bottom. I assume it was stitched, perhaps the exposure was not locked. Diliff (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Diliff: It is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but to do it properly, it would require The Photographer to do it from his original files. Diliff (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Diliff: and @ArionEstar: . I will try fix it this weekend. This is a exposition problem easy to fix from RAW files. --The Photographer (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is partially strong CA visible. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks @Taxiarchos228: I will try fix it this weekend, you can use {{CA}} Template --The Photographer (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Please @Diliff: and @Taxiarchos228: , let me know if you are satisfied with the result and the problem is corrected. thank you very much --The Photographer (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Hi The Photographer, yes, much better. The top is a bit noisy as you have brightened it to match the bottom, rather than darkened the bottom to match the top, but given the resolution of the image is high, it's not a major problem. Diliff (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your analysis. I found it interesting, as such a thin structure, can have as many wanderings, I have been investigating how it was built. I added some information in the description --The Photographer (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice and interesting. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC) much better now![reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - much better now, but my support was due to the "wow" but absolut support worthy Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Caparica January 2013-5a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 15:37:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The beach of Costa da Capatica (near Lisbon, Portugal) in a stormy winter afternoon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That stick spolied some pretty view. --Mile (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be nice too fot here --The Photographer (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Non solum bene, sed etiam optime. --Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optimus tamen hostis boni est -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liberté, égalité, fraternité --The Photographer (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is Latin, Wilfredo: "Not only well (done) but also very well"; "However the optimum is a enemy of the good" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean? --The Photographer (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Wilfredo hahahaha. Latin always looks so solemn (I stay Neutral, I also agree with Mile about the pole; the soft light creates a nice mood). --Kadellar (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great scenery, mood and composition. The pole doesn't bother me at all – I think it interplays nicely with the all other diagonals. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Kreuzkapelle -- 2014 -- 2725.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 05:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like there is not enough contrast for this composition to work, i.e. I would prefer a much darker background for the statue to look three-dimensional. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Octopus arms suntanned.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 14:55:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nikodem Nijaki - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could have used a little more room. Some arms are cut off at the top. --Dschwen (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice motive and composition --The Photographer (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I remember another similar picture already nominated, could you tell me if I am wrong?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen but WOW in splite of the cut arms at top. -- ChristianFerrer 12:12, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and cluttered background. Daniel Case (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I am not too happy with 1. the crop and 2. the harsh light on the arms (I hardly dare to suspect flashlight again), which appear almost overexposed against a definitely not sunlit background. Lighting does simply not fit for me. But then it’s really a nice idea and composition. --Kreuz schnabel 08:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel Case. --Steindy (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idem.--Jebulon (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is interesting and has nice colors, but the crop from the top is just too much for me. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altja jõgi Lahemaal.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 21:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Margus6 - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an english description and coordonates would be welcome. -- ChristianFerrer 12:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Even thou the coordinates may be up too one hundred meetres off, as photographer isn't very sure on what was the exact spot. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like a painting. Beautiful work! --Steindy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support long exposures of flowing water have lately seen a bit of overuse imo, but in this case it works very well for me. --El Grafo (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Long exposures of flowing water have lately seen a bit of overuse imo. It does not work here for me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Long exposures of flowing water have lately seen a bit of overuse, but I still think it's the most aesthetic way of demonstrating the flow. I think the movement is important. It's suggestive of flow in a way that short exposures can't provide. Diliff (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Diliff: The Problem with this is imho, that if you overdo it the "flow" may get lost and turn into something that looks more like mist/haze than liquid water. This can of course have its own artistic merits, but Art is not our primary concern at FP … No problem with this image though, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, if the exposure is too long, it becomes a haze. But as with all legitimate photographic techniques, particularly HDR, it can be used for good and for evil. The key is to know how to use the effect without overdoing it. Diliff (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Arseniy Yatsenyuk.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 05:46:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ybilyk - uploaded by Ybilyk - nominated by Claus -- Claus (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Claus (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too noisy, too soft, overexposed forehead. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cotton boll nearly ready for harvest.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Dec 2014 at 16:55:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michel Deschenes - uploaded by Bastique - nominated by Bastique -- Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 16:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
+1 fluffffy! --Nemo 18:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Yes... fuffly! But bad DoF. ArionEstar (talk)
Oppose nice but clipped white on the right, lack of clarity (certainly a choice of the author but not my tastes), DoF a bit small, not really unsharp but also not very sharp, sorry. -- ChristianFerrer 12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough depth of field. As a result, the Cotton boll is blurred in Broad areas. In addition, some grainy what could be due to the internal image processing. --Steindy (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 11:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand some of the DoF issue, but I like it so I'll support it. russavia (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Ed ^{[talk] [en:majestic titan]} 21:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support also per above --Hubertl (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Kuppelsaal TU Wien DSC 8691w.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 21:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Kuppelsaal (cupola hall) of the Vienna University of Technology was recently renovated and adapted as a lecture and event hall. The shape reminds on an upside down hull of a tall ship.
Support -- P e z i (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely taken. I would have liked to have seen a bit more of the ceiling though. Diliff (talk) 13:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for review and voting. For your question of more ceiling: Like this one? --P e z i (talk) 10:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, although it would have been nice to have stitched three images to get the height of that one, with the width of the original nominated image. Diliff (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then we come to this one. But for me it is impossible to get out the extreme distortion. --P e z i (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basically a very good photo if it were not for the extremely overexposed, and outshone window. --Steindy (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The window is not "extremely overexposed". This is a plain glass window (so no detail to retain), and the small amount of glare is realistic. Indeed, if HDR/processing had brought the bright skylight window down to merely paper-white, I might have opposed. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Colin. Not every blown highlight is a problem to be solved. Sometimes they're actually necessary for the correct tonality of a scene. Clear glass windows are often so much brighter than an interior scene that it would look awful if it were artificially darkened. One way to avoid this contrast would be to shoot it around dusk where the lighting is more balanced between indoors and outdoors, but I don't think it's necessary here. Diliff (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good and Nice --LivioAndronico talk 13:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I slightly prefer your vertical one. -- Colin (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support P e z i, our specialist for large rooms (which are not churches). --Hubertl (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Marina City, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 18:31:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Marina City is a mixed-use residential/commercial building complex located in the center of Chicago, Illinois. It sits on the north bank of the Chicago River directly across from the Loop district. The complex, that was designed in 1959 and completed in 1964, consists of two corncob-shaped 179 m, 65-story towers. Poc o² 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Big wow factor an interesting --The Photographer (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent! I envy you, the last time I was in the windy city the weather was terrible! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lucky row, last time I was in my favourite city in the states ever ythi ng just worked: lighting, weather, mood, tirelessness. Btw, you wouldn't envy me after my trip last week to the Atacama desert, Uyuni salt flat and Buenos Aires... Poc o² 18:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
omg! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would feel naked without my camera. The positive side of it is that you are now free to purchase a real camera, that is, a N**** D8*** ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that's how I feel Poc o² 15:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also consider a Nikon D810 if I lost my camera and all my lenses... Canon's camera tech has fallen some way behind Nikon, but I'm hoping their next camera (there are rumours of a Canon 3D with a 30+ megapixel camera and hopefully much better sensor technology in 2015) will match or beat Nikon's. In any case, with stitching and HDR, my images are still sharper, higher resolution and have more dynamic range than any D810 image. ;-) But it takes quite a lot more work to reach that point, that's for sure. And sorry to hear of your stolen gear. :-( Diliff (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice! ArionEstar (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. Daniel Case (talk) 07:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel, I think that what I know what you mean. Rather than oversharpening it is a selective brightening of the buildings. I will rework that brightening so that it does not exceed the building and so avoid the halo. Give me a few hours. Poc o² 15:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel: New version with the correction I announced. Poc o² 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Roger Wilco! Daniel Case (talk) 18:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChristianFerrer 11:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support you have to be careful when you are parking there... :P --Kadellar (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good work, but the picture looks to me unnatural. The human eye sees inen such a high tower (179 m) with never exactly perpendicular lines. In addition, the color of the sky does not fit at the edges where the sky together. Sorry! --Steindy (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The image has obviously been tone-mapped (see the bright haloes around the towers). And correction of leaning verticals is pretty common around here. --Kreuz schnabel 18:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it hasn't been. Please, see my comment above to Daniel, Poc o² 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment All well and good. Do you share these views, especially in the absence of converging lines of a 179 m high tower? Visually, the towers even act as if they widen upward (see optical illusions). --Steindy (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - - I've had this exact debate with someone on the English wikipedia and I've come to the conclusion that some people perceive vertical perspective in a photo differently to others. Not everyone sees parallel lines as widening. I don't see them widening here anyway. I also disagree that the human eye sees converging lines the way a camera does. Our eyes have a wide field of view (120 degrees vertically and almost 180 degrees horizontally) but our fovea only allows us to see any detail in a very narrow field of view (2 degrees). We scan our eyes around a scene to see the details and each time our eye settles on a vertical line, it becomes vertical because it is centred in our vision. Another vertical line might in theory appear to be leaning inwards in the corner of your eye but I challenge you to perceive it. I've tried many times and never have my eyes perceived an inward leaning vertical line in the periphery of my vision. And of course when my eye moves to look at that vertical line, it becomes straight because it becomes centred, as I mentioned before. In any case, all this is academic. Although there are some potential drawbacks to vertical perspective correction, it's an established practice in architectural photography for a reason. Diliff (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --P e z i (talk) 21:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good work, interesting building --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support like the parking section in the two buildings. Nikhil (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is nobody else bothered by the fact that the sky is not consistent? It looks a lot like a stitching fault, although from what I have read above, it is not stitched? I think it's most likely a strange effect of the clouds, but has been exaggerated by the processing. Also, the building behind and to the left transitions from a deep aquamarine to a light blue-green. I'm not insisting that it must be a processing problem (there could be lighting conditions that create this effect?) and I can see that it's the same effect in all versions of the image, but it does look very strange to me. The sky's inconsistency and the processing makes it look a bit unrealistic looking to me. Diliff (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David: there is no stitching and no editing in this picture apart from brightening the darker areas. Will look anyhow with more detail into it tomorrow, right know I cannot access the raw file. Poc o² 22:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it's just the result of strange clouds and weather then. :-) I believe you, of course, but it puzzles me. As I said, the building on the left looks very very strange, with completely different colour and brightness at the top and bottom. Diliff (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David: I looked into it in detail and can confirm that there is nothing strange. The area in the middle of the sky are clouds and the colors in the left building in the background are due to the lighting conditions. I can send you the RAW file if you want to see it on your own and even give it a try. I would be curious about the result. Poc o² 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's ok. If it is in the RAW file then it's just the way the scene was. I know the lighter part of the sky in the middle is clouds, but the strange part for me is the way it becomes a deep blue very quickly, then gets lighter again on the right side of the sky. There doesn't seem to be any clouds there, so I don't know why it lightens. And there is still the unexplained difference in colour and brightness in the buildings. I don't think there is much I could do to the RAW file anyway. It's not a blending problem, and trying to remove lighting transitions is not easy. Diliff (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This problem remember me this nomination Each person has their own perception of reality, so no one can be wrong. --The Photographer (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Nobody else was there when this photo was taken, so we cannot say that we know for sure what it should look like. But I have worked on enough photos to know when something looks strange because of post-processing, rather than because reality itself was strange. I do believe that Poco hasn't screwed up or deliberately messed with the photo to enhance it beyond reality, but I think he has perhaps accidentally pushed it too far. I'm sure there were some strange lighting conditions at the time he took the photo which would explain the reflections in the windows of the building behind and the darker part of the sky, but I think the post-processing has exaggerated them and made them look a bit too abnormal. Just my opinion though. My perception of reality is unique. ;-) Also, I agree with you that the the other nomination you mentioned looks a bit unrealistic. But then again, one of my recent nominations seemed to get the same response, and I didn't think it looked particularly unrealistic (night photos are much harder to say though, because our eyes never see in darkness the way a camera does). Diliff (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Mono Lake Tufa.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 21:26:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vezoy - uploaded by Vezoy - nominated by -- Vezoy (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vezoy (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one seems to be already FP, or am I wrong? --Code (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP on dewiki, but not here. Daniel Case (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ah, sorry. I shouldn't review nominations before the first cup of coffee in the morning. --Code (talk) 09:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why 72 dpi? Can you export the image to 300 dpi? --Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kadellar: the current DPI information in the EXIF is only a "fictitious specification" in the EXIF data. It can be changed from everyone and it is only important for a print, but it is easy to change the DPI info before printing. The main and important is only the resolution in pixel. The DPI info has no influence for an image view. It is simply total unimportant. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look to the absolute same image now with the 300PI info in the EXIF Data. Take a binary comparison from both images and you can see the difference: only the hexadecimal number for 72DPI (&0048) and 300DPI (&012C). Regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alchemist-hp, but wouldn't it look sharper if you export it from original RAW to 300dpi instead of 72? From RAW, not from the same jpg. --Kadellar (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kadellar No, I wrote it: it is only a "fictitious specification" for printers. Only the thru pixel resolution is a valid property. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, thanks for the info! --Kadellar (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Rathaus Palma de Mallorca abends.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Dec 2014 at 13:18:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Very good, I don't remember the square being so impressive (and empty). --Kadellar (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Steindy (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice work, shame that there are blown highlights but otherwise very sharp and well composed. Diliff (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Code (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely framed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 10:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strongly distorted in the left and right part and to many ghosts visible. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral not enough for oppose, but alchemist has good arguments. --Hubertl (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The ghosts trouble me the most, but the overall composition is great, and all the lines are nice and sharp. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Tioga Pass August 2013 001.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2014 at 02:50:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice place and quality --LivioAndronico talk 15:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Little bit tilted to the right. Easy to fix. --Halavar (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak oppose Soooo much to like about this one, but that shadow at lower left just ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the light isn't featured for me: the colors are too washed out. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 22:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With same rationales of other opposers. --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for the lovely scene. I agree the background is a bit too washed out for FP. --99of9 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:UK-2014-Oxford-Pembroke College 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2014 at 19:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pembroke College Hall (Chapel Quad). Image created, uploaded, and nominated by Godot13 -- Godot13 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light. --Kadellar (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Steindy (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, all is good, but it's for me difficult to find something "featurable" here. A very good photograph, but for me, nothing more, sorry (short: "No wow") --Jebulon (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 12:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Mojon del Trigo observatory restored Sierra Nevada, Andalusia, Spain.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 18:08:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting and composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 09:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice light and composition. --Kadellar (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Fridolin 5644-Hu.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2014 at 04:03:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Hubertl -- Hubertl (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and funny --LivioAndronico talk 12:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual, and well achieved. Excellent BG. Maybe a crop below ? Looks "floating" in the air...--Jebulon (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
still Oppose – background needs reworking, posterization --Kreuzschnabel 21:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Das ist kein Farb-, sondern ein Monitor-Farbraumproblem, wodurch der Verlauf zwingend in Blöcke getrennt werden muss, da große Bereiche durch aktuelle Monitore (noch) nicht darstellbar sind. Eine mögliche Erweiterung von RGB um Gelb und Cyan ist der nächste Schritt. Siehe hier. Rein rechnerisch ist der Hintergrund perfekt. Obwohl mit der geringsten JPG-Kompression abgespeichert wurde, sieht man bei ca 10-facher Vergrösserung sogar die JPG-Artefakte, die offenbar unvermeidlich sind, wenn auch gering. Bilder dieser Größe haben ich früher bis aufs Format A0 ohne erkennbaren Qualitätsverlust in der Druckerei weiterverarbeitet, auch wenn der Belichter damals bei diesen Größenordnungen (vor 15 Jahren) bereits gestöhnt hat und wir froh waren, wenn die Rechner nicht abgestürzt sind, auch wenn wir CMYK bereits jeweils getrennt belichtet haben. Wenn ich für die 1:1-Darstellung 240 px/Zoll zugrunde lege, übertragen in den Druckbereich, da reichen 100 Linien/cm für absolut höchste, überhaupt denkbare Kunstdruckqualität. Damit gäbe es in diesem Fall ohne rechnerischen Qualitätsverlust eine 1:1-Druckdarstellung von 33x51 cm. Quelle: 35 Jahre Druck und Grafikbranche, Praxis und Lehre. --Hubertl (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Danke für die Erklärung (daß das soviel ausmacht, hätte ich nicht gedacht), aber das beseitigt das Problem nicht, das ich mit dem Bild habe. Anders ausgedrückt: Ein ausgezeichnetes Bild muß die technischen Grenzen berücksichtigen. Daher wäre ein anderer, technisch weniger anspruchsvoller Hintergrund für mich besser. --Kreuzschnabel 18:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dir ist aber schon klar, dass nicht Deine technischen Grenzen gemeint sein können, es können nur unsere aktuellen technischen Grenzen gemeint sein - die in 10 Jahren völlig anders angesiedelt sind, so auch in der Interpretation von Bilddaten für den Bildschirm. Wir haben heute 4K-Monitore, denken an 8K-Monitore, erweitern ständig die Farbräume auf den Bildschirmen durch immer mehr unterschiedliche Licht- und Farbinformationen pro Lichtpunkt, wobei jeder Pixel, und davon jede einzelne LED dahinter (mehrere/Pixel) einzeln angesteuert werden kann und wird. Dahinter ein wenig kraftwerkschonendes Ding namens Hochleistungsgrafikkarte. Ich könnte ein 32bit-Tiff-Image davon hochladen, das würde zwar noch nicht die Hochladegrenze von Commons sprengen (das PSD hat, auf eine Ebene reduziert, über 100MB), aber deine technische Grenze wäre damit nicht behoben. Du siehst trotzdem dasselbe, weil dein (wie auch mein) Bildschirm es nicht darstellen kann. Es simuliert nur Übergänge in einem bestimmten Bereich. Ich habs gerade ausprobiert, es simuliert nicht einmal, die Übergänge sind trotzdem sichtbar. Im 32bit-Bereich! Dieselbe Bildgröße hat 248MB unkomprimiert. Für TIFF gibts ja keine lossless Kompression, afaik. Ich muss jetzt noch etwas technisches einbringen: die Umwandlung von Grafiken in Raster (für den Druck) läuft mit einer Genauigkeit von - zu meiner Zeit - 2.400 dots/inch, bei Diabelichtung bis hoch zu 6.000 dots/inch. Also - rein technisch - noch eine Ebene höher, welche für uns kaum wahrnehmbar ist (für mich schon, ich habe bis heute das Handwerkszeug eines Druckers/Setzers/Lithografen/Reprotechnikers/Grafikers/ immer dabei: den Fadenzähler).--Hubertl (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- S'il vous plaît, essayez de vous souvenir que vous n'êtes pas ici dans la Wikipedia allemande, il est très difficile de suivre votre intéressant débat si l'on n'est pas germaniste. Merci.--Jebulon (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I´m sorry, but it was technical talk on a level, I can´t write it in english. Something like todays and yesterdays technical cross areas and the attempt to understand tomorrows. Why do we see posterizing areas on the monitor, even when its not in the picture itself. --Hubertl (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:25, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Your file description says this is from c. 1970. Such a figurine would be copyright in Indonesia for the life of the author and 50 years, per Template:PD-IDOld-Art29. Thus, this is a copyvio. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Are you opposing because of a possible copyvio or because other reasons, Crisco?--Hubertl (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is: are you establishing a new copyright by copying an old colonial masterpeace? If yes, then you can delete almost any picture in commons from traditional masks, most of them are younger than 50years plus. Is this objekt a individuell piece of art, attributed to a specific, named person, or a result of a mass handicraft workpiece made in an almost industrial manner. It is it is probably fact, that the original design is far, far older, the idea is rather colonial. If it is a singular piece of art you are right but in the other case - there isn´t any personal signature for example - it doesn´nt has any copyright from the very beginning. But you are the lawyer, not me, Crisco. --Hubertl (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, here is not the place for such a discussion. Please start a deletion request, discuss it, and let's wait a decision.--Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The deletion request is already decided: No Copyvio.--Hubertl (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No decision for now, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 20:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I´ve no idea, how this kind of decisions are handled. I thought, its an admin-job. Is there something like a commission?--Hubertl (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Indeed, no decision yet. Yes, that is the basis of my oppose. Shouldn't promote anything that is liable to be deleted. The fact that traditional works can be copyrighted in Indonesia is one of the reasons I only uploaded a single textile from Google's documentation of the textiles at the Indonesian National Museum; everything else was undated, meaning it could possibly be a recent weaving and thus copyrighted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is full of horizontal posterized lines. I'm viewing on a well calibrated monitor, and I see them both in thumbnail and at full res. --99of9 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 99of9. The quality of the actual object is just fine, however a posterized digitally rendered background just doesn't cut it for FP. There's a variety of approaches to circumvent this problem. Some people tend to add noise to digital gradients, some use mono-coloured digital backgrounds and others mask the object and replace the background with pictures of actual printed gradients. Assuming that you masked the object in Photoshop anyway, this should be an easy fix. I'd gladly support a picture with a mono-coloured background or an improved gradient. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jež Hedgehog 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Dec 2014 at 14:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by sl:User:Tomaž Demšar - nominated by Smihael -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miha (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition and moment but it is too noisy imo (noise + possibly jpg artifacts, I guess it is jpg straight from the camera because of capital .JPG Canon format). Since there is flash, I think ISO could have been lower. The leaf is a bit disturbing too, but I could pass with it. --Kadellar (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish a better resolution. Yes, it's noisy (in the background) with ISO 1.250, but for this kind of image it's OK.--XRay ^talk 18:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sometime specific moment overvaluate technical faults. Since it is made with older camera i can tolerate weak points. --Mile (talk) 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mile --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Pity, it’s such a great shot! But it suffers from severe noise and has obviously been oversharpened (pixelization on the grass blades and the face hair). Loss of detail around the nose. Oppose due to technical quality drawbacks; the idea, composition and lighting are excellent! --Kreuz schnabel 06:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. -- ChristianFerrer 18:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --P e z i (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nangyar Koothu - Koodiyattam By Dr Indu G 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2014 at 10:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ranjithsiji - uploaded by Ranjithsiji - nominated by Ranjithsiji -- Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 10:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ranjith -- (Ranjithsiji) (talk to me) 10:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this woman a man? --Hubertl (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Slightly out of focus, unattractive background, random composition, noisy skin. --Kadellar (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The faintly visible background means it's a miss for me even in thumbnail. --99of9 (talk) 03:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angel on bridge of angels in Rome.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2014 at 12:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 12:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 12:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not too bad. Crop suggestion added, IMHO there’s too much empty space on the left. But apart from that, you may already book some hotels round the corner. --Kreuzschnabel 12:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Kreuzschnabel,tell me if is ok now. Thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 14:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Much nicer with the crop, the centered composition looked a bit plump. Support from me now. Nice lighting, and I love the diagonal line of background trees cutting the feet/podium plane. --Kreuzschnabel 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now Kreuz schnabel how I do for the party? To few days will born the second daughter and then there's Christmas. Bad bad time, you chose. I Joke, thanks.
weak Support No wow but very nice. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ArionEstar If a candidate has 'no wow' for you, then why do you support it? Only 1/4000 images on Commons gets the FP label. ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Slaunger: The light, angle and subject are very nice. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @ArionEstar: For me that's pretty much the definition of "wow." --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - When I said no wow I do not mean that it is not totally no wow, but it is predominantly no wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me, especially, because its the first picture of a statue from you, where you can see the stone-texture. Its not waxy as most (all?) of your other statue surfaces. All in all, for me its a good composition too.--Hubertl (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I had little expectations after seeing the preview (I do not like frog-perspective on statues), but I am positively surprised by the full resolution. The light is indeed very good on the statue as well as the texture. The diagonal line in the background is a plus. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Slaunger

--LivioAndronico talk 21:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support In addition I like the interplay of light and shadow on the statue.--CHK46 (talk) 21:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose Bad categorization, insufficient description in the file page.--Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Far much better now, but beware of overcategorization !--Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done my dear Jebulon --LivioAndronico talk 23:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I've said many times, I just love images with bright light against dark sky. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent and very delicate. I fully agree with King of Hearts, CHK46 and Hubertl. --Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very dynamic, very nice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brings my soul to the Tiber --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Big Ben at sunset - 2014-10-27 17-30.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 17:59:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created for the recent "Light on the Move" Photo Challenge. A related FP is Tower Bridge Lights from last year. Created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light trails over Westminster bridge are a popular photo theme. Most are taken on the bridge rather than of the bridge, and the trails tend to dominate the picture. This one's a bit more subtle and worth looking at full-screen. -- Colin (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Code (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nicely done. It is indeed a less common angle for light trails, but I think it works well if you can (as you did) successfully get a single long trail. Diliff (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Kreuz schnabel 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 22:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good -- ChristianFerrer 07:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a new way to visualize a well-photographed subject. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for all the support. My daughter says it looks like the BBC News 24 title sequence, where the coloured lines are presumably news information on its way to BBC HQ. -- Colin (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support one more vote because of your daughter.. --Hubertl (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've maybe cropped out the building at right, but my three daughters don't care. So, I support. (Seriously: that's a shot !)--Jebulon (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Campus WU EA DSC 1537w.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2014 at 14:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --P e z i (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business, building EA (Executive Academy), planned by NO.MAD Arquitectos (Madrid), Welthandelsplatz 1, 2nd district of Vienna.
Support --P e z i (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive building, excellent photograph, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon --Kreuz schnabel 21:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting building. --Halavar (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit washed out; could the contrast be increased? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for review. I've tried already to enhance contrast but that leads to blown highlights at the window framings. I had also the impression of washed out when looking at the windows on full res, but meanwhile I think this is just the special material used. Please have a look at the new version. --P e z i (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~weak Oppose a tiny bit oversaturated and underexposed, imo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Question Thanks for review. Could you give me a hint where you see oversaturation (I didn't touch the settings)? If your impression comes from the foreground: This is not even artificial turf, this is just a synthetic mat. --P e z i (talk) 09:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did notice the synthetic mat which had appeared at bit suspicious at first. But still, I'd say the sky is somewhat too blue and dark. I suppose you've applied a polarizer here. So maybe it could help to desaturate the sky - this might also make the whole image a bit brighter. It might be worth a shot. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded. Please Jebulon, Kreuz, Halavar and Martin Falbisoner reconsider your vote. --P e z i (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support Interesting. Though the image is imo even darker than before, increasing the contrast had the effect that the picture now does in fact work for me- --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its a good documentation picture of this house, but for me, the crop is too narrow, not enough Wow.--Hubertl (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Defensive Dice (4467299521).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 21:34:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Matthew Hillier - uploaded by Veikk0.ma - nominated by Veikk0.ma -- -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmm, I like the composition and it's an interesting subject, but it's a bit soft and shows quite strong chromatic abberation. Diliff (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Longjoe (talk) 15:48, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Echinacea purpurea, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 17:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Exemplars of Echinacea purpurea, Botanical Garden, Munich, Germany. All by me, Poc o² 17:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 17:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😉 Well, wow, wild. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great sharpness on the right point, good composition, nice bokeh.--Hubertl (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Excellent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Horse December 2014-1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2014 at 23:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a Lusitano horse. Porto Covo, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support without any doubt!--Hubertl (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure! Yann (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very strong image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NEIIIIGGGGHH! ... of course! A little unsharp in the upper left, but this image is about a horse, not spalled paint. Daniel Case (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the horsehair is disturbingly cropped below. A pity, IMO. --Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality, nice portrait. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I think you could have given the poor thing a liitle more space to breathe;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my friend, you are quite right! I have several other versions where the poor thing is not sufocating but the light is not as gorgeous as this one. Don't worry, He is being sacrified for a higher cause: beauty! Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beauty(ness) is the correct word for this portrait! --Hubertl (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hubertl! Most of it is in the animal and the gorgeous light. I was lucky to be there and wise enough to recognize it... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. --Kadellar (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:La Marquise de Baglion en Flore, Jean Marc Nattier, Alte Pinakothek Munich.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 17:41:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean-Marc Nattier- Photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "More paintings" ? I hope you will enjoy this portrait, from the french painter Jean-Marc Nattier, on display at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. Many other informations in the file description page, please have a look there.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes - more paintings. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's a pity that this was not featured. 😞 ArionEstar (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have overlooked it, sorry. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, in a month I will nominate it again. ArionEstar (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The frame is thicker on the right instead of the left and thicker above instead of below...anyway Good --LivioAndronico talk 19:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want more paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Mont de Seuc y l Saslong da Cod dal Fil.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2014 at 15:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by -- ChristianFerrer 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Support -- ChristianFerrer 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Merci puor le soutien. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little unsharp on the ridges but nowhere near the point of ruining this image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a landscape !!--Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful autumn colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Reflejo Catedral de Toledo en Fuente Tres Aguas -- 2014 -- Toledo, España 10.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 15:32:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Alurín (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's not a particularly compelling composition for me. For an abstract image such as this, I feel that composition is everything. It is no longer so much about the subject, but about a compositional idea. The composition in this image seems a bit messy, without much consideration for framing. These are just my thoughts when viewing it. Diliff (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Longjoe (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riksdagen September 2014 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 19:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The island Helgeandsholmen in central Stockholm. Helgeandsholmen contains the Riksdag Building, the seat of the parliament of Sweden. The picture was taken from a chartered helicopter, part of Wikimedia Sveriges aerial photography project. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow... chartered helicopter! :) --· Favalli ⟡ 02:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. Must not have been easy getting up there. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great project. --Kadellar (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is really ideal, warm and directional but still soft. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, its excellent!--Hubertl (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Since I like the West view of the Rigsdag huset very much, I'd like to have a bit more space at the bottom. Besides that it's perfect. --P e z i (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do agree that the composition is not quite balanced vertically, and I'd also prefer a little less noise, but I can't quite bring myself to even vote neutral on this. Great light from a great height. --99of9 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Royal Air Force Voyager at Mount Pleasant.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2014 at 08:08:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cpl Ashley Keates (RAF)- uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --Mile (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture. Bastique ^{☎ appelez-moi!} 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lots of wow --Kreuz schnabel 21:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sunset but if the RAF-plane is the subject, the image does not serve its purpose, since it's hardly visible. Kleuske (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Kleuske Not only is the aircraft visible, but you can actually see what is written on the side of it. The whole composition is the subject, not any one component. russavia (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow... That's the criterion for FP? You can vaguely see what's written on it? Ludicrous. The "whole composition" is a nice sunset. Nice, but no FP-meterial. Kleuske (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mr. President, we must take off before the radioactive dawn can reach us. --The Photographer (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit of noise in the sky, but WOHOW! 😮😯 ArionEstar (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Longjoe (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnaturally over-saturated. So much so that the red channel is clipped in some fairly large areas. The clouds and silhouette are certainly nice, but they've gone too far in the processing. --99of9 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where I lived, Juan Griego, it was common to observe sunsets with those colors --The Photographer (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer it's the same here in Perth. We get this type of sunset on a regular basis and they can be more intense than this. It actually looks quite natural to my eye. russavia (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russavia However, there are people who live in places where they have never seen a sunset like this. I have seen tourists arriving at Juan Griego and they almost mourn to see a sunset so. --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per 99of9.--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:St Christopher's Chapel, Great Ormond St Hospital, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 20:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. This is a little known but fantastically decorated chapel inside a Great Ormond St Hospital, a children's hospital in London. I had not even heard of the chapel until a few days ago, so when I read about it, I decided to go and visit. As it is a children's hospital chapel, there are lots of touching details, such as the large collection of teddy bears (called the Teddy Bear choir!) which have been placed in the chapel by family members, and the 'prayer tree' with messages of hope and support for sick children. It is a very small chapel - perhaps smaller than it looks in the photo due to the wide angle of view. A small amount of vertical compression has been applied to the image to stop the dome from elongating too much. This has had the effect of squashing the top so that it is not quite circular, but I felt that it was the best compromise between controlling distortion and geometrical accuracy. Also, there seems to be a bit of a rainbow effect caused by the downsampling in the thumbnail, please view at full size and it should disappear. -- Diliff (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive --ArildV (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture of a touching place. --Code (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Longjoe (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Kadellar, you added a note to the image page asking if the crop could be looser. Unfortunately it can't, that is the limit of what I captured. Already the angle of view from the horizon to the top of the frame is about 65 degrees which is quite extreme even for a panoramic stitch. That's the equivalent of 130 degrees vertical field of view which in 35mm rectilinear lens terms is about 8mm focal length! The widest full frame lens in existence (that I'm aware of anyway) is 12mm which has a 112 degree FOV. And of course that would have much worse image quality.... Anyway, just putting in perspective why I wasn't able to get any wider vertical field of view here. It is quite extreme. Diliff (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. It's just that I find the edge of the circle too close to that of the image. The chapel must be indeed small... we haven't been there and it seems possible to have a wider crop, but as you say, it's almost above you. I'm still not really satisfied with the upper crop but I
Support because it's a quite unique place and because technically it is very good. --Kadellar (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sometimes a challenge to visualise the framing when shooting an ultrawide panoramic. You have to guess where the borders of the image will be, because the image gets warped when converted to rectilinear projection. And even if you do know where the border will be, that doesn't mean you can do much about it if the angle of view is too large. What would you prefer, the existing tight crop at the top, or cropping further the central part of dome with the pelican? Really, they are my only choices in this scene. Diliff (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Making me heartbroken all the time now, aren't we? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:St Marylebone Parish Church Interior 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Dec 2014 at 21:17:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice view. I find this point of view more interesting than the classical symmetrical shots from the floor, maybe because it's not always possible to have these views. --Kadellar (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, and I think this is a better image than the classical symmetrical shot of this church. When it's possible to get a nice high vantage point in a church, I do like to take advantage and experiment with different views, but of course it is not often possible. Many churches, even those with balcony levels, do not allow visitors up there without special permission (it was also the case with this church). Diliff (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a different angle. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC) This user is not allowed to vote because of less than 50 contributions. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing work David. --99of9 (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Sympetrum vulgatum - Eisenstadt 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Dec 2014 at 15:36:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spacebirdy - uploaded by Spacebirdy - nominated by -- ChristianFerrer 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Odonata
Support -- ChristianFerrer 15:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - For an in situ shot, this is quite good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Odonata

File:Tyto alba - Cetrería - 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 19:23:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A barn owl (Tyto alba) during a flight exhibition. When I'm rich (haha) I will buy this lens. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Kreuz schnabel 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but Kadellar, much space on the left. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations on your camera and lens, I feel a healthy envy you. Very good decision. Excellent photo composition, nice moment --The Photographer (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no, they're not mine, I wish I owned that gear! It was a wildlife workshop. That lens is just too expensive, I'm more interested in a 70-200 2.8 or a 100-400, and being more than five times cheaper, even they are expensive. I'm very happy about this great support, thank you all! --Kadellar (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha --The Photographer (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support an excellent shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another excellent animal pic that captures the animal in the context of its natural habitat. Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding. Congratulations! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow that is an incredible shot... Amazing job! EoRdE6 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - You really don't need my support, but take it. Take it! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --Quoc-Phong NGUYEN (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid this user is not allowed to vote because of less than 50 contributions. Please revert if I'm wrong.--Jebulon (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I do not understand these situations, usually trolls users who create other accounts to mess nominations. --The Photographer (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Amazing, · Favalli ⟡ 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always happy to support a great action shot. --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you all very much for your support and comments! --Kadellar (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Årstaberg September 2014.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Dec 2014 at 07:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Two X60 commuter train (pendeltåg) at Årstaberg commuer train station, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trains are blurred :-)) --P e z i (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC) confirmed vote after new upload. --P e z i (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its nine watch! Such watch! --Hubertl (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Concept is brilliant, but there are some oddities for me. The crop does not maximize the use of leading lines. I can't wrap my head around the differences in height of the trains as well as the apparent asymmetry on the ground. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Saffron Blaze Thanks for your comment and appreciation of the concept. I think the problem is that it is a curved platform (and hence the difference in height). So it does not help that the camera is centered (relative to the platform). I dont know if there's any better solution?--ArildV (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First of all: I like it like it is! Just try to cut 400px from left and have a look at the result ... --P e z i (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done--ArildV (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @P e z i, Hubertl, Saffron Blaze, ProfesorFavalli, and King of Hearts: @Martin Falbisoner and Christian Ferrer: [reply]

Support How strange. I could see what was wrong, but couldn't see the edit. The suggestion by Pezi did the trick. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support · Favalli ⟡ 03:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare catch: two trains at once! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support I like the picture very much - wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose Two trains passing a trainstation isn't that spectacular. Kleuske (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats true. But, if you look closer, they are passing the station at the same time! ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Enthusiastic support I love the way that, at theumbnail, it looks so clean and elegant and modern, but then when you look at in full resolution you see all the graffitti. Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary here for me. There is a dead pixel at left. The blue flares are a problem, and I don't find the picture really sharp.--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "dead pixel" is at least 5×4 pixels in size on my monitor, and it’s not really rectangular. I suspect there really was something bright. 2 seconds is long enough to capture bright stars, looking north-east it could be Capella. --Kreuz schnabel 20:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are the lights green? I would expect the whole scene to be less green... but then I saw that the clock is correctly white. Why do they have green lights? --99of9 (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest I'm not sure regarding green light (maybe grey-green lampshades?). Regarding the dead pixel, I think Kreuz is right. I have been using this camera body for over 2 year and never had problems with dead pixels.--ArildV (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Ice On Plane Window.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 20:42:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by EoRdE6 - uploaded by EoRdE6 - nominated by EoRdE6 -- EoRdE6 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EoRdE6 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see the idea but it does not work for me. Background is distracting. Theres motion blur as well (camera shake, clearly visible on the drill hole). --Kreuz schnabel 22:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that's an entirely different picture and subject though... EoRdE6 (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed, should be removed therefore. Who did nominate that? EoRdE6 has two active nominations already. --Kreuzschnabel 22:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - it's my "alt" nomination. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Put it up as your own nomination then. As EoRdE6 already said, this is not an alternative but an entirely different image. --Kreuz schnabel 10:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gjipe beach, Albania.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Dec 2014 at 22:29:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not baaaad ... Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice, although I would have walked a few steps further forward to try to avoid that bush being in front of the water. Diliff (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Kreuz schnabel 08:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Rome, From Mount Aventine.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 13:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.M.W. Turner - uploaded by and nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a follow up on "More paintings"? Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian window + indian summer.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 23:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't OK: noisy in the dark areas, chromatic aberration. The main, the indian summer: is only an unsharp part of this image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and not much likelihood of getting any through editing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the underexposed foreground, and a generally unimpressive picture EoRdE6 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Face Engraving.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 21:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A very unusal engraving next to a cave full of petroglyphs. Created by AgrisR - uploaded by AgrisR - nominated by AgrisR -- AgrisR (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AgrisR (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orthodox prayers in Kazakhstan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 21:15:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Orthodox prayers in Zenkov cathedral, Almaty, Kazakhstan. All by --Mile (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow Mile, wow. It's well done. Very good! 😃 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient image quality (underexposed, noise) --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice atmosphere but unfortunate composition (view is drawn by the light towards the scaffold pile in the background, anything of interest is either dark or placed near the edge), perspective distortion too (sides leaning) – certainly an image of value but still below FP threshold. --Kreuz schnabel 22:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question any chance to have an alternative with the perspectives corrected and a crop of the right dark area (see note)? -- ChristianFerrer 09:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done PD corrected, crop per User:Christian Ferrer (good point, i didnt see that cup covered candle). Cleaned glare around candles. --Mile (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChristianFerrer 13:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the light. Kleuske (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --P e z i (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian window + indian summer.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 23:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't OK: noisy in the dark areas, chromatic aberration. The main, the indian summer: is only an unsharp part of this image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and not much likelihood of getting any through editing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the underexposed foreground, and a generally unimpressive picture EoRdE6 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tioga Pass August 2013 003.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 06:53:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View along Tioga Pass. I think it has a rather interesting atmosphere due to the smoke from the Rim Fire. All by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The strong shadow ruins the depth effect the images wants to achieve. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw. It’s a nice place and vantage point but definitely not the best of lighting angles. The hazy background doesn’t help either. --Kreuz schnabel 06:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting and good image, but if the smoke is the smoke of the Rim Fire, so you should write it in the description of the file and maybe also categorize it with this category and also maybe this one. -- ChristianFerrer 08:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canadian window + indian summer.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 23:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't OK: noisy in the dark areas, chromatic aberration. The main, the indian summer: is only an unsharp part of this image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and not much likelihood of getting any through editing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the underexposed foreground, and a generally unimpressive picture EoRdE6 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Origami modułowe.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 22:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very eye-catching and quite different from other kinds of origami, that I am familiar with. Good composition and useful. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support not just a good picture, also an impressive work! --Hubertl (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmm... Well, I like it! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cute Jacek LivioAndronico talk 11:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Who made the origami figure itself? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My daughther Joanna. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so copyright-wise this should be fine. Support. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Antiguo faro de Akranes, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-14, DD 008.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 18:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The old lighthouse of Akranes is located in the westmost location of the Akranes Peninsula, Southern Peninsula region, Iceland. The lighthouse is one of the oldest concrete lighthouses in Iceland and was built in 1918. It served the fishing town of Akranes until it was deactivated in 1947 in favor of the larger structure several meters away.. All by me Poc o² 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request please add a GEO-tag, so you earn my support :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alchemist-hp: Done! I promise, I'll not get a new camera without GPS Poc o² 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect . --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, it would benefit from a little less sky, since there's nothing interesting going on there (e.g. puffy clouds). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with King of Hearts, there is too much sky imo. What do you think about leaving the horizon at the upper third line approximately? I added a note (and I removed too much sky, pick a bit more). --Kadellar (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kadellar, King of Hearts: Done! I agree with your proposal. Poc o² 09:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it's better now, thanks for reworking! --Kadellar (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Astrantia major Mitterbach 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 20:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Great Masterwort (Astrantia major), found in Mitterbach am Erlaufsee, Lower Austria. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Banding very obvious in many parts. A bit to shallow DOF. Bad crop. --Mile (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@PetarM: I will work on the banding issue. What is wrong with the crop? --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would concentrate more on what is sharp, or at least some crop from sides, should main flower fell to third rule spot. --Mile (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 22:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Conditional neutral~~ I like the composition a lot. It is refreshing and eye-catching after having seen a lot of unimaginative plant composition being nominated at FPC. I do not mind the somewhat shallow dof. It attracts the eye to the main central flower. It is visual caviar, ahh. I do think though that something should be done wrt the banding in the background. Maybe re-introduce a little grain or subtle noise in the background to break up the banding? I'll be happy to change to support if that is addressed. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I can support the new edit. Nice work! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What is that white line on the flower? (I've tagged it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something from a small animal, a spider or an insect, I presume --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I preferred the close crop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info@PetarM and Slaunger: I have uploaded a new version according to your suggestions. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chrumps (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Canadian window + indian summer.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 23:49:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image quality isn't OK: noisy in the dark areas, chromatic aberration. The main, the indian summer: is only an unsharp part of this image. No FP for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, and not much likelihood of getting any through editing. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the underexposed foreground, and a generally unimpressive picture EoRdE6 (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathartes aura at Tomales Bay.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 05:33:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very impressive. Congratulations! ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pelz (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 18:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Maersk headquarters Copenhagen 2014 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2014 at 09:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I nominate this because I like the simplicity of the shapes in this photograph combined with the contrast between the vegetation and the extremely cold architecture surrounding it. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of an architect's proposal, with model trees and clean pavements (though the vantage point would be higher and a little more distant to get more of the building and less of the trees). -- Colin (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent shot. Great composition and simplicity. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it—as Colin says, it looks like a rendering. And this is one of those cases where what is otherwise a flaw—the slight overexposure—actually works in the image's favor. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support,--Pugilist (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --· Favalli ⟡ 01:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Matsimäe Pühajärv.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2014 at 11:13:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Rutake - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WWOOWW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Flawless. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is not optimal: the tree tops at the right are cut. However, for sure FP! --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Nebulosa de Eta Carinae o NGC 3372.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2014 at 10:01:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the Carina Nebula taken from the Astronomy Observatory of Los Molinos (OALM) (es) located in Montevideo, Uruguay. Please, note that on the contrary to most of our FPs listed here, this is not the work of the NASA or ESO, but of an Uruguayan Commonist thank to a project of Wikimedia Uruguay with several institutes in that country, who took the picture and processed it by himself. The result has nothing to envy to the works of space agencies in my opinion, that's what amazed me and motivates this FPC. The picture is based on 9 frames of 2 minutes exposure each with a Nikon Df and a catadioptric Nikkor 500mm f/8 lense, apart from the dark, bias and flat frames for the post-processing. For the post-processing a dedicated software for this kind of photography (PixInsight) was used that merges the images, analyses the brightness scale, reduces the noise and enables the management of saturation and dynamic range. Created by Fernando da Rosa and Asterismo (Santiago Roland, coordinator of OALM) - uploaded by Fernando da Rosa - nominated by Poco a poco -- Poc o² 10:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work, awesome results. --Kadellar (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 08:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rangelo (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Old Woman of San Juan Bautísta.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 18:48:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice idea and impressive face but the light is way too harsh IMHO. Would look marvellous in softer light. --Kreuz schnabel 12:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect (an I'm really not an expert in this) that this might actually work better in B&W (plus a slightly tighter crop at the bottom and right). --El Grafo (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your recomendation --The Photographer (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Version soft edit

Info Per @Kreuzschnabel: comment. All by --The Photographer (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Yann (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is an impressive face, the quality is good and we have relatively few humans in our FP galleries! I would crop the image a bit on the left though. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Alves, could you do that by yourself o simply add a note a I will do that. Nice recomendation --The Photographer (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think most portraits, including this one are better off center. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 11:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portrait of ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis), Windsor, Ontario, 2014-12-07.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2014 at 20:45:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but maybe you could reduce noise in the background --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already denoised a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Nice to have close portraits which bring out their eye in such beautiful detail. --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

99of9, I think for your !vote to be considered, you have to sign. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oops thanks. --99of9 (talk) 13:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bom ângulo, mais uma espécie de ave para o banco de dados das FPs. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It does work well, documenting the species. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
Clipped areas
Hard not to excuse again … but while idea and composition of this picture are truly great, the blown whites (of which there are huge areas all over the head!) are an absolute no-go for me. See the pic on the right, all green areas are pure white in the original. Contrast does not make the clipping inavoidable here, so the image is simply overexposed or overprocessed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- My Lightroom is not showing as extreme highlight issues; what software are you using? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am talking about the picture nominated. The areas I have pointed out show no detail at all to me, and I found that by looking at the picture, not by using any analysing software. Be it 255/255/255 or 254/254/254, the visual effect is the same. I was using colour selection in GIMP but don’t remember the tolerance setting (admittedly it certainly wasn’t zero). However, it still shows what I feel looking at the original image. --Kreuzschnabel 15:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I checked the nominated file in Lightroom, not the original RAW. I'm guessing the two pieces of software have different thresholds (Lightroom's own settings, and the tolerance in GIMP's software). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again: I am talking about my visual impression, not about some software output. That was just to prove my impression. --Kreuz schnabel 20:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nicely done. Great close-up bird portrait. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Preveli Palm Beach Panorama 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 20:10:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Palm beach of Preveli with the mouth of Megalopotamos river, Crete. All by me -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It reminds me a lot of Big Sur. Amazing how two places on opposite sides of the world, united only by climate, can be so similar. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's "belo, parabéns"! ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, I understand all the other pictures from the river! --Hubertl (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 18:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Sassoferrato - Jungfrun i bön.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Dec 2014 at 23:06:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato, uploaded by J-Ronn, nominated by Yann (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The Virgin in Prayer, by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609–1685)
Support -- Yann (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "More paintings"! ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J-Ronn (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just digitally enhanced and softened with loss of details. --Hubertl (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7....Sassoferrato here is strong --LivioAndronico talk 21:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 at Sydney Airport.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Dec 2014 at 19:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Damien Aiello - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Description from photographer: Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 (9V-SKD) operating as SQ222 taking off in a southerly direction on Runway 16R at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport. Photo taken from a chopper flying parallel at approx 500ft. Focal length 200mm on F8 aperture. russavia (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Milad A380 ^talk? 20:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very good light and detail level and well caught moment, but I do not like the tight crop of the tail to the left and the shadow to the right, sorry. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nick (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry,per Slaunger,the I don't like the crop --LivioAndronico talk 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, the crops are tight and 16:9 would probably give the subject more room to breathe, but it's excellent in every other way and I like the shadow very much. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We could look at File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 woah!.jpg as see that although it is a fantastic photo, it is unlikely to be FP in its current state (ignoring the size issue) because it is "boxed in" in the frame. The analogous version of the photo being discussed here is to the right. Slaunger and LivioAndronico2013 have issues with the crop. The crop is fine IMHO for the purposes of FP -- the aircraft is not boxed in the frame, and has plenty of room to breathe. russavia (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the right and left crops. --Kadellar (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The shadows in the nominated image gives highlight to the image showing hight above the ground etc. Josve05a (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What about a little "cheat", and adding some space left and right by cloning ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works. :) J e e 06:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version with more room edit

Info I don' t try to be deceptive. But please don't focus your review only on the retouched parts of the picture. Of course, you will probably find flaws (repeated patterns etc...) because it is a cloning. Remember instead: are you sure you will find (and search) the flaws if you did not know it is a retouched version ? Thanks in advance.--Jebulon (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, better. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now is perfect --LivioAndronico talk 13:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice edit, Jebulon! -- Slaunger (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even the original one was great and this one also is better, thank you! −ebraminio^talk 16:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much better, compositionally. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done improvement of an already very nice image. --P e z i (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 11:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

The chosen alternative is: File:Singapore Airlines Airbus A380 at Sydney Airport room added.jpg

File:Sveti Stefan (06).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Dec 2014 at 19:36:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty good wow, light and composition, but I am not sure if it among our 'very best'. The texture of the sea and some of the stone facades looks a bit weird (luminance noise reduction?), although it is a minor issue. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Slaunger that is only a minor issue. --LivioAndronico talk 20:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very nice, useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Nice, but a bit soft and some kind of noisy texture visible e.g. in the sea in front --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added contrast, so now the image is less soft. But for the other thing, I don't know where is the problem. --Halavar (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like the crop on the left and right are too tight, and it's a bit washed out in terms of lighting (would be better to take it some time other than noon). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've some concerns regarding FOP, or rather non-FOP in Montenegro. That island is a hotel constructed in the last years. I wanted to propose myself this picture of the same subject but I'm not sure about the license situation here. Poc o² 15:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not showing the hotel, but the island. I've been there also in 2009, before opening the hotel, and this place looks exactly the same (from the outside of course). Opening the hotel didn't change anything with exterior of this island. The other thing is that FoP (or no-FoP) has nothnig with Featured pictures nominiations. If you think, that showing this island/hotel is breaking the copyright law, you should start deletion procedure to the all images in this category (including your images from this year). --Halavar (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True that it isn't the place, but the argumentation you provided was fair enough and now I don't see that ta DR would be needed Poc o² 10:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 10:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Bruno Doucey par Claude Truong-Ngoc décembre 2014.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 13:38:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Claude Truong-Ngoc, nominated by Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Professional quality portrait of a French writer and poet. -- Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality, nice expresion, high EV and the black and scale up white are colors too to realse the contrast and expresion --The Photographer (talk) 13:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is he a saint ? I see a halo behind his head, and I'm not a fan of that. BtW, I "don't dislike" the B&W choice here...--Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Je pense que c'est volontaire pour mettre en valeur le portrait par rapport au fond. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: Votre commentaire est très drôle, je suis d'accord avec vous, le Vignettage devrait être retirée. --The Photographer (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a nice B&W image but ... the halo arround the head is distracting and the false focus point: it's to the beard and not to the eyes = "a malpractice"? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is done on purpose, to highlight the portrait from the background. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Purpose or not, it looks simply bad for my opinion, as a nimbus and Bruno Doucey isn't sacred. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have to agree with Alchemist-hp/Jebulon that the halo is odd. Otherwise it's a fine portrait I'd be happy to support. -- Colin (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Claude confirmed that this is done on purpose. See his talk page for the details (in French). Regards, Yann (talk) 09:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't full understand the talk page conversation but I see now it is a strong vignette all round the face. If the vignette overlapped the top of the hair, then perhaps it wouldn't look so much like a halo. I appreciate the desire to bring focus on the face, but this doesn't seem to be subtly done. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a very good technique in fine-arts. But if Commons only wants boring 100% faithful reproductions, it will be bad technique. :) J e e 02:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks Jee. That proves, if needed be, that opposing votes here are completely out of line with what professional photographers do. Very disappointing... Yann (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I can only say: images from "professional photographers" ≠ always featured pictures! If you can't accept an opinion from another, so close your eyes please ... ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Family portrait photography (per the link) isn't really "fine arts". Nor (to put my Wikipedia hat on) is 500px a reliable source for serious photographic technique. Regardless, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with using a vignette just as there is nothing wrong with using a graduated filter for landscape photography. But both techniques can be overdone or misaligned. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Purpose or not, etc... Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That halo is hardly visible in the original, full resolution version. I suspect that the halo effect in the thumbnails/smaller sizes is due to oversharpening from the recently introduced "bucketed" thumbnailing. See phab:T76983. --El Grafo (talk) 10:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes; no halo in full size. And glad to see his teeth are out of focus. I had vomited several times after seeing an fpc at EN last year. :) J e e 11:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the halo on the full-size image if I step back, or if I reduce it in software. So this is not a mediawiki thumbnail issue. -- Colin (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it also at my 4K monitor. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it as well, and yes it gets more pronounced if you step back or zoom out. I've downloaded the small thumbnail on the right as well as the original, loaded both in Gimp and zoomed out the original to match the thumbnail's size. There's quite a difference in sharpening which also affects the halo to some degree. Personally I think that the amount of halo visible in the original size is OK. I can understand other people disagreeing on that, but however you decide, please don't make your decision solely based on Mediawiki's current thumbnail settings. --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only talking about the light halo around the head btw, not about the dark vignetting effect that makes the scarf blend into the shirt at the bottom etc. That's an appropriate thing to so in order to focus on the face, imho. --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All quality photo websites, including MediaWiki apply a small degree of sharpening when they downsize an image, to offset the softening effect of the algorithms and to restore pixel-level contrast which can be averaged away. If you simply downsize without sharpening, an image can look soft. See this. -- Colin (talk) 14:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but very recently the way this is being done on Commons has changed. Previously, each thumbnail size was created from the original with an appropriate, small amount of sharpening. Now they use a "bucket chain", where only the largest thumbnail is created from the original. From that, the next smaller size is created, and from that the next smaller size and so on. Sharpening is done in every step so that the smaller sizes receive several rounds of sharpening. See this example ("old" mediawiki default on the left, new "bucketed" approach on the right). See also phab:T76983 or Commons:Forum#Neue_Version_der_Vorschau? (in german), where people complain about that.

All I'm saying is: Don't trust our thumbnails at the moment, there have been some drastic changes lately. --El Grafo (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Ram-Man 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Faro de Holmbergs, Suðurnes, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 113.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 12:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, the colours, but especially the waves which are somehow "living", don't know how to describe it better in english. -- Smial (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Smial for this nomination! I can add that this picture was taken just after the sunset (the time 21:43 is correct). Sunsets in Iceland are though a bit different. I remains relatively bright until after midnight during sommer. Taking this shot was also challenging due to the weather conditions, it was so windy that the wind pulled my camera + tripod away, so I had to put myself against the wind direction and in front of the camera to take this shot. Getting to this location is also tricky, I had to climb to get to this spot. Poc o² 13:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. I appreciate the difficulty because of the weather conditions, but the picture is too blurry. Sorry. Nikhil (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikhil: well, you cannot expect that the whole picture is sharp from the see to the stone below the camera, especially the stones in the foreground are unsharp, which should enhance the eyes movement through the sharper area in the background. Poc o² 17:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some may call it "blurry", others call it "not oversharpened". I prefer images that are not oversharpened. -- Smial (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Poco_a_poco: I like the composition as a whole, but looking at the camera settings, for an exposure of 0.6 seconds, and against a wobbling tripod, because of strong winds as you mention, no wonder the picture is blurry. Couldn't you have increased the ISO and decreased the exposure time to say 1/60 seconds so that blur would have been mitigated to a great extent? Just a suggestion Nikhil (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikhil: The lack of sharpenss that you claim, and for me is acceptable for this kind of shot, cannot be due to the a shaky tripod, since some areas are IMO sharp enough. In such a case there would be a lack of sharpness overall. I not only took this picture but a bunch of them of this subject and uploaded a third of them. Poc o² 13:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the image linked below by Kruusamägi. Nikhil (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer this image. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 15:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Argiope pulchella at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 07:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Argiope pulchella, courtship. For more information about this behavior, see this study and this video. Photographed and nominated by me; edited by Christian Ferrer -- J e e 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida
Support -- It was a tough for me to choose a version to nominate here; so received some help at Photography critiques. I don't want to mess the nomination by so many alts. Feel free to support (preferred ), oppose, or comment. :) J e e 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Good but IMO it could be sharper. (Look at the spider top right.) --XRay ^talk 08:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: He is in a different plain (on the web); and moving too. Note that, only leg tips of female touch the web, which is a few mm below from her body. The male is a bit more sharper here because of the chosen focal point (between male and female). Do you prefer that? J e e 08:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your image is OK (and you've a support vote from me). DoF could be better, but I know it's difficult to do this.--XRay ^talk 08:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) J e e 09:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Two spiders! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there were three; a kleptoparasite trying to steal her food. :) J e e 11:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I accept the limitations of focus for the educational view of behaviour here -- Colin (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Arachnida

File:2014-12-08 Bergkäse mit Antipasta 5713.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 23:34:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Hubertl (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hubertl (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Background make me feel so uncomfortable about the food. --Mile (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 12:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hubertl, I'm sorry but I think the black shiny background is a bad choice for this still life. The black olives are lost in the composition because they're the same colour. We also lose some perception of volume due to the lack of shadows. I also feel this kind of setting is not so appropiate for this food: the cheese, the peppers and the olives remind me of nature, but the background feels too artificial and cold. A white background wouldn't be very good either imo, but maybe a dark wooden table could work. Nice work with light. --Kadellar (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but neither the background or the food looks attractive. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I specially like the dark reflective background and I think it is much better at bringing out thous food items than any lighter background ever could. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kłodzko, ratusz, wnętrze 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 16:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- tsca (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Zsuetam (talk) 07:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. J e e 16:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a shame that the top of the windows wasn't captured. It could have been possible to lose a bit of the lower table to reach further at the top. Diliff (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, but now it's too late.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and 7 --LivioAndronico talk 17:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to have an architectural interior shot this good of something other than a church sanctuary. Daniel Case (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, I do take photos of other interiors! The trouble is that interesting and accessible interiors tend to be churches, but yes, variety is the spice of life. ;-) Diliff (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Apart from the compositional missed opportunity that I mentioned above, I have little else that I could be critical about. Nicely taken. Diliff (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Apyãwa (Tapirape) Mask MHNT.ETH.AC.1732.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 17:36:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Apyawa / Tapirape people in Brazil. Photographed and uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No comment. Excellent (as usual) explanations and description in the file page, to be read. I'd be happy if all our FP could benefit of such an encyclopedic work ! More pictures from Brazil ? Here we are ! I hope you will enjoy this very colorful artefact.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have always neglected ethnology. I have only recently discovered. It crosses beautiful objects as masks or objects trivial appearances. But all tell a story and it is that which is the essence of this science. In the case of this mask I was fascinated by the care taken to represent a dead enemy. If I had to represent enemy I will not get it adorned with much care. Thank you to Jebulon, and Pezi for their friendly conspiracy --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am Brazilian. Yes, more pictures of Brazil! Incidentally, I nominated an aerial picture of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil here on the FPC few days. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pugilist (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support So many feathers! Parrots and Macaws? J e e 03:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support High educational value; technically well done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 00:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Pugilina morio 02.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 12:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 12:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good wow and light. Brilliant technical quality and DOF due to proficient use of focus stacking. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top of "Commons", IMO. And per Slaunger.--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks for the info. J e e 10:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones,_shells_and_fossils

File:Põdravärvik.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 23:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ireena - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice idea, light and composition. DoF sufficient for me. Background bokeh looks a bit strange though. --Kreuz schnabel 09:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice, but the DOF is too small. Try f/16. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request I will support with more information for the location (geolocalisation would be even better). -- ChristianFerrer 12:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated the eng description based on Estonian description. Should I ask coordinates from the author or is it enough when the location is specified up to the village? Kruusamägi (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A geolocalisation is always better, but the village is rather accurate for me, thanks. I added this category to the file. -- ChristianFerrer 12:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose bokeh and depth of field. -- Ram-Man 18:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Kreuz schnabel 08:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rome (IT), Ponte Sisto -- 2013 -- 4093.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 17:02:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 17:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture. I have some questions/comments:
1. When I just look at it, and especially when my eyes follow the top of the bridge the photo looks like it could need a clockwise rotation. When I further look at the mirror lines where the three pillars meet the water I note they are also quite far from being on a horizontal line, again indicating it could need a clock-wise tilt. But I am not sure though as it depends on the exact position of the vantage point. I assume the photo was taken from Ponte Guiseppe Mazzani? It appears you did not take the shot from the middle of that bridge, which would be the obvious choise (not knowing the place myself). Was there a good reason for picking the exact vantage point? Please consider if the proportions are as they should be. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. I always find it hard to get the right white balance in a shot like this. In your photo, I find there is a quite noticeable yellow cast and even the (I suppose green?) foliage looks rather yellow. Are you sure the WB is approximately correct? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. IMO the composition could be improved by cropping both at the top and bottom, giving a larger aspect ratio, emphasizing that the main subject is significantly longer, than it is high. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. You have an 18 Mpixel sensor, but the nomination 'only' has half that resolution (in pixels). I suppose it is downsampled to about half the original pixels? The noise level is extremely low. I would recommend not downsampling to unravel more details - or do it less aggressively. I do not think the noise level would become unacceptable from doing that. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed First of all: Thank you for your review and your comments. They are very helpful. I've made a perspective correction with the lights and the water reflections. So it should be OK now. You're right, the photo was taken from Ponte Mazzani. On the left there were disturbing elements. So the photo is taken from the left of Ponte Mazzani. You're right, the white balance got changed. There is too much blue in this image. In the original shot there is really too much yellow. The crop is changed at the top and the bottom. And finally the noise level is changed now and the file size is increased. Hopefully everything is fine now.--XRay ^talk 16:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A significant improvement . All good for me. --Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick response to your issue of white balance in images like this. The problem is that it's fundamentally impossible to fix. The yellow lighting used is sodium vapour, and it produces light of a very limited wavelength. This means that if there are no other light sources with a wider spectrum, no matter what white balance you try to use, the light will be monochromatic. All you will do is change the colour of the monochromatic light. ;-) See here. Sodium lighting scores lower than any other form of lighting. They are cheap and nasty, but because they are quite energy efficient, they are typically used in street lighting. Good for municipal power bills, bad for photography. Diliff (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per my comments on the lighting above, I find it difficult to support. Yes, it's a photo of the bridge at night, but if it were taken in the blue hour, we'd at least have a counteracting source of lighting that would avoid rendering it rather monochromatic. Diliff (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

An Alternative in black and white. --XRay ^talk 11:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To be clear, I was opposing the previous image above because it was monochromatic, not because it was yellow. The same problem applies to this image in B&W IMO. And yes, this is a reflection of my views as discussed in length on the FPC talk page. As a general rule, I don't believe that landscapes and buildings in B&W are most useful to Wikipedia. There are exceptions, but this is unfortunately not one of them. Diliff (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Φάρος Ρεθύμνου και Ψηλορείτης 2782.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 16:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- C messier (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C messier (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak, because of a lack of wow. --Hubertl (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:44444 חדרו של דוד בן גוריון בצריף בשדה בוקר.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 20:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Hanan epstein - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the room where David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, lived in its later years. In 1953 he quit the role of Prime Minister and moved to Sde Boker in the Negev, and encouraged the people of Israel to move and to settle the Negev and the periphery of the country in general. Before dying he asked that his house in Sde Boker will be reserved and serve as a museum, Ben-Gurion's Hut. The museum, and this picture in particular, demonstrates the famous simpilicty in which Ben-Gurion lived, which is a complete contrary to the luxury life many of the Israeli policians have now. -- Tomer T (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I asked the picture to be moved to an English name, but this request was declined. Tomer T (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see the file name as a problem at all. File names can be in any language and character set. Its main purpose is to be meaningful (Google translates to 'The room of David Ben-Gurion in Sde Boker hut') and serve as a unique identifier. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs perspective correction at least. EV is very high certainly but I fail to see something special in the image, without knowing the room I think a more interesting composition (more depth) should have been possible. --Kreuz schnabel 21:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the very simplistic interior and the green colors a lot. It is a refreshing topic. As a cultural ignorant I did not know about Ben-Gurion, and I agree it is remarkable life-style for a former Prime and Defense minister. So I learned a lot by seeing it, as it triggered me to read about it, thus fulfilling its educational value purpose. There are some not so good technical aspects abut the image. As a minimum I think it needs to be rotated such that the corner line behind the bed is vertical. Furter improvements on the perspective are also adviceable - it looks weird at the cropped windows. Also quite some noise, but I think reasonable given the interior shot with no flash. There is also quite visible CA at the edges. Not thaat important, but probably correctable, espececially if the creator has the raw file. I improved the categorization and added an English description to the file page. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture illustrates what I expect from a FP in photography. It's amazing, it fascinates me and makes me think. Technical considerations are nothing. we lost the idea of what may be an FP image.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as it is per Archaeodontosaurus. Any "corrections" to the perspective would probably do more harm than good, as they would require a significant amout of cropping afterwards. --El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Archaeo is convincing ! and he is right.--Jebulon (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)--Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Value trumphs my pedantism :-) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer the alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 07:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version edit

Info I just wanted to get a try, and I think the result deserves your wise opinions, dear colleagues. Yes, there is a loss of informations, but actually not so important that we were afraid of. Not so bad and better quality-wise IMO, and there is no treason of the will of the photographer, I hope. It could be perceived as an improvement. Anyway, this is an "alternative" in your choice. The simplicity of Ben Gourion's end of life is still well shown here. Thanks for attention. As for me, I support both.--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per above.--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm in on this one. Thanks for the edit, Jebulon -- Slaunger (talk) 14:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tighter crop makes it more impressive to me. --Kreuz schnabel 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this. J e e 06:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I clearly prefer this one. --Cayambe (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not as bad as I had suspected. Maybe it's just my imagination but the chair seems to have suffered a tiny little bit from the manipulation. I still prefer the wider crop. --El Grafo (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)t[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 18:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

The chosen alternative is: File:44444 חדרו של דוד בן גוריון בצריף בשדה בוקר.jpg

File:大连国家地质公园11-蟹将出洞-海蚀崖.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2014 at 11:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea cave (age: 600-800 million years ago, formed by coastal erosion during the Sinian period in Neoproterozoic Era) in Jinshitan Coastal National Geopark, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China

Info Sea cave (age: 600-800 million years ago, formed by coastal erosion during the Sinian period in Neoproterozoic Era) in Jinshitan Coastal National Geopark, Dalian, Liaoning Province, China. Created by Techyan - uploaded by Techyan - nominated by JesseW900 -- JesseW900 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JesseW900 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a pretty picture, but there are a few issues, the most serious is the curved/tilted horizon. The focus/sharpness is on the foreground, which is slightly distracting and takes away from the wow as it draws the eye away from the interesting subject. The sky is underwhelming as well. -- Ram-Man 19:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per not only title noted above, but other issues—white balance seems off, and I question whether f/4.5 at 100 was the right aperture and ISO setting for this scene. Daniel Case (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, horizon is tilted, and the greenery is too distracting. Sorry, --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 14:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, once I looked closer and realized that dark spot above the bridge is not an errant cloud's shadow but a coniferous tree. Daniel Case (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice place, nice image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I went three times over this bridge, but always coming from the other side. Unfortunately I never got out of the car to enjoy this part of the CA1.--Hubertl (talk) 07:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's worth stopping, there is a car park just 100 metres away from the bridge. But you could stop every few Kms and never actually get anywhere. The scenery is quite stunning. Some of the very best views unfortunately had nowhere to stop. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Have we started the "Diliff Original Nomination" club yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw. --Kadellar (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, while I generally admire your photos, I feel like this shot is not up to your other quality work. Shooting southbound is what most photographers do at this place. However, I would have suggested also exploring the other side of the road (to the viewer's left). That view exposes more of the Pacific and makes the viewer understand the height of the canyon better. Now, what I don't like is your choice of the time of day. Also, the climatic conditions were somewhat unfavorable (see the hazy sky in the background). In general (and maybe I'm more biased than everybody else because I know the place well), this specific shot lacks the wow for me. Again, your other work is outstanding. Best, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Frank, I understand your point but your suggested view has the big disadvantage that the power supply lines are disturbing the scenery in a significant way. And I think the coast line in Diliffs image is a good framing for this bridge. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, I did actually explore both sides of the bridge but didn't find a view that I liked. I agree that the other side gives a better impression of the height of the bridge, but I think it's an inferior view of the coastline because it's mostly obscured behind the bridge and the hill on the left. I don't think either view is necessarily 'the best'. They are show different things more clearly. I don't consider the haze a particularly unfavourable condition. It's subtle and doesn't really affect anything but the clarity of the horizon. It was pretty characteristic of my entire 2 day drive along the coast, lots of nice deep blue skies but a persistent haze along the horizon. Diliff (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Chrumps (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard contrast and could be nice more beach too, however, excellent --The Photographer (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Link to existing fp for ref. J e e 06:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 14:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Bridges

File:Mastiff Vehicle .50 Calibre Heavy Machine Gun Night Firing MOD 45158051.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 12:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Babbs Robinson - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wow is significant, the red lightning underlines the dramatic atmosphere. The composition is very convincing and emanates power. Rather terrible quality-wise in 100%. I mean worse than I would expect given the difficult lightning conditions, but for me wow mitigates these quality issues. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this picture terrifies me. They will use it in ten years against protesters. And they will justify it as a terrorist defense.--Hubertl (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Slaunger, but for me wow don't mitigates these quality issues. -- ChristianFerrer 08:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, following ChristianFerrer --Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. It looks great downsampled 50%, which is still a good 3 MP. That, combined with the huge "wow," makes me want to support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per ChristianFerrer --P e z i (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per ChristianFerrer. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 14:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polyommatus bellargus male, Aveyron, France - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Dec 2014 at 14:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --C messier (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This confirms to me: If you have this lens, never leave the house without it!--Hubertl (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful colour -- Colin (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shallow DOF, f/8 on FF migth not be good idea. Crop could be biger. --Mile (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The DOF is 'good enough' by macro standards though, and all important details are sharp. Only the top edges of the wings are out of focus. It is very difficult to get a macro shot of a butterfly with its entirety in focus as you probably know. If you look at other FPs in this category, you will find that virtually all of them have similarly limited DOF, and many of them with significantly poorer sharpness and detail. Diliff (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This image was my main reason for purchasing my own macro lens. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good DoF imo. --Kadellar (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unusual Diliff - no tone mapping, no stitching - but excellent in any way --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support One would wish for all the butterfly to be in focus, but I understand the limitations explained above. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --fedaro (talk) 20:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 14:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Snow at Camp Bastion MOD 45158232.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 12:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sergeant Paul Shaw - uploaded by Fæ -- Fæ (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fæ (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and mood mitigates rather poor tecnical quality. It is also a difficult shot though, and I think it is very good at showing the snowy conditions in Camp Bastion. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --XRay ^talk 12:12, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far much too dark, almost a half of the picture is just black. Is the man a soldier ? Look, dear friends photographers, the man is carrying... a tripod ! Sorry, this picture does not say anything to me. And of course, the rather poor technical quality does not help...--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Jebulon: : According to the metadata linked to from the file page the person is an "army photographer", which for me indicates that he is not a civilian. If you are an army photographer, you are as far as I can understand still a soldier first and (at least in the U.S. Army) "you may be expected to join the fight, fire your rifle and still be expected to take photos of the action". -- Slaunger (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The equivalent role in the UK army does not state explicitly that you are considered a soldier, but they are as far as I can understand members of the Royal Logistics Corps. For me, that means they are 'soldiers' and they have the ranks of Corporal, Sergeant (depicted person) and Staff Sergeant. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course, but I find this a bit disappointing... And obviously his tripod is not as good as mine...--Jebulon (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: : You mean it is dissapointing that the army photographer is carrying a tripod and not a rifle? Anyway, knowing the weight of your tripod, which share some of the characteristics of this one, I doubt an army photographer would survive long in a combat situation if you swapped the gear. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most of it's in the dark and the composition lacks "wow". --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose per P e z i and commons policy. -- Ram-Man 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yesterday's news horrified me. If this is the situation, we need military deployment in schools. J e e 10:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to many dark areas. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark, no wow, taken with 36MP equipment and downsampled to 6MP. --P e z i (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I wrote to the photographer (Paul Shaw) to enquire about the depicted person. He has given me a reply and asked me to publish parts of his mail here.
- (Paul Shaw, the photographer): The figure in the Photo is a Sergeant and part of the combat camera team. We serve bout an average of 10 years as soldiers before becoming photographers and we are trained the same as any other soldier. Our day to day job is photography for the Army and MoD however when on exercise and operations we carry the same kit as every other soldier and our camera kit on top.
-- Slaunger (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 14:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

File:Phalanta alcippe by Nayikayam Thattu.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 06:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Phalanta alcippe, Small Leopard. All by me (except the butterfly which is a gift as His B'day is coming!). -- J e e 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera
Support -- J e e 06:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like a little more DoF, but the composition is excellent and it looks great at normal viewing distances. -- Ram-Man 18:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. Yann (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And 7 --LivioAndronico talk 22:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps not centered in the best way, but an excellent photo. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; a centered composition is not so good. But the subject was very fast moving and disappeared soon. I got only fiver "keepers", and we can see it is in different location in all of them. My camera has some limitations; I've to move the spot focus point using a joystick, which takes time. The fixed LCD is also not very helpful as I've to kiss the mud to get a view. :) Thanks all for the quick appreciation. J e e 02:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know how that is, that's why this amateur photographer sticks to moth photography, lights attract the moths overnight and then the next day, they're still there, and they don't fly during the day unless touched or bothered. Anyway, great pic! --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha; I like your moths. BTW, I see some point in your suggestion and made a crop. There is plenty of room in original even if I'm in the closest focusing distance because the subject is very small. We have another Leopard which is bigger and more common compared to this. :) J e e 04:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A few pebbles cloned out as suggested by Wilfredo. J e e 16:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

File:Pinus halepensis, Castries, Hérault 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 20:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- ChristianFerrer 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More paintings !!! :)) anyway, excellent management of the light in a simple but beautiful landscape. I like this very much.--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! -- -donald- (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this an HDR? -- Ram-Man 12:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No -- ChristianFerrer 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And this wasn't in Estonia? Wow ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Wow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jeb, Donald, Daniel and Crisco. J e e 03:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Vällingbydepån September 2014 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 09:13:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vällingbydepån (the Vällingby Subway depot), Stockholm metro. The picture was taken from a helicopter, part of Wikimedia Sveriges aerial photography project. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Holy wow, this is how we do aerial photography! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:54, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit dull, but an interesting high-quality pic. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 19:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--DXR (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Goat baby in Margarita Island.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 16:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Poor cloning job, see annotations, far even from QI for me. Overexposed IMHO (not blown but washed-out colours), and generally no wow, it’s a nice pic of the animal but lacks something special. --Kreuz schnabel 19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment About cloning : not so easy, eh ?--Jebulon (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is not easy, however, after of that (see history) anything is cinch :) --The Photographer (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I may be biased as it is difficult from me to get a support for domestic animals or garden flowers.) Although the baby is more adorable, the harsh light is not favorable to that theme. Less details compared to your existing fp. J e e 03:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d suggest to rename the image as well. Small goats are called kids in English, babies are always human (AFAIK, native speakers pls correct me if I’m wrong). --Kreuz schnabel 08:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby" is a generic name; glad to see apes and humans share it. :) J e e 09:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lStjbjwCAgE

The origin of the word is "someone who should be breastfed" is well known breastfeeding of different animals by humans. I guess it was her harrowing instinct to hear the puppy scream the decision to feed, I say that I experienced, only I did not give him, he died he never spent the night. --The Photographer (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 11-12 HDR.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 23:39:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by MarcoAurelio -- M\A 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info This picture is the winner of WLM in Spain 2014. Poc o² 10:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M\A 23:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 08:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks again MarcoAurelio! Poc o² 10:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture is no necessarily strongly distorted, and does not fit, IMO, the FP standards, as it is frequently the case, I'm afraid, of a lot of winners of WLM. And it is a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I see it, Poco has traded tilted vertical lines in order to reduce perspective distortion. If Poco had used an architectural perspective, the distortion would have been greater. I still prefer to perserve straight vertical lines, but in wide views such as this, it is unavoidable to get some kind of distortion and the distortion is perhaps no worse than mine. I guess the difference between this image and my stitched images is that I can retain more sharpness and resolution so the distortion does not affect the quality as much. With a single frame, it is not so easy. Diliff (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "standard" rectilinear view is an FP Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 10.JPG. This one is closer and sharper with more detail and better handling of the lighting. The ultra-wide rectilinear has its own distortions. And File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 16-17 HDR.JPG is seriously bendy! The converging verticals draw the eye to the apex and make one feel small, looking up. This is a valid perspective choice, rather than a technical error. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Both this and the second image you cited are standard rectilinear though. As far as I can see, the only difference is the position and tilt of the camera. The angle of view seems the same although unlike the other image, the shutter speed, aperture and focal length have been removed from the EXIF data of the file so I can't be sure. Diliff (talk) 11:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added more information, also the camera settings (ISO 100, 17 mm f/11 2,5s and 8s). One thing, though, I haven't removed anything. As I've explained here and there I have a problem with the EXIF info update module of my enfusion SW that I used for (pseudo-) HDRs. I don't aim to hide any information, the other way around. Poc o² 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the observations of Diliff and Colin I pretty much agree with them. In this picture I got "in the middle of the thing" and the result of a 17mm lens is what you see. I could make a version where verticals are vertical but, apart from the fact that I'd lose half of the picture, the result wouldn't be what I was looking for: "transporting" the viewer into the picture. One of the constraints of the picture when I took it was to be careful with the crop at the top (specially the middle top). David, I think that you'd have a worse time even in Spain to take pictures of churches with a tripod 15 minutes long than in France. I negotiated it (hard) after explaining what the picture was for and got inside 5 minutes before everybody else did in the afternoon allowance. Sometimes I do really miss a kind of acreditation for Wikimedia, that would ease my life. Poco² 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't mean that you were deliberately hiding the EXIF data, just that it is missing. It's frustrating that they are so restrictive about photography. There are many locations in England that I would love to be able to photograph but getting permission is hard. I've written to many organisations asking for permission but of course I'm not officially representing Wikimedia, so I'm not usually given any special allowances. Really, the only notable example so far who has given me permission is St Paul's Cathedral. That was a big success though, because photography is usually completely forbidden and there are not many high quality photos of the interior anywhere on the internet. I was given a whole hour but it wasn't really enough. I wish I had another chance because now with my 50mm lens and a bit more experience shooting church interiors, I would have been able to take better photos, but I'm happy with what I managed to take under some time pressure. I have managed to get permission to photograph the interiors of the Bodleian Library in Oxford (again, photography is usually strictly forbidden) and I will be visiting in early January in the morning before it opens to the University. Lighting and time will be very limited, so I'm not sure what results I'll get, but we will see. I agree though, it would be great to get accreditation or for Wikimedia to be able to negotiate on our behalf somehow. Diliff (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Diliff by "standard" I meant "looking straight ahead", as well as the choice of projection. I think here "pointing the camera up" is a good creative choice here. It displays aspects of the view one sees if one were there, looking up, but also (since it is a flat fixed 2D view) has attributes one wouldn't see. Not everything unnatural that is due to a lens is a "fault". For example, with shooting a photo with shallow depth of field -- something the eye never sees. So is background blur a distortion just because it isn't how we perceive the world in person? And bokeh highlights are merely a lens artifact. The viewer isn't mislead here. Architectural perspective is not the only one. My 2p. -- Colin (talk) 13:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah ok, I agree, the tilt is good for the composition in this case (although the altar isn't exactly centred so the symmetry is an issue). Just as we don't see a shallow depth of field with our own eyes, we also don't see vertical lines leaning inward as a camera does so I agree there also. We would if our retina extended across our whole field of view, but it doesn't, so we move our eyes to re-centre the view and the vertical line straightens when it is centred. However, I think that is a good argument for why we should (if we can) try to preserve the vertical lines - it better matches what our eyes see. I admit that it isn't possible to do so in this image without introducing fairly significant distortion elsewhere. So yes, in short, I agree that it isn't a rule for all cases, just a guideline that works in most non-extreme cases. Diliff (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although as mentioned above, it isn't entirely symmetrical. Could benefit from a slight crop to the right hand side. Diliff (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff: True, I didn't notice that asymmetry. I applied a slight crop on the right. Poc o² 14:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it managed to win WLM Spain, so I guess nobody else noticed either. ;-) Diliff (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --fedaro (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 18:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--DXR (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:British Museum Reading Room Panorama Feb 2006 edit1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 11:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Se Horst -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's fantastic. Not bothered by some aliasing effects, the overall impression is just excellent. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try {{Delistandreplace}} as original work is already featured here. J e e 11:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes, this is a derivative of an existing featured picture... But also, I don't think it's actually an improvement on the original... It's slightly lower resolution horizontally as the projection has been changed, the contrast seems a bit flat, the edges have been cropped unnecessarily and the white balance is too warm. I followed the image back to its creation on the German FPC nomination and I'm not entirely sure what the objections to the original image were. It could be a poor translation from German using Google Translate, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me. Diliff (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Viktorkirmes auf dem Overbergplatz -- 2014 -- 3769.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 08:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good impression! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not impressed by the composition or the lighting. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pelz (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. Better composition and size might help. Although the wheel is captured ok, it just looks too accidental framing. -- Colin (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think it's a good pic, but it's a bit cut off. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the lighting is good, I'm not convinced by the cut off composition. I agree with Colin, the framing just seems completely arbitrary. -- Ram-Man 19:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Although I like it very much, specialy the perspective. But per AmaryllisGardener, the crop prevent me to support, sorry. -- ChristianFerrer 05:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Window details on Haus für Abgeordnete des Deutschen Bundestags at Wilhelmstraße 65 2014-07-12.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2014 at 23:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Noticing a recent nomination of a pattern of windows by The Photographer, I got triggered to nominate this photo, which I like a lot, because I think it makes the observer curious how far this pattern of windows extends (at least that is my intention). And after the interesting debate about the artistic sides of photography recently on FPC talk, I am ready to try and nominate something (for me) 'untraditional' like this. Spoiler. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger -- Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a really nice composition but IMO it's not sharp enough.--XRay ^talk 07:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overall sharpness is fine. At 100% there is a slight fuzz to the edges, but this vanishes otherwise. This isn't the kind of photo you want to be looking at that closely anyway, but rather one to appreciate on the whole from a greater distance. -- Ram-Man 19:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love facades and this is a fascinating impression of a glassy one, well done! -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:WsbR-Germany-2014-Race1-Jazeman Jaafar.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 12:15:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Malte89N - uploaded by Malte89N - nominated by Malte89N -- Malte89N (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Malte89N (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop, there's no room in any side. --Kadellar (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kadellar. Daniel Case (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Scar House Reservoir Dam.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 06:34:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by --Kreuz schnabel 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC). It was a cloudy day with dull light but I happened to catch a beam of sunlight enlightening the dam in the afternoon (Exif time is UTC), setting it very nicely off the background. Looks definitely finer in full view. I only had a few seconds to set up a composition before the lighting changed again.[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 06:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support A little bit dark in the background. --XRay ^talk 07:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Per XRay--LivioAndronico talk 10:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the light, but I find the fence in foreground left disturbing. An horizontal or vertical crop could maybe help...--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am with Slaunger here. Cropping would take too much off the image, and cloning would be too large a deception. --Kreuz schnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good light and interesting structure, colors and texture of the stones. I see the point raised by Jebulon regarding the fence. It is not the prettiest, but I think that too much will be sacrificed by cropping it out. It would be tempting to clone out, but I think it would be a too big alteration of reality to be acceptable. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment D’accord. --Kreuz schnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. But why didn't you just shoot the image from the fence, or just to the right side of it? I know you would have had a lower point of view, but I think it would have improved the composition. The lighting is nice and really makes the dam stand out from its surroundings. Diliff (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having read your question I wonder why I didn’t even consider to do so. Of course you’re right about the fence being cropped out but the lower point would lead to two issues: a considerable amount of background hill would be covered, and the battlements on the opposite wall would not be visible either. I don’t think that would improve the image. --Kreuzschnabel 21:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. It's always slightly unfair for viewers to tell you what you should have done, because they are usually unaware of the terrain and exactly how the change would affect the photo. It's easy to be an 'armchair critic' as they say. :-) Diliff (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but "that's the game" as we say in french. Furthermore: "armchair critic one day, photographer the other" :-)--Jebulon (talk) 12:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support-- Ram-Man 18:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @ Ram-Man: please use valid templates, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jebulon: Please don’t remove votings off an active nomination! Obviously Ram-Man didn’t notice in time to follow your advice. Why not just drop him a note and correct his voting respectively? --Kreuzschnabel 09:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Kreuzschnabel: . OK, I'll do that for you (Merry Christmas !). But I think there is a great lack of care in general here, reviewers and nominators do things very quickly without paying enough attention. My action was not an "advice", but only the following of the rules. Small problems like these should not happen. Sorry, but @Ram-Man: 's vote was invalid and therefore should have been cancelled.--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I wasn't changing my vote anyway. It was an honest "mistake" and the purpose of my vote was obvious. I wanted everyone to see that it was deleted in favor of a bot. There are a whole list polling templates available (See {{Weak support}}). Why is FPC restricted to a small fraction of them? We shouldn't be catering to a bot (and this coming from me). It's a human project first and foremost. All FPC noms have to be closed by a human anyway and it is that person's duty to determine the actual vote count, even if someone votes without a template, votes {{Oppose}} when they mean {{Support}}, etc. AGF demands this. -- Ram-Man 20:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Hubertl (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 20:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Rock formations and God's Finger peak in the background, at the Serra dos Órgãos National Park, Rio de Janeiro state. This image won the 1^st prize in the national contest of Brazil in Wiki Loves Earth 2014. Created and uploaded by Carlos Perez Couto - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support CA fixed by The Photographer and very big wow factor. I renominate this picture mainly because I think we should have more FPs from Brazil. What do you guys think about this picture? -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eu queria nomear esta foto --The Photographer (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glorious support Finally, a picture that does the same justice to this park (where I've never been, much less anywhere in Brazil or even South America, but whatever ...) as this video does. I don't mind the blown area in the upper left because so much else goes right. Daniel Case (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A nice exhibition of this picture: File:Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2014 - Exhibition - Winners.JPG. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support oh yes! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support · Favalli ⟡ 02:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very beautiful.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuz schnabel 07:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:An der Obertrave-Luebeck-DSC 0482w.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Dec 2014 at 17:06:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info An der Obertrave, listed buildings (cultural heritage monuments) nr. 6-8 and 11-15, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany --P e z i (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~support for alternative version --P e z i (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC) -- P e z i (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very hanseatic --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like it, I've suggested a crop. IMO you have to sacrifice the reflection, there is to much empty water in the composition.--Jebulon (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jebulon to crop the bottom, but I would remove less than proposed by Jebulon, just about 50% --Uoaei1 (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version too.--Hubertl (talk) 04:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version; bottom cropped edit

Info cropped version between the suggestions by Jebulon and Uoaei1; tried to keep the mirrored image of the towers in the middle of the picture. --P e z i (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support changed my vote to this version. --P e z i (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I follow you. Thanks for this compromise.--Jebulon (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Cityscapes

The chosen alternative is: File:An der Obertrave-Luebeck-DSC 0482w.jpg

File:Flaming June, by Fredrick Lord Leighton (1830-1896).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Dec 2014 at 09:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flaming June - uploaded by Armbrust - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice,good job --LivioAndronico talk 10:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More paintings! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:24, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A very nice scan. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support User:Armbrust (Local talk - en.Wikipedia talk) 14:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hafspajen 16:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Support --Pugilist (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Navajo generating station Page 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Dec 2014 at 17:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pity that the station is shadowed by its own smoke! it's a lighting issue for me , sorry. -- ChristianFerrer 08:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T, thank you so much for this nomination! @Christian Ferrer: in fact, the smoke is the prominent element of this picture. I uploaded it to participate in the November Photo challenge about Smoke and to illustrate the section on the environmental impacts of the powerplant in the en:article in Wikipedia. --Myrabella (talk) 08:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe I've cloned out the plastic bottle (a small detail), but I find it excellent, and really unusual here. No details of the plant itself are lost by the shadow of the smoke, IMO. Very good idea, Myrabellian achievement, I would say.--Jebulon (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. The smoke is the feature here and what a great capture -- I can find no similar image with the clouds or composition. -- Colin (talk) 11:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A big fluffy cloud. Daniel Case (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity the station is in shadow, would look even nicer otherwise. But enough wow for me this way too with the cloud. --Kreuz schnabel 07:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent image and I actually think the fact that the power plant is in shadow is an asset to the image rather than a drawback. Diliff (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find. The smoke appears to blend with the clouds. Excellent composition. Nikhil (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I hate to be one of the only opposers, but the composition's just not working for me. It lacks a "wow" factor. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 02:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Industry

File:Pensive Bodhisattva 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Dec 2014 at 04:58:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info sculptor unknown (circa 7th century), photo created by the National Museum of Korea - uploaded by Lawinc82, edited by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 04:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 04:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Bojars (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I really like the pose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 05:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. -- Ram-Man 19:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Western.male.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 00:50:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Blalonde - uploaded by Blalonde - nominated by Blalonde -- Blalonde (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blalonde (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Distracting elements in background could be removed (see notes) --The Photographer (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Öxarárfoss, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 029.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 14:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Öxarárfoss, Þingvellir National Park, Suðurland, Iceland. The 20 meter high waterfall flows from the Öxará river and is one of the most visited attractions in Þingvellir National Park, one of the two World Heritage sites in Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't like the nature of the sky in the upper left, but a look at some other waterfall featured pictures yields blown out skies and some harsh, lighting. This one is superior. -- Ram-Man 14:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow --LivioAndronico talk 15:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition, excellent --The Photographer (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Excellent! -- MrPoloczek (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entitled to vote, sorry: at least 50 edits are needed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Halavar (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 16:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Catedral Uspenski, Helsinki, Finlandia, 2012-08-14, DD 03.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 00:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by AmaryllisGardener -- AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have to say, it might be the best vantage point to photograph the cathedral (I'm assuming it is, or Poco probably wouldn't have taken it from there), but I really dislike the fence in the foreground. It completely spoils the view IMO. Diliff (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not bothered by the angle, but the contrail slicing across the golden spire just ruins it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks a lot for the nomination AmaryllisGardener! To be honest I am not convinced, either, that this could be a FP. I think that actually the angle is the best one for this building, but I don't remember why I took it behind the fence, so that's a problem. The contrail mentioned by Daniel is also a minus and the lighting/timing was not the best either, because most of the building is in shadow. To my defense I've to say that I had a tough schedule in Helsinki and didn't have time to look for the best light in all places I was. Poc o² 09:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:La scolie hirsute (Scolia hirta) MHNT fronton.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 20:38:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by -- ChristianFerrer 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred FP gallery: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
Support -- ChristianFerrer 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture because it shows the unethical nature of ... wild. The Scolia hirt are supposed to be interested only in blue flowers. Why this individual was it a rose? Thank you Christian for this appointment and for his work on the gallery. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash or artificial ligth spoiled colors, reflexion over animals body. Focus is more on flower than animal. --Mile (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Colors and compostion are nice but subject is blurry and the lighting is not good. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Red channel overexposure on the background. Though the insect itself is clearly depicted, it still looks blurry as if it has been upscaled. The many reflection spots are distracting. Sorry, this is below FP threshold for insects IMHO. --Kreuz schnabel 07:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo December 2014-7a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 19:14:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lighthouse after sunset. Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. all by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose A bit too dark for me. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photography technique called backlight --The Photographer (talk) 14:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)'[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Timema poppensis camouflaged on its host, Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 08:54:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moritz Muschick- uploaded by Animalparty - nominated by User:Animalparty -- Animalparty (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Animalparty (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The idea is excellent, sadly the resulting image is a bit unsharp. Kleuske (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a wonderful shot, but the primary subject is just too unsharp. -- Ram-Man 18:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that sharpness is not quite sufficient for FP. But I think this image has very high educational value, so I've nominated it at COM:VIC. --El Grafo (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically it's not perfect, but a lot of interest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Image is very interesting. I don't like how the antennae are not fully on the image and the sharpnes could be better. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full body and full antennae is very difficult for some insects. :( J e e 03:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1. Island on The Sky North View.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 23:29:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Glysiak - uploaded by Glysiak - nominated by Glysiak -- Glysiak (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Glysiak (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anusia1984 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance seems off, and sky near clouds seems noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:AT-13765 Michaelerkuppel - Abschlussfigur - by Hu - 6192.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 15:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Hubertl (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the center the top figure of the Michaelertrakt, Hofburg, Vienna, in front a chimney of the Leopoldinic trakt, entirely in the background the spire of the Michaeler church. Camera distances 220m/320m/410m. See annotations.

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colored flowers b.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 19:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Second try (the first is here). I like this composition and colours very much and believe that FPC goes beyond strict encyclopedic value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ -- MrPoloczek (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not entitled to vote, sorry: at least 50 edits are needed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Glysiak (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I rechecked the last review and still hold that stand. More per Gnangarra's argument (lacks a common theme). J e e 03:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 02:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is very good, it's a nice composition. We don't have a bunch of other FP like this. Would I like a common theme? Yes, but it's not required for it to be valuable. -- Ram-Man 13:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eicocon of eierzak van spinnen (Araneae).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 19:03:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Egg sac or egg sack of spiders (Araneae). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Does better identification possible? I see the spider below. :) J e e 03:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: spider that made the cocoon in there to lay eggs. it's a wasp spider (Argiope bruennichi).--Famberhorst (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Then why not update the category? (Thanks for the info.) J e e 06:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 06:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 14:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:España vs Italia - 2014 CERH European Championship - 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 15:51:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Marc Gual and Domenico Illuzzi struggling to possess the ball. Spain vs Italy, 2014 CERH Roller Hockey European Championship. I like zenithal shots very much, and in sports photography they provide a very different point of view. In this case (though not completely zenithal) it allowed me to avoid any other players, people, ads or fences in the frame; because of the players' positions it made a good diagonal composition. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is a very good and dynamic composition. Sport photos from above could be very intresting.--ArildV (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kemaliye, Erzincan.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 06:04:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mehmetaergun - uploaded by mehmetaergun - nominated by mehmetaergun -- Mehmetaergun (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chromatic aberration to be fixed (visible in the clouds, and also the background rocks show that typical CA blur) and the red object near the lower right corner ought to be cloned or cropped out. Contrast a bit overdone for me, otherwise nice. --Kreuz schnabel 06:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wikipedia Edit 2014.webm, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 19:55:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by VGrigas (WMF) - uploaded by VGrigas (WMF) - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 19:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ashstar01 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I’m just stupid, but what’s featurable here? --Kreuz schnabel 14:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What's so special? It's just a boring summary of the events and most popular articles of 2014. I'm with Kreuzschnabel. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support James F. (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per others. I also find that this type of media doesn't really belong here. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support An excellent summary of what not just Wikipedia, but all the Foundation projects, offer the world. Daniel Case (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not a picture. Isn't this featured pictures? At least it's made up of pictures. -- Ram-Man 13:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose idem. Not the good place here. --Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ранкова палітра.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 14:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Башкатов Віталій - nominated by Ram-Man
Info This image won the 8th prize in the national contest of Ukraine in Wiki Loves Earth 2014
Support This is beautiful and has tons of wow. Even if this had a saturation boost, it still looks great and is quite useful. I'd print this and hang it up on my wall. Finally a good sunset/sunrise photo that is truly a standout. -- Ram-Man 14:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply Amazing. I almost get to see the Lord Jesus Christ here --The Photographer (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe overprocessed, but still a lot of wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think over processing is acceptable provided it does not change the reality, in this case, an incredible sunset. --The Photographer (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks like a painting. Amazing. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I suppose it is a question of taste but this kind of oversaturation looks too kitsch to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. WB needs to be adjusted. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Nothing natural here (to me)--Jebulon (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need a vacation to the Caribbean like Isla Margarita (My home), there usually noticed colors as well. I am at your services if this actually happens. --The Photographer (talk) 12:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Basik07 (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC) I have seen this colour of sky, clouds and autumn leaves but I`ve never succeeded to capture it. Congratulations.[reply]
Oppose per others; and why the strong noise reduction, it looks like a painting. --Kadellar (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question ISO 100, why noise reduction? maybe badpractice o it is intencionally to generate this painting effect?. --The Photographer (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as others --Hubertl (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think it's fair to criticize a 30+ MP image for sharpness/NR issues unless they're egregious even when downsampled. Saturation is fine for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Climate change numbered.svg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 22:02:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Medium69 - uploaded by Medium69 - nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Formatura do Projeto Soldado Cidadão (15759038690).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 00:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Member of the Brazilian Armed Forces. Created by Ministério da Defesa/PH Freitas - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. -- Ram-Man 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More pictures from Brazil! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 09:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, and more paintings, too. Maybe could you structure your votes with more heavy opinions...;)--Jebulon (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hesitation and sadness face. hi is unclear why hi is there --The Photographer (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Typical candidate for a "portrait" framing, just because it is a "portrait". Too much space left and right.--Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Vultures in the nest, Orchha, MP, India.jpg, delisted and replaced edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Dec 2014 at 18:13:52

Info I propose to replace the first image by the retouched version (corrected white balance, white building cloned out) (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- Yann (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 01:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new version is a decrease of the quality (artefacts, overexposition...) -- ChristianFerrer 20:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After to have see the request here : Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Vultures in the nest, I uploaded a try, maybe too satured? -- ChristianFerrer 22:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace -- ChristianFerrer 11:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep too manipulated, wrong colors. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alchemist-hp: Does this also apply to Christian's version? Regards, Yann (talk) 09:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --P e z i (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace J e e 03:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Kreuz schnabel 07:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Claus (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted and replaced. Yann (talk) 14:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Bożków, pałac 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Dec 2014 at 17:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sebada11 (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --J.Dygas (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kenraiz (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --polar123 (talk) 08:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jar.ciurus (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Franz von Assisi Kirche-DSC 0004w.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 15:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info St. Francis of Assisi Church, Vienna; the construction of the church celebrated the 50th anniversary of the reign of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria. (The image is already FP in DE-Wikipedia). --P e z i (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --LivioAndronico talk 15:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lateral light is not the best. The main part is in shadow.--Jebulon (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- the main part, you mean the apsis, is always in shadow, because this church is not aligned from west to east, as most of the churches, this one is aligned south to north. --Hubertl (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support clear work without flourishness.--Hubertl (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Greenland Express Fokker F100 at Lviv International Airport (original).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 01:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Oleg Volkov (Pilotlviv) - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am creating this nomination on behalf of Oleg. Please accept this nomination as his, whilst I show him the ropes on Commons. russavia (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nick (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 11:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it worth cloning out the tail of the other plane (and its reflection)? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chapeau! Welcome aboard, Oleg. --El Grafo (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is ugly, otherwise, a good pic. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An ordinary shot of an airliner made extraordinary by night. Daniel Case (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Parantica aglea at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 16:25:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Glassy Tiger (Parantica aglea) on Indian Snakeweed (Stachytarpheta jamaicensis). All by me -- J e e 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- J e e 16:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not a fan of the noise reduction eating into wing detail, but the overall composition and impact/wow are excellent. -- Ram-Man 17:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ram-Man. I looked on the image several times and compared it with most images available in web. What I understand is, as it's common name suggests, the wings have a "glassy" feel. It differs from other Tigers here. But I failed to find a formal document to support my conclusions. J e e 02:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nicely done. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 13:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for reworking, better now. Maybe too much noise reduction but very nice nevertheless. --Kadellar (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 07:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods/Lepidoptera

Image:Beflast Castle (dic 2014).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2015 at 11:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sean MacEntee - uploaded by C.Jonel - nominated by C.Jonel -- C.Jonel (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- C.Jonel (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like oppose, but perspective distortion, noise, more sky, etc. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This castle is certainly worthy of a high quality photograph, but this one isn't at FP standard. The building is cropped and a standard architectural perspective would be better. -- Colin (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[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.

File:17 Years of Sekar Jepun 2014-11-01 64 edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 13:28:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - All by Crisco 1492 -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Building frontage in Valencia.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 13:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Documentary. Kleuske (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing featuring here. Just a dull, ugly building. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support more of this dull, ugly buildings, please. --Hubertl (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am sorry, for the moment of course not, I will not return to the dictatorship of Venezuela in a few decades --The Photographer (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Photographer: What?!? Dictatorship in Venezuela?!? This is a joke?!? Oh my God!!! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - Dear friend, unfortunately I'm not kidding --The Photographer (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer: Eu sinto muito pela situação política do seu país. Mas você gosta de viver no Brasil? É um belo país, mas ele é cheio de violência, de falta de segurança nas nossas casas, assaltos, entre outros. A saúde aqui é um caos, a educação é um caos. Muitas pessoas não têm condições de comprar um pão para matar a fome, não têm acesso à água tratada, saneamento básico, não vivem com dignidade. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support same opinion as Kleuske --Bojars (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caladium 'Fireworks' Leaf.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Dec 2014 at 14:30:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Ram-Man 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ram-Man 14:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice,beautiful colours --LivioAndronico talk 15:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please add a compatible license acceptable at fpc. J e e 17:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- Ram-Man 18:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; Support love the details. J e e 03:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent document, however I find the crop very tight.--Jebulon (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop too tight.--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Fonte Gaia - she wolf detail.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Dec 2014 at 16:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fonte Gaia detail (built 1342). Wolves spouting water represent the mother-wolf of Remus and Romulus. Siena, Italy. All by --Mile (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a "wow(!) effect" for me --Bojars (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good catch, but it is tilted. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Rotated. --Mile (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's nice. Love it! ;P 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but I don't see anything featurable here. Composition is not attractive imo, the wolf is too much at the lower left corner and the pigeon is centered. Background is distracting. At full size the image shows a strange processing, or jpeg artifacts or something which spoils quality. Not really encyclopaedic either, this is not the best way to show the wolf, because there's a pigeon on it. --Kadellar (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info Denoised. --Mile (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a major improvement, sorry. I don't like composition and subject, so reproccessing won't probably be enough to gain my suport. --Kadellar (talk) 12:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChristianFerrer 17:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kadellar – too much empty space top and right, and unfortunate background. Funny shot though --Kreuz schnabel 07:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 09:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice catch but the too busy composition is not featurable imo. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Funny! --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exactly per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. Kruusamägi (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! --Hubertl (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cute. -- Bojan Talk 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Hellas Chaos on Mars.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 13:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mars Express, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 26 Mpx image with amazing colors and details. -- Yann (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! --LivioAndronico talk 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support superb. --Kadellar (talk) 13:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 04:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Xmas chocolate. --Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb surface! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Morava river between Austria and Slovakia during sunset.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 10:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Doronenko (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I see this picture, I remember a scene in the Amazonia (Amazon rainforest) where the fisherman leaves his home to fish on the Amazon River. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but no wow. --Kreuz schnabel 13:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Competently taken and edited, and I can see what you were thinking, but per Kreuzschnabel i'ts unexceptional. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kreuzschnabel. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:44, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Podzim na Kašperku.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 13:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jiří Strašek - uploaded by Jiří Strašek - nominated by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jklamo (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pity! What a great idea, lighting and composition – but not sharp enough for an FP of only 6 mpix. I suspect camera shake (vertical blur). --Kreuz schnabel 15:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please remove the several dust spots in the sky and correct the ccw tilt of the building. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--polar123 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Kreuzschnabel. Some dustspots to be removed. Too small.--Jebulon (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see any shake; I think the sharpness is typical of a DX kit lens. My main concern is the areas of pure black. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, good composition. Comment: only 2MP are for an image needed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- nothing else for support argumentation ? Yes only 2mpx are needed, but I think that for such a landscape, a higher size should help. To disagree with this (your absolute right) is not enough for support.--Jebulon (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I addad some other arguments :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:51, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prefer File:Podzimní panorama Kašperka.jpg (though that is tilted). The scene is good but too much tree and not enough sky. And technical quality is weak as noted above. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poertschach Westbucht Dampfschiff Thalia 27092014 139.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 18:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Johann Jaritz - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Hubertl (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Impressive view of the oldest and largest ship on the Wörther See, Carinthia, the last ship in europe afaik, which is propeller driven by a steam engine, made in 1909. I´m personally proud, because its from my hometown. ;-)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Radcliffe Camera, Oxford - Oct 2006.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 23:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. I've been going through some of my old images that are featured pictures on the English Wikipedia but not on Commons. This is actually one of my oldest images (2006), but I think it still stands up to scrutiny 8 years later. -- Diliff (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impresive view and quality, wow. Imagine that others seek a palette to bite while passing the visual orgasm --The Photographer (talk) 00:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Still going strong. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jklamo (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is slightly tilted in CW direction Poco² 18:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it is really, it's just that it was taken from a slightly off-centre position (the viewpoint from the church where I took the photo isn't perfectly in line with the building), which means that the doorway at the bottom isn't vertically aligned with the spire and gives the appearance of a tilt. I had a very close look and there seems to be a tiny amount of CW tilt (I measured it as 0.3 degrees), but that's only possible to notice if you are pixel peeping and aligning vertical lines against the edge of the screen, and I don't believe it's perceivable in regular viewing. The tilt that you are more likely to perceive is due to the visual illusion I mentioned above. Diliff (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Poco is right, but not the picture (please see note). And I don't think it is pixel peeping, as I noticed this even in thumbnail...--Jebulon (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think you could have noticed the lean in the thumbnail though, realistically. As I said, I measured it as 0.3 degrees (and I double checked again in the area you noted). This translates to a total shift of 2 pixels from one side of the building to the other at thumbnail size. Unless you're looking at the thumbnail with a magnifying glass and pixel peeping the thumbnail, I honestly don't think you could perceive that lean. I'm not denying that the lean exists (it does), it's just too small to be perceptible in the thumbnail IMO. I still believe that what you are most likely seeing is the illusion caused by the off-centre composition. I'm happy to correct the shift though. I've uploaded a new image over the top. Diliff (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You do not need super powers to see this simply with a humble TV Samsung UN105S9 how pc monitor--The Photographer (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        A lean of 0.3 degrees in a thumbnail with a width of 300 pixels though? How can you be sure that you're seeing an actual lean and not an illusion of a lean? Diliff (talk) 17:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Please read my message better. --The Photographer (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, for me to understand your message better, I need to know what you mean by the word 'this'. By 'this', do you mean the lean that Jebulon was referring to, or do you mean the image itself? If the latter, then yes I agree, any monitor will probably work fine. ;-) I can read your message 100 times but it isn't inherently clear to me what you were trying to say! :-) Diliff (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Do not try to read my mesaje, just read it Master Yoda. What I'm trying to say, and perhaps in translation joke is lost. Much time analyzing images can cause, see errors where none exist. Like when we look at the sun too long time, you'll still watching the sun while you turn your eyes to otheraway. --The Photographer (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahhh, I see. So, what you're trying to say is that there is no spoon. ;-) Diliff (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a combination of a visual and mental effect. I remember seeing a movie at the cinema with JJ who is also reviewing images QIC. He spent the entire film criticizing chromatic aberrations, vertical, blurs and trouble shooting. I stood in front of half the movie and I told him, just forget what you know and see with new eyes, like a child. Many times there are no such mistakes but after seeing so many mistakes, our mind becomes accustomed, she goes on autopilot. --The Photographer (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Watsons Bay - Camp Cove Beach, Sydney 2 - Nov 2008.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Dec 2014 at 23:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff. Watson's Bay is a residential harbour-side inner suburb of Sydney, and a really picturesque place to visit. -- Diliff (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support You could sell an awful lot of pricey real estate with that, I bet. Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice place. I'd like to visit this again ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:European Parliament Strasbourg Hemicycle - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2015 at 11:52:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little distorted at the edges but I don't care. Daniel Case (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better if centered, IMO (the ceiling...)--Jebulon (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but it was not possible. An official EU Parliament video camera was on a tripod in the exact centre. I was as close to the centre as I could be without upsetting them. :-) I could perhaps have revisited after the session had completed and the crew were gone, but I would not have been able to capture the session in progress. It is probably literally impossible to capture a centred view of the Parliament during the plenary session because of this video camera. Diliff (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 14:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful. --Kadellar (talk) 13:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support extremly good and extremly difficult to get a good image here (inter alia because of the many white areas) --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Johann Jaritz (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--DXR (talk) 09:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Hrad Švihov od východu.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 14:12:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jiří Strašek - uploaded by Jiří Strašek - nominated by Jklamo -- Jklamo (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jklamo (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive but not really large, and visible CA. --Kreuz schnabel 15:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful light and a very nice composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great clouds and lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky and the lit-parts of the building are nice, but a lot in shadow and the land in front is drab. There are better pictures in the category (some taken by the same guy), though most suffer from some technical weakness and small size. -- Colin (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Skopje 2014 - Archeological Museum of Macedonia by night.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 11:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The statues both in very dark areas and lighted areas give a very nice effect. -- ChristianFerrer 13:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LivioAndronico talk 19:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. However a geocode would be nice. --Code (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now is also location --Pudelek (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not bad, but I feel it is too cluttered in the foreground, the broken ramp is not very attractive, the cut fountain and the pitch black sky are also not ideal. --DXR (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of details because of full night picture. Composition issue IMO: less at right and more at left should have been better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bojars (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cropped off important left hand side of museum and fountain. Agree with other issues raised above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Pudelek (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Neorthacris at Nayikayam Thattu.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 15:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Neorthacris simulans (Wingless Grasshopper). Photo by me, edit by Christian Ferrer -- J e e 15:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preferred gallery: Animals/Arthropods
Support; but doubtful about the overexposed area. -- J e e 15:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composed picture of the interesting insect spieces --Bojars (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Code (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I agree, the overexposed areas could be minimized. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Well done. Like the bokeh, too. Kleuske (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kleuske: Thanks; I was bending the leaf from behind while holding the camera in one hand. Otherwise the background will be very busy. :) J e e 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a serious crop. We don't need so many foreground, IMO... And some areas are indeed overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: Thanks for the opinion; but I'm not sure whether I agree with it. Leaves are their playground, and chances that the "hole" visible on that leaf is also probably their "art". Removing most of that leaf (Clerodendrum infortunatum) may make the picture more beautiful; but I don't think it will improve the educational value. J e e 06:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agree with Jebulon though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:43, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good moment! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:1846, Interior of the Gothic Hall, Kneuterdijk Palace, The Hague.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 20:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Augustus Wijnantz - uploaded by me - nominated by myself -- OSeveno (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- OSeveno (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding design, excellent document,very high value.--Jebulon (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I didn't realise they had Photomatix for painters. ;-) I don't really think the tonality of the painting is particularly nice and my first thought when seeing the thumbnail wasthat it was actually a poorly done HDR photo, but it's notable as a work of the artist I suppose, so my tastes are irrelevant. Diliff (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can it have a CC Public Domain dedication when it is art from 1846? Template:PD-Art is probably applicable, instead. Note that all featured pictures must have appropriate licensing. Knight of Truth (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Basel - Roche Tower - Baufortschritt 22.Dezember 2014.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2015 at 22:11:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please reviewers, enjoy the management of the reflection of the colors of the sky on the tower. Excellent.--Jebulon (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be better if brightened a little. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts: is brightened a bit now --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --C messier (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What are the four lines at bottom left? -- ChristianFerrer 20:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they´re part of a permanent installation, don't know exactly what for --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kadellar (talk) 13:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! Nice composition, colours, mood, motive, technical quality. One question: Why is the crane not vertically straight? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my eyes it is vertical. Please look at annotation (thumbnail of file). --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, what I have seen there :( --Tuxyso (talk) 21:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Colin (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool building. Very good! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Towers

File:Cañón Flosagja, Parque Nacional de Þingvellir, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 043.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 22:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Flosagjá canyon, a continental drift between the tectonic plates (North American and Eurasian), Þingvellir National Park, Southern Region, Iceland. All by me, Poc o² 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very little bit soft maybe, and a strange blue-green thing in water to be cloned out, but a very nice image, and a strong high geographical value. Nice shot.--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon: I am happy you like it :) I applied some selective sharpness and cloned out that strange blue thing in the water. I also added geodata. Poc o² 12:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see. i've added it in the french WP article.--Jebulon (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 06:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lauro Sirgado^contribs 15:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beatiful valley! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Dome of S.Peter in night.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 11:10:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- LivioAndronico talk 11:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LivioAndronico talk 11:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Although it looks slightly oversharpened at 100%. --Code (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Icy est le vrai pourtraict naturel de la ville, cité, université de Parisy, Rossingol execut.1576.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 19:20:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rossingol - uploaded, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This 1576 old map of Paris. Of course my city is far much bigger now, but this very high size and very detailed version shows streets which are still existing with the same name. It is an excellent and useful document, with many little interesting details about disappeared monuments or buildings (the Temple, la Bastille, Montfaucon (the hanging place), the islands etc. Nice and high value IMO.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice document, good restoration. Yann (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, interesting. Any idea why it is not oriented towards north? Is is just due to the shape of the city or the Seine? --DXR (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. No idea at all. I just notice that all original maps of the 16th-century are so. Probably it was not a mandatory at that time. Anyway, we have a "rose-compass" indicating the north (and the east: Jerusalem). @ Alvesgaspar, any help, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not only Paris.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was always a common practise, even today, to orient the urban planes according to the conveniences (that is, the shape of the area, the orientation of the main streets or rivers, etc.). Concerning the larger scale maps and charts it took some time to adopt the north-up standard. For example, in all nautical charts before the Mercator projection was adopted, the geographic names of the places along the coast were written perpendicular to it, thus rotating according to the orientation of the coastlines. Those charts did not have a well-defined orientation. During the Middle Ages, and nearly up to the fifteenth century, the world maps were often oriented to East (i.e. to "Orient", were the Earthly Paradise was located) or to South. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks! That's quite interesting, but of course it makes sense, especially for nautic purposes. --DXR (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excellent ! I love when "Commons" is like that !--Jebulon (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is indeed the best of Commons: what we learn (including about ourselves and human behaviour in general) and what we help others to learn. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just noticed a small black line over the man carrying something on his back in the lower right corner, can you fix it? --DXR (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pls remove the small black line.--Claus (talk) 11:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll correct this ASAP. It is probably an uploading issue.--Jebulon (talk) 12:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done --Paris 16 (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Beautiful image and excellent quality. I use Gallica a lot to download maps. But to obtain high resolution versions one must do a lot of stitching! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes !! --Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great document! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:Nervous system diagram numbered.svg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2014 at 22:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Medium69 - uploaded by Medium69 - nominated by Medium69 -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice work, well done, however, IMHO it is very simple, I am sorry--The Photographer (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! It could be a good quiz for students :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imo FPs of illustrations need to be outstanding compared to the overall set of illustrations and I do not think that this one is exceptional. --DXR (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very useful, but not at FP level, I'm afraid. For example, there's too much unused space at the sides (especially at the left); ArialUnicodeMS is not on our list of SVG-fonts and for some reason rendered as a Serif font in my Browser. Also, File:TE-Nervous system diagram-de.svg looks a bit nicer, imho (doesn't have a language-neutral version, though). --El Grafo (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stenhamra stenbrott October 2014 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 09:44:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The former Stenhamra quarry in Stenhamra, Ekerö Municipality, Stockholm County (Sweden). The quarry was in use from 1884 to 1937 and was owned by Stockholm municipality. Stenhamra was in the beginning the main supplier of paving-stones for Stockholm city. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 09:44, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 12:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Very good composition, but all in all a little too dark I think, especially the shadow part. Maybe this is improvable. --Code (talk) 13:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Code: Thank you. I did a small adjustment.--ArildV (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I like it, quite a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --Code (talk) 15:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 12:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Little bit too dark, but it's ok. --Halavar (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Svjatogorsk, Lavra 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2015 at 11:54:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brizhnichenko - uploaded by Brizhnichenko - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wiki loves monuments international winner.--Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light! --Halavar (talk) 22:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Halavar. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support At first it seemed a little underexposed, but looking at it closely it seems like this is the best balance possible. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Väikjärv 2011 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2014 at 17:26:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing symmetry --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Code (talk) 08:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 20:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More of the glory that seems to be Estonia. A little noisy, and some CA (or maybe my eyes are just tired?) on the left), but not enough to bother me. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Halavar (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing composition--ArildV (talk) 15:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have many pictures of Estonia with mirror lakes and forest. This one has much in shadow, is not especially large or sharp (too much NR?). What is so great about the composition? -- Colin (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: In fact, we have many pictures of Estonia. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Imo its much more when just-another-well-executeded-but-not-very-exciting-mirror-lakes and forest-images. There are different aspects here; the clouds forms a beautiful arch (both in the sky, and in the water) and serve as framing elements for the forest. The symmetry is interesting as well, with two equally sized groves of trees. I think the light/shadow play is great (one grove in shadow, one in sunlight) and make the images more interesting.--ArildV (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArildV, thanks for explaining your composition thoughts. -- Colin (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 19:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:44444 חדרו של דוד בן גוריון בצריף בשדה בוקר.jpg (delist), kept edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 23:23:37

Info Perspective corrected by Jebulon (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace I had the same idea, you were first :-) the alternative came in too late to have a fair chance. --Kreuz schnabel 09:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace I'm not very happy with the armchair, but I think it is better indeed. Thanks for the idea.--Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The first one is more real.--Claus (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You ought to add a "for me". As we have seen again and again, perception of perspective distortion and correction is different. To me, the alternative looks more realistic. --Kreuz schnabel 20:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose a perspective correction isn't needed for this kind of images. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The perspective correction crops away too much space on the sides. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per King, here we lost more than we win IMO -- ChristianFerrer 10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King of Hearts. --Kadellar (talk) 13:13, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per King of Hearts. --Code (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statement in the original nomination. --El Grafo (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => kept Jee 03:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Picos de Europa - Fuente Dé - 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2014 at 19:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kadellar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much, Tomer! --Kadellar (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite stunning, I guess it would have been even more eye catching if the view was a bit wider. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChristianFerrer 15:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not working for me. Too much in clouds and foreground is boring. -- Colin (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same for me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Idem above. Also looks overexposed. Yann (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]