Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2013

File:Ahaetulla nasuta at tadyandermol.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 16:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chinmayisk - uploaded by Chinmayisk - nominated by Chinmayisk -- Chinmayisk (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chinmayisk (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—A bit dark though—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really in focus, possibly aggravated by denoising. B.p. 17:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as B.p. Alborzagros (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The focus is an issue. Michael Barera (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 09:27:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by -- Yann (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 09:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view. Excellent. --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Superb detail; nice composition.Fotoriety (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course, but the time needed to upload is discouraging.--Jebulon (talk) 11:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and nice capture! Also one thing I like is that you seem to have chosen to modify esposures selectively in different areas instead of some full HDR effect. The way you balanced the brightness makes the result look more natural. So that's good. --Ximonic (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic view! Very good quality. It would be also nice to add some technical information to the description: which camera/lens have you used, which software for panorama stitching and how many shorts were stitched. You can add info to the EXIF or use templates {{Photo Information}} and {{Panorama|2=# of shots|3=software}} --Ximeg (talk) 14:25, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:28, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
very nice, but I think this composition is better File:Ambleside & Waterhead Panorama 2, Cumbria, England - Oct 2009.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Kruusamägi (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SocCarpassion (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chapelle Notre Dame de la Bonne Fontaine de nuit Domjevin.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 13:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pierre-Philippe Arnould - uploaded by Pierre-Philippe Arnould - nominated by Pierre-Philippe Arnould -- Pierre-Philippe Arnould (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre-Philippe Arnould (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of blur, noise but the composition was good--Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough for me, either. Michael Barera (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In-sufficient quality --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pierre-Philippe Arnould (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /~User withdraw the nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 14:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Col De La Croix Du Bonhomme (2479 m.) 02.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 18:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nederlands: Flora in natuurgebied Contamines Montjoie.
Info English: Loosely translated: Flora in nature Contamines Montjoie.

Abstain --Famberhorst (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Compression artifacts, overexposed—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per above.Fotoriety (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped whites, contrast too high, saturation too high, compression artifacts, distracting foreground. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:01, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Die Bergkirche zu Seiffen im Erzgebirge.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 01:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 13:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support - rather noisy, but good WB and composition. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eventail chinois asymétrique Alcazar Seville Spain.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 20:15:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support An asymmetrical chinese fan, 18th-century, tortoise shell and silk, collections of the Real Alcazar of Seville, Spain. -- Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bezaubernd! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Facade Chiesa dei Gesuati Venice 2012 2v.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2013 at 08:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: The only thing I don't like about this (apart from some apparently unavoidable foreground clutter) is the fact that the facade looks a lot narrower and taller than it actually is due to the wide and non-distorting view. The only solution is of course a photo from a boat of from far away. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice at first sight but the sculptures are way too distorted at the top. --Selbymay (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, agree with Selbymay --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Selbymay and Dey.sandip. Michael Barera (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Humlegården December 2012 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 10:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Humlegården in winter. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurz & Allison - Assault on Fort Sanders.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 07:18:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kurz and Allison - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery nice.--Jebulon (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful picture! --Ximeg (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lako Signoj peak - Galičica mountains.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 20:10:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice, but low on "wow" factor in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lößnitzgrundbahn 991777-4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Dec 2012 at 20:47:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo. Good perpective. Great proporions. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but the locomotive, main subject, is hidden in the shadow. --Selbymay (talk) 11:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—too noisy and too much interpolation—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I like trains, trains are wonderful :) And for those that find this too noisy, you are spoiled and have probably never seen ASA 800 film. --Uberprutser (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SocCarpassion (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Munku-Sardyk.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2012 at 03:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View from Mount Nukhu-Daban to Mount Munku-Sardyk (Mönkh Saridag) at the East Sayan. Okinsky ditrict of Buryatia, Russia

Info Created, uploaded and nominated by Arkady Zarubin -- Arkady Zarubin (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info View from Mount Nukhu-Daban to Mount Munku-Sardyk (Mönkh Saridag) at the East Sayan. Okinsky ditrict of Buryatia, Russia -- Arkady Zarubin (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—too dark, and too small. Support Better—Kelvinsong (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the file lighter and with better resolution. -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 08:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:49, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose White balance far off, and not one of the best photos of a mountain I've seen here. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: I think that would be a correct WB:

. But I find the composition alone unspectacular enough to oppose, sorry. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Support Very nice view, however a bit unsharp --Ximeg (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please avoid any other templates than the simple "support" or "s", and "oppose" or "o". As already explained, the FP bot may have countig problems when it meets "weak support" or "weak oppose" templates. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ wrong WB, everything is blue. That must be fixed. --Kadellar (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version with corrected white balance. Yann (talk) 10:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better now; thanks, Yann. I'm Neutral now. --Kadellar (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose average composition. Tomer T (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Talpa europaea MHNT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Dec 2012 at 16:02:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Selbymay (talk) 11:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mole is fine but I dislike the smudgy and posterized background. B.p. 17:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no post-processing of the background. The "spots" are natural shadows. Thank to Citron --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What spots, what post-processing? I only mentioned the posterization. Am I missing something? B.p. 22:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture. Michael Barera (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Technically a good picture and a high quality image. But, frankly, I find the tight composition and the dull background a bit boring. The fact that this a dead animal doesn't help either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 14:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vacas comiendo pienso, Kokomo, Indiana, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 07.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 10:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cows eating forage, Kokomo, Indiana, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average composition, less than average color, nothing really featurable in the subject of this photography to me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality image. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good, but just not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I got it. It looks like I couldn't transmit what I felt, when I shot it Poco a poco (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /~User withdraw the nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 14:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Krishna Pushkarani - Hampi Ruins.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 09:48:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pond on the eastern side of Krishna Temple - This man-made pond was used for religious and festival activities during Vijayanagar empire days. Shot on early morning as the sun rises from behind the boulder hills and starts to light up the place. A big DoF (F/14) has been used at 11 mm focal length (16mm in film format). c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reflection makes this amazing! Michael Barera (talk) 22:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice morning light. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity about the cut bottom and slight lack of sharpness, but still very, very nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Dey.sandip

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

File:2010-kodiak-bear-1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 09:01:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 13:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The caption is extremely low. Without caption, the images have a very limited interest.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. Tomer T (talk) 16:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It's better for the caption --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp there where it mostly matters Poco a poco (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Z 06:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too low DOF IMO. Unlike File:Kittyply edit1.jpg, I don't think this is an acceptable use of shallow DOF for a purpose. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small, but good.--Jebulon (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Aeolacris caternaulti MHNT dos.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 09:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks to Peter23 --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 09:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course Poco a poco (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Baby Posture.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 12:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alborzagros - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An Iranian little girl with posture. Full EV (People and anthropology). Alborzagros (talk)
Comment Wonderfully cute, but is this "best work' and what "posture" is she modelling? Also, why is it important that she is Iranian?Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as I wrote about that above. That is ok for People and anthropology FP category and there are many FP like this: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Alborzagros (talk)

Support As Alborzagos, this photo tells us about anthropology and we have had many pics like this as he or she mentioned. Peter23 (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background. Tomer T (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only wonder if I read the argumentations for Contras (not only here). -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Same for me as for a lot of your supports, dear. Please avoid this kind of useless offensive comments....--Jebulon (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sehr schönes Bild. Als Format hätte ich allerdings ein Quadrat gewählt. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the subject's expression! Michael Barera (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor background, ditto lighting and lack of wow. B.p. 22:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNothing special nor typical. A cute child, ok. But as for me, I need a permission by parents for a picture of children, and furthermore there is no personality rights warning. We MUST be very careful with pictures of children, IMO. Moreover, how can I be sure she is Iranian ? And why is it interesting that she is maybe Iranian ? I'm sorry, but I can't find anything featurable here. The technical quality is not outstanding especially the light (to me). Per Lothar Spurzem, I think a square should have been better, and per Tomer T, I 'm not a fan of the background.--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added {{Personality rights}}. Yann (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon --Z 05:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also per Jebulon --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Others -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Kruusamägi (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birnau-Seefelden-4922.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2013 at 16:58:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pilgrimage church, Birnau, Uhldingen-Mühlhofen, Baden Wurttemberg, Lake Constance, Germany

Info created & uploaded by DKrieger - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've had crop the foreground a bit, but it is another very good choice by Tomer T, thanks to him !--Jebulon (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind words. Tomer T (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ach, I also intented to nominate this shot but I couldn't find it. Agree, great choice, Poco a poco (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but saturation and contrast could be improved. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Common Map Thamini.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 06:40:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Common Map Butterfly (Cyrestis thyodamas)Nymphalidae found in South and Southeast Asia. All by me -- Cj.samson (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little low on "wow" factor, but still an FP in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 22:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No Wow factor. The image is underexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That, and confusing composition. — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympus OM10 and 50mm Zuiko lens.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2013 at 01:11:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Oppose~~ Lighting unimaginatively direct. Not sure about the framing. The image has been crudely Photoshoped, presumably to remove scratches, which causes a blurred patch in several places, rather than the actual text of the object. Colin (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That bad? And I thought the only thing wrong with it were the fingerprints on the lens mount :) It's certainly better that the picture of the Praktica camera I submitted last week. The blurred parts come from focus stacking errors. I still need to learn how to manually correct those. Some dust specs have been removed but you would not be able to see that. But I think I better revoke my nomination because I've noticed that once you get a bad first review, chances are very slim that the picture will get featured.
- Ah so that's what is going on. The stacking is probably responsible for the lack of 3D that I put down to the lighting. I have probably been too harsh. It is a very clean subject and that's not easy to achieve. And it is a very sharp image. I think the stacking errors will make an FP hard. Did you stack with Photoshop or another program? I've used enfuse with success. If you can get some of the frames you took into a Photoshop layer and aligned, then you might be able to reveal it selectively and fix the stack errors. And the clone tool might help with the blurred bits on the flat surfaces. -- Colin (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great capture! Michael Barera (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As before, poor BG. B.p. 22:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think I fixed most of the focus stacking error. Let me know if you spot some obvious ones so I can fix them before making the final image. The image will need to e cropped a little to remove the blurred edges of the frame. --Uberprutser (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crop. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not a crop. It was intentionally shot this way to show more details and hide perspective distortion. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crops are frustrating to me, there is an issue at the extreme left of the picture (see the lens along the border), and the white balance looks wrong to me (too pink).--Jebulon (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop or not but it looks really bad in my oppinion. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tarvasjõgi.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 11:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Ireen Trummer - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 11:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor CA fixed. --Ivar (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "minor" for you was a "no-go" for me. Thanks for correction !--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pine^✉ 02:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Green thema classic, very well realised.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miha (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caparica December 2012-2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 19:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fisherman in a sunny winter afternoon. No panorama . All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition but I see nothing featurable here. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Per Telemaque MySon: good composition, but nothing really remarkable about this image. Michael Barera (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Others. Sorry --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: OK guys, I got the message

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw the nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 14:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaleu.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 13:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infocreated & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—Nice picture, but too dark—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, a bit brightening would be nice. Maybe also crop a bit at the left? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now it is overexposed. Please, make new versions in a new file, don't overwrite the original file. The original was better. –Makele-90 (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New version. Just a little more light and little crop. - Pierre Dalous 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Support Lovely. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- One again, not comparable with our best bird pictures. The other bird ruins the composition, in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bird in front is very well captured, but otherwise per Alvesgaspar, plus notable CA (green and violet fringes) around the body of the bird in the background. --Cayambe (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right ! --Citron (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw the nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 14:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joseph Ferdinand Keppler - The Pirate Publisher - Puck Magazine - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 03:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joseph Ferdinand Keppler - restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support After seeing the original, the restoration is even more impressive. Béria Lima ^msg 06:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support agreeing with Béria. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 19:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Great illustration regarding an interesting matter, and per Béria Lima: Big "wow" for the job done by Adam Cuerden.--Jebulon (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon --Schnobby (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great image, and an even better restoration! Michael Barera (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Space Shuttle Columbia launching.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 09:27:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kristaga - nominated by TheOriginalSoni -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kasir (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Astrantia (Zeeuws Knoopje).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 16:29:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nederlands: Astrantia (Zeeuws Knoopje). Locatie: tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.
Abstain -- Famberhorst
Oppose Sorry, but I'm not fond of the composition, and a bit low on "wow" factor. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition again, but also low quality on main flower subject areas.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per the last two reviewers. Michael Barera (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Théophile Alexandre Steinlen - Tournée du Chat Noir - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 19:19:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Théophile Alexandre Steinlen - uploaded by bot - nominated by Claus
Info A famous poster of Le Chat Noir, 19th-century cabaret in Montmartre, Paris, France.
Support -- Claus (talk) 19:19, 24 December 2o12 (UTC)
Support -- There's even a mystery involved... Kleuske (talk) 17:04, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The stamp is an official one "République Française". I guess it is a stamp of the National French Library, or a validation by the official censorship office (?) --Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very different colours than other versions. Is this one, perhaps, particularly faded or damaged? Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 16:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metal construction work, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 16:26:42 (UTC)

Bending pipes.
Punching holes in aluminium profiles.
Using a jig to ensure proper placement.
Grinding square profiles lined up in the background.

Info Inspiration by Bert Haanstra, work by a couple of nice guys who did not mind me snooping around, rest by me. Motion blur is very much on purpose. -- Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very low photographic quality. Too many blurred areas that interfere with comprehension. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice use of the motion blur - it separates mashines from people --Ximeg (talk) 14:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't really see what happens in three of the four photos. It looks like a compromise between nice and comprehensive images that doesn't work because there are problems in the compositions (distracting backgrounds) and in comprehensiveness (blurry main subject, unfortunate low perspective). --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues like blur, etc. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Blur is very much on purpose. Not a "quality issue". 46.227.232.100 12:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just don't think the blur was executed in an effective manner. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry. Not credible. Not helpfull. Kleuske (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I really like the idea, but the blur issue is just too much for me. Sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Civil war reenactment 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 05:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 05:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—wonderful picture, would be nice if the flag and gun were in better focus(Though you can't tell unless you zoom in).—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Not really fond of the crop (at the left, the entire cloud of smoke should be included, and at the right, either have more space behind the guy or just crop him out altogether), but overall really good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 08:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Yerpo ^Eh? 09:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per King of Hearts: the crop is unfortunate, but I think this image is still good enough for FP status. Michael Barera (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. because of composition, per King of Hearts. It needs more space at left for the smoke, and a better crop at right: or the man is in his whole, or he is cropped out totally.--Jebulon (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Crocodrylus acutus in la manzanilla mexico-1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 02:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but could it be a bit brighter? --Ximeg (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hurricane-en.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2013 at 15:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A diagram of a hurricane in the Northern hemisphere

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good illustration --Ximeg (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we be promoting the editable version? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can edit this image... What's wrong?! --Ximeg (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too difficult for someone to retype "Eye Wall"—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it really Northern Hemisphere? Shouldn't the outflow turn counterclockwise? Or does it turn the other way as the hurricane? --Kadellar (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does actually. See Google images—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, just in case. I find it strange. Thanks! --Kadellar (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --The Photographer (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 11:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to provide a french translation. I've tried, but without success. How to do, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can open up the file in Inkscape and replace the text with new text objects(If you're doing it in a text editor and can't find the text to translate, it's because it's all paths). The editable version can be helpful—replace the letters, but keep the colors and styles. You can also give me the translation and I can do it for you.—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kolomenskoe in white - Dec12 - 03 snow.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2013 at 18:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Hoar-frosted birch in front of the Moskva River (largely not frozen despite of -18° C) in Kolomenskoe Park, Moscow, Russia. All by A.Savin -- 18:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Support -- A.Savin 18:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Аркадий Зарубин (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~: Really nice. Maybe it would be possible to darken the background behind the tree a little bit using some curves in that area, but it's great the way it is. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I re-considered my decision and the recent voters are right: It's a good QI but no FP. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Joydeep _Talk 12:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support great.--ArildV (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and delicate. If I'd have to say something to improve would be for sure the road in the foreground, it does not match to the rest of the scene, anyhow, FP without any doubt Poco a poco (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SocCarpassion (talk) 13:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A tree in the snow... Not a very exciting composition, not a very notable subject. I'm surprised this gets support. Kleuske (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI not FP: what is featurable here ?.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Telemaque My Son, you forgot to sign. Please remember anonymous (i.e. Unsigned) votes are not allowed... If not corrected, your vote will not count. And even a sheep, I like very much the poetry and the winter mood I find in this picture, and this has a wow effect to me. I think my vote (like yours) deserves respect for that.--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Jebulon for noticing the lack of the signature. By the way, I respect votes of everybody and sorry if my phrase was felt as ofensive.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: De kwaliteit van de foto is voortreffelijk, maar het motief is alledaags.

The quality of the picture is excellent, but the motive is everyday. --Famberhorst (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe it's the lighting that gives it a certain quality. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Which birch species is it? Composition is imho too tight and the road is disturbing, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is not irrelevant. It is being used in some language versions of en:Hard rime. Category of the species is also there. A hoar frost is not just a "tree in snow". --A.Savin 22:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 11:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is nothing special here. No wow and to tight composition. What birch? It is definitely nice image but that's it. I don't see it as FP. Or should I start adding more candidates that depict winter and rime as people like it so much? (it isn't difficult to get thous images from Estonia. example). Or maybe I am just to used of seeing thous images... Kruusamägi (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shvann (talk) 12:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 13:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tenagodus anguinus 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2013 at 08:09:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 08:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent image of a very interesting species and genus, from an evolutionary point of view. --Cayambe (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful; I like these pictures of Llez --Schnobby (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Useless Support...--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why useless? 20+ supports may be a boost up for picture of the year. -- J Kadavoor J e e 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Though studio shots of still objects rarely get close to POTY (not implying that this one won't). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good and very useful--ArildV (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals#Gastropoda

File:Retablo virgen mareantes 1 Alcazar Seville Spain.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2013 at 18:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alejo Fernández (ca.1475-ca.1545)- uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Altarpiece of the Navigators, Alcazar, Seville, Spain. High historical and encyclopedic value (related to Christopher Columbus, native Americans, El Cano, spanish boats...), please read the detailed caption in case of interest.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sharp everywhere :-) but nice quality and high EV indeed. Just a small white cut to remove at the bottom left. --Selbymay (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Small cut removed, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trigonoceps occipitalis (Burchell, 1824).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 22:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition / angle and great quality Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 10:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Not so sharp and much luminance noise on the darky areas on the feathers. Not pure sharpness on the head too. Though it is a very good shot regarding attitude of the bird and composition. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot --Rjcastillo (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice and awesome! Alborzagros (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amurtiger-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 12:56:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A photograph of an Amur Tiger at Münster Zoo

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SocCarpassion (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice photo but to dark background imo for FP (especially the dark tree behind the animal's head).--ArildV (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info My intention was to bring out the main subject (the tiger) well. Might be correctable, but I like it that way. The dark area behind the head is (for me) a nice dark (not black) natural background for the tiger's head. If only photos where every area is sharp and every area has the same brightness can become FP, every photo has to be a HDR focus stack :) A common style in photography is light-dark-contrast. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  - Your comment is a bit unfair (or rather the assumption behind your comment). I work with shadows, various DOF and contrast when I shoot and I have never demanded what only photos where every area is sharp and every area has the same brightness can become FP. It would be madness to do so. You can have a look at the pictures I have nominated and voted for here. This particular image has imo a dark and disturbing background, it may be deliberately or not but it does not work for me here. Regards --ArildV (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - My argument was poignantly formulated and not against your photography. If it was misunderstanding sorry for that. It was a bit polemic against the trend on FP, especially on QI that every area of a photo has to be sharp and uniformly bright. I still think that my dark background to the tiger's head is not disturbing but accentuating the main subject. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I try to avoid getting into irritated discussions on Commons (as the discussion you link to) but I personally think it is simplistic to talk about a trend. For example, "foreground is too dominant to be out of focus" is a valid argument and dosnt mean that "shallow depth of field is always wrong".--ArildV (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support I like the composition and expression of the tiger, but to me the left side of the tiger is not really well exposed due to the position of the sun. I'd support if you can fix that Poco a poco (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've slightly corrected your issue. I've not noticed it on a high res A3 print, you have good eyes :) Support, if possible. Thanks! --Tuxyso (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It got actually better, thanks Poco a poco (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 18:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice expression, good background, looks almost like it was taken in the wild. --A.Savin 21:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Tamba52 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exquisite --Spartan7W (talk) 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cadillac Ranch- Flickr - katsrcool.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 10:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by katsrcool - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. --Selbymay (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but per Selbymay. --Cayambe (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Severely overdone HDR effect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to go out on a limb: We're meant to be a file repository for all sorts of projects. While this isn't encyclopedic, that's not really a consideration we have here, and this could be useful for a variety of graphic design uses. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest that no graphic design editor would pick this. The HDR halo effect is particularly amateurish. This isn't just a random file repository: images should have some educational purpose. If the only educational purpose is to highlight the creator's lack of skill or unusual taste then that isn't a redeeming feature. Search "Cadillac Range" on Google Images or even on Commons. In what way do you think this represents our finest images? Colin (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure I've seen such things used for covers psychadelic books. Things along the lines of en:Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. As I said, I think you may be being a bit normative in image evaluation; this is a recognisable style. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But this isn't an original-art project, nor is it a stock photo library for graphic design. It is out of scope, as well as being amateurish even for its style. Colin (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This HDR is overdone, it is so overdone it is noisy everywhere, saturation is way off, this picture only illustrate very well the vomit of colours HDR can do while not well done. Please Adam strike your vote we don't need this obvious {{FPX}} to stay for 10 days here. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin and PierreSelim.--Jebulon (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Kyro (talk)
Oppose Would only use this picture to illustrate how badly HDR can look if wrongly done. Maybe can be used as a colorblindness test, but I worry that watching this picture too much would cause epilepsy. Léna (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Lena. Illustrate how badly HDR can look if wrongly done. O2 (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should probably nominate the picture as Valued image in scope wrong HDR is wrong. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did anyone think that perhaps the image was done like this on purpose? I've looked at the guys other HDR pics, and they are great. This was obviously done to be outlandish, which fits in with the whole Cadillac Canyon theme. C'mon, Cadillacs stuck in the ground in the middle of the Texas desert, and which the owner encourages to graffiti. It's out there! And I get this pic! russavia (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We all know they are done on purpose. Even if one likes the extreme HDR style, the obvious halos round the cars are an artefact one would try to avoid or fix. I've looked at the guy's other HDR pics and they often suffer from similar issues. If it makes him happy and folk like his art then great. But this is original art and Commons isn't Flickr. Colin (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I know that it is very processed, but I'm a big fan of HDR and I really do like this image overall. I've seen plenty of better HDR images, but I have to (partly) agree with Adam Cuerden and Russavia on this one. Michael Barera (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not overprocessed, it's processed the best it can for this purpose. It's a rare case of psychedelic art on Commons and it's obviously very good case. When you'll consider it as a psychedelic art, you'll see it's done exactly how it's supposed to be done. When you'll see it as a straight photo of this place it's indeed bad photo. This place needs more LSD. I means Commons, the ranch has enough of it. Surprisingly it's difficult to take photo of visions, so people have to use effects which aren't just a copy of sight after psychedelics, but it's poetry as well, which is understood naturally by the users. Objects are glowing with energy and you don't see that, you feel that. The example poetry in this photo is that glow, which brings memories back, even though it looks different while being hypersober. Krzysiu (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Best support comments ever! Right on, man! russavia (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain your support in terms of Commons:Project scope and Commons:Featured picture candidates/guidelines. This is not Flickr. Colin (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Flickr is not that much bad. And people are free to support/oppose neglecting all the rules/guidelines. -- J Kadavoor J e e 05:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And the HDR is wrongly done...--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cool shot, could have been a Pink Floyd CD cover but there isn't FP quality I'm afraid. --A.Savin 21:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose HDR is way too arty here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calle E Monroe St, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 00:22:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info E Monroe Dr, Chicago, Illinois, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support. I like the perspective, though the buildings are a little noisy; also, slight CA at the left. The overexposure in the middle doesn't bother me too much. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, it helped me to introduce some improvements (noise, brigther spots, but no CA since I didn't see it), Poco a poco (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Excellent composition! But needs a slight correction to the prespective: some lines are not vertical and the tall glass building is larger at the top than it is at the bottom. I wonder if the picture could be brightned a little too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a brigther version with a slight perspective correction. The picture was taken at dusk, though. Poco a poco (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support just a comment, your pictures from Chicago are awesome :-) --PierreSelim (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Pierre because there are still a few more in the pipeline :) Poco a poco (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent now! A shame that the only time I was in Chicago the weather was terrible (but I can't control it either from the other side of the Atlantic ) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic: Let's do it like this. I promise to get over to Lisbon's Commerce Square soon whatever the weather is, if you find time for me :) Poco a poco (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Campo de maiz, Walker, Indiana, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 05.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 17:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cornfield scene during the Indian Summer in Walker, Indiana, USA. All by Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please remove dust spot. See note --Rjcastillo (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks for the notice, Poco a poco (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pierre-Philippe Arnould (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring --Miha (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perhaps a bit low on "wow" factor, but still a deserving FP candidate. Michael Barera (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crash.arp.600pix.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 09:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by TheOriginalSoni -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, resolution is below required 2 megapixels --Ivar (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Resolution is below 2 megapixels but the very tight timing to capture this dramatic photo I feel outweighs the problem with the size issue. The size is 1,180 x 1,368 which for me is adequate in this case. --Pine^✉ 04:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. Yann (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe size is 1,180 x 1,368 which it's enough. O2 (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose First of all, I prefer the uncropped version which gives a better composition (not the boring centered one here), and gives more context. Secondly, the description is quite misleading and disappointing for me, it gives the impression the pilot did great, when it was his fault the US Army lost a 20 millions $ aircraft. It was an honest mistake, he tried to save lifes, but lost his place in the Thunderbird teams for this (The pictures gives the impression he is still flying above some crowd, I know 3D can be tricky during meetings but really I don't find the description accurate enought). --PierreSelim (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Passed the 'too small' criterion for this file, and following PierreSelim comment, I still think tthe uncropped version is featurable because the subject is quite rare and featurable (and technique showing the technical separation of the craft close to the ground). But if I may, Pierre, I don't agree with your criticism on the description : you are making a political interpretation, which is not our place on commons... --Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not political, either the description is short Ejection from pilot bla bla seconds before F16 crash during XX airshow, either the description explains what happened and not only that the pilot saved lifes and his ejection seat worked well (which looks very much like propaganda to me). --PierreSelim (talk) 12:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info I added some info to the file description, hope it's not misleading any more. --Ivar (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have to agree with Pine on this one. Michael Barera (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PierreSelim. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion If this fails, which seems likely at this point, I suggest that someone nominate the uncropped version which is 3,008 x 1,960. --Pine^✉ 21:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duftite wulfenite.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 09:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very interesting, beautiful and useful, but technical quality, especially sharpness, is lacking in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you to Peter23 but I think Jebulon right. I'll try something. I stop everything and I will redo the image I made two years ago. I'll see if I progressed. Give me two hours. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for new version --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Far much better now, good re-work, opposition removed. But I'm not entirely convinced...--Jebulon (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness and depth of field could be better. Sadly, the possibilities of post-processing are limited. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 02:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Ellenz.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 12:28:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ellenz behind the Moselle River as seen from Beilstein

Info created by Mikko Laihonen - uploaded by Mikko Laihonen - nominated by Mikko Laihonen -- Mikko Laihonen (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mikko Laihonen (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice place, but the picture has too much contrast, and the sky id "burnt", please see note.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What a great compo, but I see also blur... You might take another one with the sun in anotherplace ...--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped whites. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fountain pomegranates Granada.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 16:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ramiro Megías - photographed, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "Fountain of the Pomegranates", by Ramiro Megías, 2007, landmark of the city of Granada (Pomegranate), Spain.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dynamic range is high here and looks natural and very nice. --Kadellar (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is great, but I the top statue bothers me as it has tone close to background trees and therefore fading in them, (or my screen needs adjustments on color ?).--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it needs, but Fixed--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~color banding on the sky.~~ --Ivar (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed--Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Now it is ok for me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not perfect but pretty close, and asking for further fixes would make it less so. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ST vs Gloucester - Match - 23.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 14:56:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PierreSelim - uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good choice, thanks Alborzagros !--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thanks for the nomination, while I believe this is a good illustration of a scrum the technical quality is a bit disappointing for me (may be I'm too harsh). --PierreSelim (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are, but it will pass anyway...--Jebulon (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good for the projects, I see that it's now used on fawiki \o/ --PierreSelim (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Schloss-Borbeck-Komplettansicht-Sonnenuntergang-2012.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 14:52:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle of Borbeck with outbuilding in the evening

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- After a bit of hesitation with the right corner object reflection in the water, I think it is really a FP for me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure Poco a poco (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sun poster.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 02:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Diagram of the sun. All by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 19:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Accidental double !vote [reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not sophisticated enough for promotion, please see my comment on the Moon nomination above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think this one is okay for me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excesive ~~raster~~ Posterization detail in sunspot. You could simplify this?. Furthermore, I would like a numbered version and one in Spanish. --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a spanish translation (File:Afiche del sol.svg). Also, the sunspot is vector, not an embedded bitmap—I fail to see why more vector detail is a bad thing—the picture is barely 1 mb, and that's with outlined text.—Kelvinsong (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Posterization, no raster :) --The Photographer (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I still don't understand what you mean, sorry—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunspot contains too many polygons, this can be simplified to simplify the amount of strokes. --The Photographer (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried out simplifying the sunspot—it does shave ⅓ off the filesize(~300kb), but I think the (small amount of) lost detail outweighs the (small) filesize reduction. Also seems pointless to me—PNGs, whose sizes won't change, are served by wikimedia, not the source SVG. For editors, most of the rendering heaviness in this file comes from the solar corona blur and glow. —Kelvinsong (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Raghith 06:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Doesn't have to be any more sophisticated than this. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 13:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yellow crowned night heron in la manzanilla mexico-1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2013 at 19:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by God, photographed, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SocCarpassion (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the composition but the focus seems to be on the body rather than on the head. I would have like to see a sharp eye here Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good, but if noise experts could remove the little bit of noise remaining --Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appologies, but the busy background is too distracting. The bird is not quite standing out. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It´s ok, picture is not perfect, but these birds are hard to get close to. The picture is of the bird and its natural environment in a mangroove. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:1957 Maserati 450S - fvl (edit).jpg

File:Helleborus orientalis zaailing.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 16:45:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info

Nederlands: Zaailing Helleborus orientalis

English: Helleborus orientalis Seedling.

Abstain -- Famberhorst
Oppose I'm afraid the focus is wrong.--Jebulon (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Bij Helleborus hangen de bloemen naar beneden.

English: In Hellebore flowers hang down.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moon diagram.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 16:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kelvinsong - uploaded by Kelvinsong - nominated by TheOriginalSoni -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A nice and correct illustration (except for the kitschy title) but not sophisticated enough for promotion. Please take a look at our FP gallery. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- The title is not in the good place, the svg is well done.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the title—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who says it has to be sophisticated? Daniel Case (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sometimes I just like simple --heb [T C E] 12:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For several reasons: (i) Ugly and unnecessary title (should go into image description page, not in image itself), (ii) Unrealistic moon surface (what are those "stars" around the craters?), (iii) Unreadable (too small) radii/lengths, (iv) Lengths need a space between the amount and the unit ("km") and 1737.1 should probably be rounded. (v) Light colored regions on surface should be labeled for completeness. Not extremely important, but having a source for the dimensions could be nice. Also, what does "Editable text is outside the SVG page frame." mean? bamse (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version(though for some reason the thumbnails aren't updating—click through to the SVG)—III I increased the size of the radii labels, IV There already is a space between the numbers and "km", you probably didn't see it though because of the close kerning. I made it a double space. I also rounded 1737.1 to 1737. V Not sure if this is what you meant, but I added the "terræ" label. VI, The dimensions come from the image it replaced (Main lunar core en.jpg), the rest(crust) from the moon article.

For numbers one and two, the "stars" are the brighter blast marks around craters, and the I feel the title helps with "completeness". Also, for "Unrealistic moon surface", "unrealistic" is an inherent quality of an SVG cartoon. I decided to hand draw this one instead of stacking traces like on my other ones.

"Outside the SVG frame" means that if you open the file in Inkscape, the editable text will still be there, floating outside the boundaries of the rendered image.—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crypte de l'église saint Marcouf, Saint-Marcouf, France-2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 13:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by EdouardHue - uploaded by EdouardHue - nominated by EdouardHue -- EdouardHue (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EdouardHue (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnifique. Les nuances et les ombres sont excellentes et délicates, et pas un "poil" de bruit. Très apaisant, très belle image.--Jebulon (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! Especially trade-off between noise and sharpness ist managed very well. Nice contrasts. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good quality and composition but strange result, especially the column on the right. It just does not look right to me. Maybe it got too distorted Poco a poco (talk) 09:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get it wrong : the vaults actually have a strange shape, especially the outermost arrises. That's not optical distortion. --EdouardHue (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The explanation seems to match my observations of french architecture, nothing is straight! ^_^ --PierreSelim (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 1,000 years after construction, what did you expect ? :) --EdouardHue (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, convinced, Support for quality, composition and atmosphere Poco a poco (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The curves and the shadows make this surprisingly moody and artistic for an effective architectural detail shot. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent! -- Pudelek (talk) 13:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jessica Ennis - long jump - 3.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 09:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Halifax, UK - uploaded by Kafuffle - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot. Yann (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm not totally convinced (but it's not a bad picture). What a shame this version is totally out of focus. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm not convinced either. The picture looks static as the point of view was not probably the best. The background is distratcing too. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The attitude captured by the photography is really ankward to me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per PierreSelim: not the greatest picture ever, but I think it is still enough to be an FP. Michael Barera (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't find much dynamism here, as an action shot should have. May be a different angle would have been better --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Different mood. -- Raghith 06:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good facial expression. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the colours seem a bit flat, but you don't always get to control that yourself. That said I like the angle, the timing and especially the facial expression of the subject. --heb [T C E] 09:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:John Jay (Gilbert Stuart portrait).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 04:47:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info portrait by Gilbert Stuart, photo by National Gallery of Art - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 04:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Shvann (talk) 12:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Loligo forbesii.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 14:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Comingio Merculiano - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Phot-35d-04-fullres.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 02:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO - uploaded by Fabian RRRR - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 02:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Nothing different from other Nasaesaesohubble pictures. Please feature all the series in one time if you want (or better: feature the link to the EsaEsoNasaHubble websites !). In my humble opinion, the integration in "Commons" is a good thing, but "feature" this kind of images has no sense to me.--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Tomer T (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For me it has a lot of wow as a desktop backgound, especially the center of the galaxy. --Pine^✉ 22:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose Nice, but it is too tightly cropped, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support not the best crop around, but I like. Béria Lima ^msg 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phybon.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2013 at 22:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support- Alborzagros (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 09:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry guys for not joining you aboard. Yes, it is nice but not good enough for reaching the 'bird bar' of our FP (which is quite high!). Lighting is far from ideal, sharpness (focus) could be better and the composition is not good at all, mainly due to the unfocused foreground and the somehow distracting background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As per above.Fotoriety (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice picture, good quality but too small and a less spectacular subject + composition, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Alvesgaspar, the composition is really problematic with the branch on the right and the distracting colors on the left of the picture... the bird is well captured though.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bonne qualité d'image Pierre-Philippe Arnould (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Low on "wow" factor, for me, but still quite good. Michael Barera (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Other opposers --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comparing to existing FP's of small birds (including those by the same photographer) this one is rather average. --A.Savin 21:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support — M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 15:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because of the background. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caparica December 2012-4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 21:57:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Heavy seas as seen from the beach of Costa da Caparica, Portugal. Notice the fort and lighthouse of Bugio, above and to the left of the fishermen (to northwest), which marks the entrance to the port of Lisbon (see geolocation). What I like in this picture is the texture and detail of the sea and waves. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is your 36MP camera not enough :-) Could you add some details of the segments that make up your panorama. Did you have any problems stitching the sea? -- Colin (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- It was made of six photos, with a generous overlap between them. Curiously, the stitching of the sea was less problematic than I expected. Some work was needed in the interface between water and sand as well as in the surface near the camera but nothing really difficult. But I tried to make my life easier when shooting by waiting for the coming waves to be more or less in the same position as in the previous picture. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support, but you had already voted! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice mood. --Moonik (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 04:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fontaine du Serpent et du Lion.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 21:35:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Picture of a fountain in Grenoble, France. The sculpture have been created in 1843 to celebrate the fight of the people of Grenoble (the lion) against the Drac river (the snake) when they finally managed to stop the repetead flooding. Created by Yohann.cintre - uploaded by Yohann.cintre - nominated by Yohann.cintre -- Yohann.cintre (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Yohann.cintre (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits to vote, please see the guidelines above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you sure about that? Point 4 of voting rules: “Only registered contributors whose Commons accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. Exception: registered users can always vote in their own nominations no matter the account age and number of edits.” --Yohann.cintre (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I had forgotten that the rules had already been modified, sorry! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some more information is needed: where is this statue? Geolocation would be nice. Yann (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited the image summary to add geolocation and an english description. I also added a short explanation of meaning of the sculpture on this page --Yohann.cintre (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure on large area. The idea of the angle is interesting, but the rendering in contrast is too harsh IMO, and the snake is not so well defined.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Clipped whites. --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some significant over-exposure and also composition doesn't have much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overexposure really bothers me. Michael Barera (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 04:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Galičica mountains - road to Baba.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2013 at 14:17:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but a little short on "wow." I also think the composition may be slightly unbalanced; the road should be a little more to the right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose --Altough the dynamic of the picture is well driven, the lack of perception of the background on the left is definitly a flaw to me. The angle of view in which the road sign appears cutting the road is also a lot distracting though I like the meaning of its appearance in the photography.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, according to the guidelines, avoid the use of "weak oppose" or "weak support" templates, it causes difficults for the bot in counting votes. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support Good, but a bit low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average composition, not much "wow" --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 04:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Air France airplane view from inside of Charles de Gaulle airport.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 08:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mirza Junaid - uploaded by Mirza Junaid - nominated by Mirza Junaid -- Mirza Junaid (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mirza Junaid (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Reflections are not pretty IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Telemaque. Also, the vertical window frame spoils it imo. --Cayambe (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2013 (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: the quality of this picture is really too low (glass reflections, vertical line, wrong color balance, over and underexposition etc...).--Jebulon (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2013 (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.

Oppose I can't get excited about either the reflection or the window frame: sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:UP EMD SD9043AC Joso Bridge, USA.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 00:45:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb Poco a poco (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice Kruusamägi (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) nice moment --The Photographer (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 05:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice! the cumulus clouds adds drama to the image :) --Cj.samson (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of some red and green CA between some cars.--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Best U.S. railroad pic I've seen nominated here in a while. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty much everything right about the shot --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely scene --Uberprutser (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Impressive motif. I'm not sure, whether 1/500sec was required to catch a moving freight train. Instead f/8 should have better been f/1x, so that the blurred distant background (cf. end of train) would have been sharp. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is not a depth of field issue (distant objects are sharp in the center of the image). However, the lens was at its widest setting (17mm), and while it is a decent lens overall (EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM) it does have some imperfections. I don't think stopping it down even more would have helped much. @1/500: Maybe something like 1/250 might have sufficed, but since a blurry train looks really bad and many pictures (like this one) cannot easily be repeated I usually prefer to be on the safe side. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply stunning! Michael Barera (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Moonik (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [6] and light : [7]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brücke Knittelfeld-4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 17:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Crazyspeak - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some blue and red hot-pixels, should be easy to fix. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:She Lies sculpture.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 14:44:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Sbork (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support unique shot of prominent sculpture without background/foreground clutter -- Sbork (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info No Panorama Freedom for sculpture in Norway. See: COM:FOP Norway. --A.Savin 14:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICT the work is not exploited commercially. Kleuske (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not relavant, the license allows commercial use and all media on commons have to be usable for commercial use (cf. Commons:Licensing). --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand commons accepts some non-free content for fair-use but happy to de-list and mark for deletion if required. Seems I will have to change license at a minimum. Sbork (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the licensing/FOP issue can be resolved and the image is eligible here, then I give it my full support: if not, then that is too bad (but understandable). Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (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: COM:FOP#Norway

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

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Can't be FPXed with two supports. Tomer T (talk) 08:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually it can, if the FPX is due to copyright issues. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info marked for deletion Sbork (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus close up 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 16:55:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Impressive, however the angled eyes are awkward. If I rotate the image 8 degrees and do a symmetrical crop on what is left (so the diagonal lines from each eye go to each of the upper corners of the frame), it is much scarier. The aspect ratio of this image suggests you've cropped vertically - so an even better picture might be possible if you rotate the uncropped original. -- Colin (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment done... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prehistoric :-) Colin (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great for the texture !--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure with the DoF, but wow !--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For originality Poco a poco (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 16:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frightening, but very very nice. I am not convinced of the educational usefulness, but Commons is not only for WP, thus it deserves definitely FP! --Tuxyso (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [8] and light : [9]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [10] and light : [11]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agrigent BW 2012-10-07 12-24-45.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 11:01:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Oppose The lighting is actually superb, but the subject is a bit soft too me, and I don't like the fence in the foreground. --A.Savin 21:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per A.Savin. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because of the fence.--Jebulon (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I've removed the fence by cloning out. Feel free to revert if you dislike. I think it is far better, but I cannot vote anymore, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like it ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Much better now. Yann (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the lighting! Michael Barera (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beach Volleyball Classic 2007 (1444261388).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 12:31:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr - uploaded by Lacats98 - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- right shot. Alborzagros (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Morning ☼ (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot! Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak composition, cut-off player, looks very much like a snap-shot. Sorry --Dey.sandip (talk) 06:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kalbhairav pinnacle Scj Edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 06:43:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of Kalbhairav pinnacle taken from the left flank edge of Konkan Kada of Harishchandragad. All by me -- Cj.samson (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 06:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just removed the FPX template since the author, Cj.samson, changed the license from GFDL-1.2 to CC-BY-SA-3.0 Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of your best landscapes --Muhammad (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but waiting. Take a look to his histogramm. It is simply to grey. Diliff's work looks much better. The small crop from Poco a poco is good! Please check und correct it, than I change my vote. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes done, kindly check --Cj.samson (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't quite like the composition. The pinnacle is kept almost at the center of the frame. I would have liked if it was off-centered and the image was taken from a slightly different vantage point. That said, the atmosphere was indeed great and probably it could have been captured even better --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor for me, but still good enough to be a Featured Picture. Michael Barera (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support— M♦Zaplotnik ^{my contributions} 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Berthold Werner (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Museum on Water, Ohrid.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 13:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but a bit plain. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 02:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thurston, the famous magican - East Indian Rope Trick.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2013 at 15:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Otis Lithograph Co., restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, Adam's restorations are always the best! Michael Barera (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tungabhadra River and Coracle Boats.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 06:45:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Coracle boats are round-shaped non-polluting boats that are used for transport in Tungabhadra river since ages. These boats are very stable by nature and can carry 10-15 persons easily. Navigation is not difficult but it requires skills especially when going upstream. c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love it...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect --Uberprutser (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view with educational value. Have included it in en:Coracle. --A.Savin 19:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikpedia is unclear on whether to call this an "Indian coracle" or a "parisal" but it has a different history and materials than the Welsh coracle. Rmhermen (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Dey.sandip (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [12] and light : [13]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [14] and light : [15]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [16] and light : [17]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 19:27:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Thure de Thulstrup and L. Prang & Co., with restoration by Adam Cuerden. Uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome! Michael Barera (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Going to restart this with the new white balance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [18] and light : [19]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [20] and light : [21]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:B-29 cockpit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 18:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spartan7W - uploaded by Spartan7W - nominated by Spartan7W -- Spartan7W (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spartan7W (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I really like the idea, but the lighting is unfortunate and makes it hard to see anything in the cockpit itself. Michael Barera (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significantly under-exposed foreground --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I will try with another on of my works. -- Spartan7W (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— revi_msg 14:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [22] and light : [23]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intercity mit zwei Diesellokomotiven der Baureihe DB 218 in Sylt.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 23:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a bad view, but the tree/signal in the foreground is hiding a significant portion of the train and therefore not really contributing positively to the composition. It would have been better if that signal/foreground tree was not present (only the train and the meadow) and that could also make it a good minimal composition. Also looking at the direction of the light, I was wondering whether you had taken a picture from the other side of the train, that would have lighted the train well. --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. The tree is indeed a distraction, but I like the direction of the lighting. If the sun were on the right, the patch of wildflowers would not be as beautiful. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose IMHO very beautiful light and composition. Unfortunately I cannot support, because the distracting tree breaks the overall compositional idea. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Vamps (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - because of the three. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [24] and light : [25]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [26] and light : [27]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [28] and light : [29]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catedral de Alejandro Nevsky, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 20.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 17:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Cushion distorsion above, along the upper border.--Jebulon (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]
Fixed, along with other issues, and my kind thanks to Tomer for the nomination. Poco a poco (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the lack of symmetry and of "wow", and some other small issues, prevent from a promotion, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like a lot the quality and the color, even if there exist a light assymetry.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Symmetry improved Poco a poco (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more I look at it, the more I like it Poco a poco (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perhaps a little bit too bright, but very good. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to compensate the low wow factor, the image has to be perfect; and I think the angle not attractive (too low) and the light is very harsh, so not excellent to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pudelek (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dryas iulia, Mariposario de Icod de los Vinos, Tenerife, España, 2012-12-13, DD 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 00:58:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Julia Butterfly (Dryas iulia), Butterfly zoo of Icod de los Vinos, Tenerife, Spain. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though noise in the bokeh—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK , but try to improve the bokeh.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to improve the shot but I don't see any problems with the bokeh. What concrete do you want me to improve? Poco a poco (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the upper top left corner, there are some luminance noise or compression artefact very light but visible at 100%. Then, if I don't mind the darky bokeh up the wing, I think there is some wave effect with the shadowed white on the upper left. But you can let it that way it does not affect the picture at all. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I applied a rougher sharpness mask to decrease noise in the background Poco a poco (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, remember geotag --The Photographer (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Geodata added Poco a poco (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very colorful wings --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow ! --sanchezn (talk) 07:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The head and eyes of the butterfly are unfocused, which would be a mortal sin in the old macro times of Richard and others... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been so long around here, but actually I'd appreciate if you provide your assessement --Poco a poco (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - That was my assessment, together with an implicit comment about the relative indulgence of the reviewers -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:F16 Idaho airshow.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 11:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Bennie J. Davis III - uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by User:Telemaque_MySon -- Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Following the discussion on the cropped version, and I still think it deserves FP for its rarity-- Telemaque MySon (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose color banding and dust spots on the sky, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Significant quality issues --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a rare type of photo, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture an ejection.-- Spartan7W (talk) 4 January 2013

Comment I agree with Spartan7W it is a once in a lifetime shot. So why the high jpeg compression? --Uberprutser (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info I uploaded the heaviest version of the picture I could find. Still, please remember it is a 2003 image.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could someone have the sky cleaned please ? (I am away from my PS computer) --Telemaque MySon (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dust spots removed, that's more like it! --Ivar (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great wauw effect --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uberprutser (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I think a cropped version which still passes 2MP will be a better nomination- The pilot and the plane are not quite in focus here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and challenging conditions Poco a poco (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love it! Michael Barera (talk) 02:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and prefer this composition to the previous cropped version :) --PierreSelim (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:34 12 January 2013

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

File:Köcherbaumwald-01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 14:24:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Quiver Tree Forest near Ketmanshoop/Namibia in the evening Aloe dichotoma

Info created & uploaded by Hans Stieglitz - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good perspective, depth and timing --The Photographer (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced (partly) noise level on the sky, revert any time, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 22:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ interesting object, but too strong shadow and foreground too dark--Wladyslaw (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, late vote. Tomer T (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 14:24:04 (UTC) --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - See rule of the fifth day. Tomer T (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Veto. This has to be proofed. The 5-day-rules says that a picture can be speedy promoted if there is no oppose and at least 10 supporters. The rule does not say that if there are more than 10 supporters the voting period ends after 5 days (and no more votings can be given). This is a essential difference. My oppose was before the speedy promotion was executed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That is the same. Once there were 10 supporters and no opposes, and 5 days passed, the image is actually promoted. That doesn't matter if the bot didn't arrive yet to the page. Tomer T (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but this is not the same and just your interpretation of the rule that is not written clearly. I have called an admin to look at this case. Thank you. And the general voting period is written above this candidate and it ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 14:24:04. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's good. See also history of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tigrisoma lineatum portrait.jpg. Tomer T (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 14:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pilot boat at Landsort April 2012.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 17:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pilot boat outside Öja island (Landsort), Stockholm archipelago's most southern point. created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: It would be good if the clipped whites could be corrected. They are not horrible, but the image would be better without them. Is that possible/is there a RAW-file? --Julian H. (talk/files) 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very mutch for your comment. I uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very good, much more detail in the foam now. Support then. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ - quality is good, but I miss the "something special" for FP. At least, maybe you could find a usage (i. e., educational value) for this pic. --A.Savin 19:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--ArildV (talk) 12:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK thanks. Now that we know that it's not quite "just any boat somewhere in Sweden", it deserves a (weak) Support imo. --A.Savin 14:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I especially like the colors! Michael Barera (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition isn't eyecatching for me. Tomer T (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomar T. --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 16:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [30] and light : [31]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Odd Henrik Johnsen Scuba Diving.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 15:03:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gulosten - uploaded by Gulosten - nominated by Gulosten -- Gulosten (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gulosten (talk) 15:03, 10 January 2013 (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: resolution is less than required 2 megapixels --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2013 (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.

Oppose Just an observation, I just mark this picture for speed deletion as copyvio. The reason is "According with Odd Henrik Johnsen the subject died in 2010, and the picture is from late 1960s, so it doesn't meet the PD-old requirements either for the subject or the photographer (even if he had died the day after the image was took, his copyright would be valid until late 2030s)." Béria Lima ^msg 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

image:Rolltreppe Zeche Zollverein.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 10:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - uploaded by Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - nominated by Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC) -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionI like the motive and perspective, but I think your photo is CW tilted and distorted. Is it intended or the the "Rolltreppe" constructed in that way? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, good question. I guess the escalator itself is not tilted, but the roofing might be --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info now somewhat reduced distortion, lowered exposure. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calamagrostis brachytricha, (diamantgras)..jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 18:29:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info

Nederlands: Calamagrostis brachytricha, (diamantgras) bezwijkt bijna onder het gewicht van dauwdruppels.

English: Loosely translated:Calamagrostis brachytricha, (diamond grass) nearly collapses under the weight of dew drops.

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but please reduce noise and CA. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it possible to reduce the noise?--Famberhorst (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded, reduced noise and CA. Revert, if it's not good enough. --Ivar (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your improvement!--Famberhorst (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Better, and I really like the idea, but the quality still leaves something to be desired. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /— revi_msg 15:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:GermanShepherdResidential.jpg

File:Vyšší Brod, kášter v noci.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jagro — Jagro (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jagro (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very pretty, but unsharp and the middle section is almost completely lost to pure black. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose much overprocessed, looks more like a painting with a very soft brush. Too little details visible at the fassade. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The black band is really large and in the middle. I like the composition except for this major band.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all reasons given above. Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great idea, but this image is unfortunately not sharp enough for FP status, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sony NEX-5N with 16 + ultra wide converter x0.75.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 12:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Camera : [32] and light : [33]

Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition-wise, the camera is too low in the picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
crop up. Better now ? Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the bottom crop is still too tight. I imagine this is done in your home or studio, and shouldn't be difficult to retake with a centered composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible to remove the background completely, and create a white background for the desired crop.--ArildV (talk) 08:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Your white balance is off. And I suggest you get a bigger piece of paper. --Uberprutser (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop is unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 17:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabasalu pank .JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 17:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Tarmo Roop - nominated by Ivo Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Not enough wow effect, still a good shot IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like it, by the way I made some changes, feel free to revert if you are not convinced Poco a poco (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Exposure and WB are off IMO. Would support if brightened and made warmer. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked it --Poco a poco (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral OK. Still feel like it's missing something, per Dey.sandip. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically okay with me, but not finding anything special composition or feel-wise to recommend FP label --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grünfleckende Fichten-Koralle Ramaria abietina.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 17:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by holleday - nominated by citron -- Citron (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- The upper left part is ditracting. There is a white line on the central object. Is it natural ?--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive quality and motif. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Savona panorama 2012.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 11:52:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luca Martino - uploaded by Mystère Martin - nominated by Mystère Martin -- Mystère Martin (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mystère Martin (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too many quality issues.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example? --Mystère Martin (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Left and right part of the images are unsharp and there is too much distorsion of building. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cilindric version edit

Info Cilindric: now there is no distorsion of building. Also higher quality. --Mystère Martin (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mystère Martin (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like them both, but I prefer this version. Michael Barera (talk) 02:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— revi_msg 14:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leucippus fallax in Isla Margarita.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2013 at 02:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info With the help of camouflage and with a little patience. All by -- The Photographer (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- At the moment, I think there is some noise issue in the background. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Photographer (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise even visible at 25% view. I think the composition is not good enough for FP (centred position, disturbing background). I am missing some contrast in the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done --The Photographer (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I admire the effort (and time) which is required to take such photos, but your new version still does not work as FP for me (looks now more like a painting, details of the bird's coat disappeared). --Tuxyso (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. Right now I have not the experience to understand clearly what you mean. I have compared over time RAW version and noise correction, however, my eye can not see what you mention. Hopefully I can understand, but right now I can say that I disagree. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~—Denoising smudges, and normally I'm a fan of bokeh, but the blurry fractured background doesn't work for me.—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This animal was stuck in a tree, is the rainy season and they always remain hidden within the tree during this period, due to the ease of finding food. There are things that can not be changed. It is a type of tree with leaves densely fractured (Prosopis juliflora), not just this case, throughout this time they graze inside. In other months, the bird can be photographed outside the tangle of branches, however, not be observed so fat and well fed. --The Photographer (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the difficulty I'm changing my vote to

Neutral—it's a beautiful image at thumbnail size, however I just don't think it's featured picture quality with the noise/denoising artifacts—Kelvinsong (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A little low on "wow" factor, but still very good overall. Michael Barera (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice capture, nice bokeh, all said, still significant quality issues at 100% --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bellagio Las Vegas.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2013 at 15:19:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by FF23-fr -- FF23-fr (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FF23-fr (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe it is on purpose, but I dislike the perspective distortion. Not straight, even the horizon (seems tilted, moreover). There are some overexposed parts (the letters "Bellagio", for instance, are not readable enough.--Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pretty, but too many quality issues. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not the worst looking FP candidate I've ever seen, but the quality issues are certainly holding it back. Michael Barera (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Étienne Carjat, Portrait of Charles Baudelaire, circa 1862.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2013 at 15:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Étienne Carjat - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This will do until we have a high resolution scan. Thanks for your effort. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 16:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic photo of an influential poet. Daniel Case (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice: great capture! Michael Barera (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Peter Weis. --JLPC (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Porta Nigra abends.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 02:10:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald (de) 02:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald (de) 02:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice light, motif and colors, but I think the use of a small focal length followed by software perspective correction resulted in an unnatural object shape. Cf. top of the two towers. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Especially the right tower doesn't meet reality. Perhaps the coulors may be correct but they are not appealing. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is reality? The form of the towers depends on your standpoint. Photographed with tele from far away the tower is compressed, photographed from the position here with wide angle lines look longer (exactly the way as you would stand at this position). --Tuxyso (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
weak support: I like the photo (exposure, mood and very good sharpness with regard to the long exposure time). Two aspects are slightly disturbing: The fence and (more important) the scaffolding especially at the right gate. IMHO it still deserves FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Per Tuxyso. Michael Barera (talk) 02:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Norbert --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ ( Pro) (Stimme zur Unterstüzung des Exzellenz-Status') — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcalino (talk • contribs)
- Unsufficient edits to vote. Yann (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Norbert Nagel. Yann (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Choeradodis stalii MHNT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 21:50:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support How, Thank Citron. The black backgrounds are more difficult to manage than white backgrounds but often give best Result.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /someone

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

File:Cyclura cornuta - Reptilium Landau.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 14:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice moment and good quality but too shallow DoF resulting in some blurry areas there where it is relevant Poco a poco (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La Rochelle - Vitrail 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 20:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Stained glass window made by Émile Hirsch's workshop (1880) depicting Louis IX of France in La Rochelle Cathedral- Charente-Maritime, France. All by Selbymay (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Selbymay (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Et en plus, j'ai été baptisé, me suis marié, et ai enterré mon père dans cette église, c'est ma paroisse !--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Jeb:) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Is it your parish too? I was born less than 100m from this window...--Jebulon (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice Poco a poco (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Swallow flying drinking.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 14:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by sanchezn - uploaded by sanchezn - nominated by sanchezn -- sanchezn (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- sanchezn (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chapeau! Poco a poco (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Moonik (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is magic --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very special --Uberprutser (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ça faisait longtemps ! --Citron (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow, but hardly any detail on bird and noisy. --Muhammad (talk) 10:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exactly the drinking moment is caught, the bird is only about to drink on the fly. Nevertheless interesting shot but technical quality is insufficient. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Kop van vogel niet erg scherp.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pics of birds in flight deserve a bonus, yes... but the technical quality is, nevertheless, not sufficient for "the very best of Commons" in this case. See Muhammad, sorry. Really wow otherwise. --A.Savin 19:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose despite great wow, due to bad technical quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done ! --Jeanot (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Incredible capture! Michael Barera (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is said to the (slight) techincal shortcomings of the shot. Nonetheless an incredible and rare shot which deserves FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2013 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
- It's a decent shot, but with the right equipment it's not actually that hard to do, and definitely not "an incredible and rare shot". See a few examples on my site shot with the 5D III - I have ~ 200 perfectly sharp photos of swallows in flight now that I have the Mk III... --Fir0002 www 00:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure "right equipment" is the right way to put it. I'd say a 7D is better equipment than the 5DIII for birds, due to the 1.5x extension provided by the crop factor (i.e. higher pixel density). Sure, there's going to be more noise, but pixels are key when zooming in. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may be true but the AF system on the Mk III is vastly superior which is the critical element to getting photos of swallows in flight. But regardless, what I'm saying is that with either the Mk III or the 7D or with any of several other bodies, the AF system is such that capturing a shot like this isn't a freak or extraordinary event... --Fir0002 www 07:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - What? Af System? I don't know for the Mk III but my 7D AF is far too slow. I shot swallows in manual focus! Maybe swallows in your country are lazy and fly slowly! --sanchezn (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've lots of respect for you and your great photos. What makes that picture is "incredible and rare", is the point of view perfectly in front of the swallow and the picture is taken at the water level. I didn't saw a picture of you or someone else like that. Of course my picture is not the sharpest (I printed it on an A4 and it's sharp enough IMO), but actually, I think it's probably the best picture of a flying swallow on commons. sanchezn (talk) 08:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh don't get me wrong, I think you should be proud of the shot - as you say, out it's well executed and taken from a nice angle (FWIW I don't think the sharpness is much of an issue - the reason I'm not supporting is I'm not terribly keen on the unnatural swimming pool background). As I mentioned above, I was just trying to highlight that capturing something like this isn't as rare as one might first think :) --Fir0002 www 07:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- After considerable thought. Yes, image quality is far from good but there are two strong mitigating reasons: the incredible catch and the marvelous composition. Bravo! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC) What a capture![reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMP December 2012-1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 22:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Facho promontory, near the village of São Martinho do Porto (St Martin of the Port), was the highest point of the Portuguese European cost but has been loosing height due to erosion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WB is too blue for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- You are right, the temperature and balance of whites were slightly adjusted. Anyway the sky (and sea, by reflection) was very blue in that day. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sea, coasts and some piece of land. We already have similar FPs, can't find anything differentiating here ("wow" or whatever :) ) --Dey.sandip (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Dey.sandip. Taking photos around noon is not ideal for the best lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat noisy, bad light with artifacts (because of too high saturation?) in the sky and low wow factor (per Dey.sandip and King of Hearts). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Goat killed at Christmas Lunch.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2013 at 11:51:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the white "drops" on the goat are a bit overexposed which is a shame and a shorter exposure time wouldn't have hurt, but I still think it's a good shot. --heb [T C E] 11:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose! Detestable! An excellent image should be aestetical too. This is my opinion. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think censoring things just because they're unpleasant helps encyclopedic goals. This is a good image of something that many people prefer not to think about, but that shouldn't mean it's off the table for an educational process. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, this is Christmas too... --87.6.121.243 12:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a documentary value, the quality is good. People are people... What do you expect? Should COM:FP only include butterflies and eye-catching landscapes? Imo: no, there's place for certain unesthetic motives as well. --A.Savin 19:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No! We must present bestial force. That's what we need here. – I hope you understand the irony. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that this photograph raw, affected your feelings, I understand this may be hard for some people, however, is the reality, this is part of human culture. Humanity and human society has made atrocities and yet that is included in Wikipedia articles, the truth must be told. A rosy world hiding the truth can result in something worse, the truth always finds a way to come to light. Back then, if we begin to censor this kind of work, this section will end up being as soon 500px.com or commercial waste. This is a repository of free images and not only beautiful wallpapers for windows XP. --The Photographer (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Documentary value, no doubt. But the shirt of the person at left is disturbing and ruins the composition in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lothar. Without doubt a good photo, but we should consider that FPs get exposed places and can be easily found. With the educational use of WP (and Commons) in mind (WP is already used on elementary schools in Germany) this photo should not be seen and easily found by children under 18 years. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia or commons not should be censored, if we begin to do nothing will be left to the final. If a child learns something difficult what better place to do it than Wikipedia. A neutral article with references rather than a site of dubious origin. Explain things to children rather than hide them is the way. If you are interested you can visit it --The Photographer (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument was not about censorship, but about protection of minors. Freedom can only work within an ethical / reasonable border. Take the age limit of films: Reasonable because a minor randomly zapping through the TV after school should not see picture of brutual violence. The same applies to your photo: If one searches intentionally one will find your photo. But we should not make the access to such photos so easy that a random surfer (e.g. a 10 year old child looking at the beautiful pictures of animals on FP) can find it. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks more-like a snapshot. The shirt on the left hand side is distracting. Overall not much "wow" for me --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shirt is really bothering me, too. Michael Barera (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose documentary value is given, no doubt about that. But for my personal view I am not willing to call a bestial murder scene an excellent image even if this is part of the tradition in some culture area. If someone would come to the idea to make a technical perfect shoot of a piece of shit I would oppose too. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, that's horribly offensive and culturally insensitive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not. He's offered a personal value judgement and clearly states that this judgement is independent of any cultural considerations. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I agree it would fit in good on a TV show documentary, or National Geographic piece, but its not a featured picture. That shirt on the left gets in the way too, but I think that having a picture which illustrates the bloody death of an animal is not the sort of thing you'd like to see as a featured picture. I think the main thing is that the goat here is dying, and I'm not saying I'm a vegetarian hippie or anything, but I think its respectful not to glorify this by making it a FP. --Spartan7W (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ceremony that is not done for pleasure, is an act for food. The fact that you dont see when you kill an animal does not mean that there :(

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Spartan7W (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tallinn cityview.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 00:38:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zigomar - uploaded by Zigomar - nominated by Adbar -- Adbar (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adbar (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fix the white balance and you've got my vote. --Uberprutser (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noticeable level of noise and some loss of detail at full resolution. The WB may be slightly off too. I would have also preferred a slightly wider view composition wise --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blue cast and very shady, the composition is not appealing to me; we already have a much better featured picture of Tallinn Old Town. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --Vamps (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the idea, but the color and detail and composition issues are too much, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Alborzagros (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Truyère Grandval.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 00:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adbar - uploaded by Adbar - nominated by Adbar -- Adbar (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Adbar (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is very ordinary (tight crop, cut-out portion on the right). Also, I don't quite like the light (it appears that there may be some over-exposure in the sky as well). --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice image, but too low on "wow" factor to be an FP, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough awesome for me! Alborzagros (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 13:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Prespa - view from Galičica.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 21:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice once --Llorenzi (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good quality, nice landscape but unclear object. in the image description we read Lake Prespa. But the lake is mostly hidden by hills so we see only a small part of the lake. Looks for me like a random landscape shoot without clear image formation and composition. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It lacks wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron Blaze. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice, but too low on "wow" factor, in my opinion. Michael Barera (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jay Pritzker Pavilion, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 03.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 09:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jay Pritzker Pavilion, opening officially on July 16^th, 2004, serves as the centerpiece for Millennium Park in the Loop community area of Chicago in Cook County, Illinois. The Pavilion is the new home of the Grant Park Symphony Orchestra and Chorus and the Grant Park Music Festival, the United States' only remaining free outdoor classical music series. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the aspect ratio is suitable for the subject -- too much sky and distracting black boxes in the roof. Also the people are distracting -- best to be either empty or filled. I've created an alternative below. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Well... I still prefer this one anyway. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support Cropped vertically and distracting people cloned out. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with the changes, good job Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image above for me is the better one. There it is good to see more of the building, further the boxes in the foreground. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both, but I prefer the alternative. Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan Cordero - Portrait of Doña Dolores Tosta de Santa Anna - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 12:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juan Cordero (1822-1884) - photo by Google Art Project - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Dcoetzee -- 27.7 megapixel image of an 1855 portrait painting by Juan Cordero depicting the second wife of the famous Mexican political and military leader Antonio López de Santa Anna, presumably in her opulent Mexico City home. Previous image of this painting was cropped and very low quality. I added to articles, filled in description, and upgraded the detail version at File:Cordero Doña Dolores Tosta de Santa Anna 1.jpg. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- In addition to the high resolution, I find the details at thumbnail size to be intricate and sharp, and the composition and colours appealing. It seems to have a little bit of blur at 100% - might be my imagination. Dcoetzee (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kunstkamera SPB.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 09:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography "Kunstkamera" in Saint Petersburg.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the clouds provide a special atmosphere. --A.Savin 20:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Buildings and pretty everything superb. But light from the clouds is too powerfull IMO; in particular the big white cloud next to the top of the building which is a distraction. IMO some reduction in clouds luminosity would improve it.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The boats are disturbing, but it is a very good picture IMO. (I agree with A.Savin, and disagree with Telemaque Myson).--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors are fantastic! Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love thous colors :) Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Creating habitat for wildlife such as the Brushtail possum (8065737659).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 01:55:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brisbane City Council - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 01:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash lighting makes it very harsh. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the subject's expression! Michael Barera (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lac du Miage 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 19:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info

Lac du Miage. Natuurfenomeen in de Italiaanse Alpen nabij de Route Du Mont Blanc.

Lac du Miage. Natural Phenomenon in the Italian Alps near the Route Du Mont Blanc.

Lac du Miage. Phénomène naturel dans les Alpes italiennes près de la Route Du Mont Blanc.

Lac du Miage. Fenomeno naturale nelle Alpi italiane nei pressi della Route du Mont Blanc.

Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient image quality. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition cut is not okay for me. The bottom left part of the image is not really needed, whereas the actual composition should drive to know more about the right of the image. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cut-out composition, quality issues --Dey.sandip (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Interesting subject. The foreground gives a feeling of depth, but I would like more room on the top and right. Yann (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Een andere foto: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lac_du_Miage_04.jpg Famberhorst (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louvre at dusk.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 10:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC) -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Very dramatic. Image quality could be better, but the picture as a whole is too good not to support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice view but I have to oppose, the image quality is low (noise, lack of details, CA). Even with a simple DSLR, tripod and kit lens, you can get a much better result.--ArildV (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ( I guess you're right about the image quality. I suppose I've photoshopped way too aggressively )

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mantelaffe-mit-Baby-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 23:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black-and-white colobus with baby photographed at Münster Zoo

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice image and excellent quality. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cute family! --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I recommend to crop out the black body part in the bottom to improve the composition but FP anyhow Poco a poco (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoI've thought about it for a moment, but I think it is a good frame to the photo. The "black body part" is the tail of the monkey :) --Tuxyso (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry disturbing background otherwise pretty picture --Böhringer (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash is not ok, too harsh light. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variante edit

Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Thanks for your editing. I look forward to the votes (especially regarding the crop). I personally prefer a natural (non photoshoped) bokeh. At the first glance your crop looks more appealing. On the second glance it hides an important body part of the monkey: the long tail. My impression is that the composition is now a bit unbalanced. I like the longer arm of the "mama monkey" of my version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not found of the edited bokeh. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Mantelaffe-mit-Baby-Zoo-Muenster.jpg

File:Neeruti Eesjärv.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 08:12:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Ivar (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 08:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent scenery. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-- It is very good, but I do not consider it FP.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Needs quite some counter-clockwise rotation~~and is not that interesting as a subject in my opinion. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rotation corrected -> Neutral. Still can't see an FP motive. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 on the rotation issue, plus that darkness at the right is a little distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful, save for the rotation issue: if that is corrected, consider my support as full. Michael Barera (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if the tilt is corrected. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why do you think it's tilted? Trees are imho vertical. The lake bank on the right is just turning closer to the shooting point. We don't have here horisontal horizon. See this and this. --Ivar (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good way to find out what is vertical is to compare the tip of a tree to its mirrored representation in the water. As the water is always horizontal, the line between an object and its reflection should be perfectly vertical. It isn't here. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you., I'm gonna try to restich it agian. --Ivar (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, its a pretty picture and nice reflections. But guess, we see so many of them. Nothing particularly striking or different here in this one to recommend FP label. Appologies --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was taken in October 2012, before we got a deluge of such pictures. Is it really fair to blame the nominator for taking his time and thus failing to nominate it early enough? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Алый Король (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good now --Moonik (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too similar to an already featured picture. Two smaller issues are the wide crop at top and the underexposure on the right. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Compared to the other FP compositon and colors are visibly better, sharpness slightly inferior. Nonetheless I would prefer this one here. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong support--SteGrifo27 (tell me) 22:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice picture indeed, but basically the same idea as another picture already featured Spartan7W (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Orange Siberian.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 00:29:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spartan7W - uploaded by Spartan7W - nominated by Spartan7W -- Spartan7W (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Spartan7W (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too tight cropped (one ear cutted the other nearly), background is not really good. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cat is sharp but its not framed correctly. Also, the background in this case is a little distracting --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support obviously you cannot zoom in on the expression unless you tightly crop the subject. The cropping of an ear is no problem. Some might say it's not cropped or zoomed enough, but I'd figure it is pretty well balanced. That beard looks like it was borrowed from a Lion. :) Penyulap ☏ 13:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose simply a bad crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This photo was never cropped. This is as taken. -- Spartan7W (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad framing, and bad background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The crop/framing issue is just too much, although I do like the expression. Michael Barera (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Spartan7W (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piusa koopad 2011 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 13:25:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- At the moment I think there is a double eye catcher, and since I prefer the right part of the picture, the far left is not needed IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the lighting! Michael Barera (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good lighting, but the subject has nothing feature-worthy --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Little about thous caves. In summer they are one of the most visited tourist sites in South Estonia and in winter this place hosts the biggest known bat colony in Eastern Europe. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's weired: I'm really irritated by the composition/"double eyecatcher", but at the same time it is absolutely fascinating. --El Grafo (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Works for me. --WikedKentaur (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NeutralPer Telemaque MySon.--Jebulon (talk) 12:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teleferico II.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 13:19:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Too dark, compression/interpolation artifacts—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 16:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiliqua scincoides (White, 1790).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2013 at 20:52:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 08:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing to say for pretty much everything, except the clipped white close to the eye which in constract is not sufficiently lightened IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice capture! Michael Barera (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Famberhorst (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Europa poster.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 18:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Poster showing the structure and features of europa.
Editable text is outside the SVG frame, and Spanish and Icelandic versions exist.
Created, uploaded, and nominated by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool, I love Europa Jupiter moon --The Photographer (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, pretty and educational. --Bjarki S (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 16:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 02:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sint Anna ter Muiden Kerk R02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2013 at 19:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Good photo and sharpness, but not enough "Wow" for me. Interesting compositional idea, but for me the gate at the front is croped too tight (ground not yet visible). Church seems slightly distorted or tilted, I am not sure. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose especially the closed gate in the foreground ruins the picture IMO. I'm also a bit disappointed about the non-outstanding composition of an outstanding church. The sharpness could be better, the light is (slightly) too harsh. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there a red hotpixel? (see note) --Tuxyso (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it seems to be a reflection. But I removed it. -- MJJR (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the cropped gate. Maybe a portait vertical framing should have been better ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. Yann (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 02:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thiodina sylvana female 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 17:41:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kaldari - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good on lightning and focus.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 02:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parlos Verdes Light House Aug 2012.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 02:49:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Quach - uploaded by Mike Quach - nominated by Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator Another lighthouse picture from WLM USA 2012. To me, it's what a lighthouse in California should look like. -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, a nice picture of a light-house with favorable light, but is there anything special which sets it apart from other light house pictures ? Though a clean and simple composition, the subject doesn't evoke much "wow" for me, appologies --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition Poco a poco (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 12:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boutique Lancel sur la place de l'Opera à Paris en 1935.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2013 at 06:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by F.julliand - uploaded by F.julliand - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is the picture really taken by F.julliand in 1935?--ArildV (talk) 09:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Arild. I know that we should AGF if possible, but to simply believe the uploader is 100 years old without further evidence is a bit too much AGF for me, sorry. --A.Savin 10:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated this image for deletion. We need more information about the source and the photographer. It might also be {{Anonymous-EU}}. Yann (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me: sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trump International Hotel and Tower, Chicago, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 05.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 07:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Reflex at the Trump International Hotel and Tower at the Chicago river, downtown Chicago, Illinois, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not what I had in mind when I read the title, but pretty cool. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The right hand side is vertically corrected but the left hand side isn't. I suspect it needs a little finessing wrt rotation and vertical-perspective correction. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super reflections.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition --Cj.samson (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! One of the best I've ever seen! Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thumbs up, for an interesting composition --Dey.sandip (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Corn in mexican market.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 03:16:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created,uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not convinced by the framing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Darky area in the upper right corners is against the spirit of the image I guess.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor or color contrast: sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose out of wow.Alborzagros (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 16:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bosque Encantado, Parque nacional de Garajonay, La Gomera, España, 2012-12-14, DD 19.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 19:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the blue CA will be removed from upper part. --Ivar (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. CA was noticeable, I've reduced it. Poco a poco (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb atmosphere. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It was really a special place, thanks for the nomination Tomer! Poco a poco (talk) 09:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support special place, nice photography --PierreSelim (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Crocodylus acutus in la manzanilla 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 17:18:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice beast!... on a picture. Yann (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beppe Grillo - Trento 2012 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 10:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jaqen -- Jaqen (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jaqen (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Gildir (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, good expression and prominent plus Poco a poco (talk) 10:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mystère Martin (talk) 12:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Kerpen Schloss Loersfeld Wasserburg 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 10:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by A.Savin. This picture shows the 15th century water castle Loersfeld in Kerpen, NRW, Germany. A contribution to WLM 2012 which was successfull enough to come in the Top100 of Germany's part. -- A.Savin 10:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very tight composition (the building needs breathing space around it). A wider view may have been more appropriate --Dey.sandip (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have heard of animals breathing, but buildings too? Wow --Muhammad (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you happy that you heard a new thing ? --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I think the crop is too tight, but I still like it overall. Michael Barera (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per -Dey.sandip Alborzagros (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mountain Peak, Alaska (1999).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 00:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Shot from the Mendenhall Glacier, Alaska; Medium-format film, Scala 200 with red filter
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the foreground at the bottom left is blurred. You need a very small aperture to get everything in focus, especially on medium format. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice imo, foreground isnt a big problem imo and the composition is very good.--ArildV (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As ArildV. I'd just prefer a more complete description with geotag (if possible). --Selbymay (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Marvellous. Would be great to get additional information about your gear, developer, etc. You can use {{Photo Information}} for this. Let me know if you need any help. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additional gear information added-thanks for the suggestion- Godot13 (talk)

Support Beautiful b&w work... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great for a 1999 shot, but below the quality standard I'd expect, there is too much noise Poco a poco (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The goal of the shot was to be very grainy. Is there excessive noise in a specific area that can be fixed? Godot13 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good film image --141.35.40.136 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) -- Unsigned, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rheinfelden-Minseln - Peter und Paul.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 12:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in my opinion (!) not an exceptional image of a church. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

would be nice to argue why --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose It's good, but not outstanding. --Vamps (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very good quality, but this is ordinary view of church --Pudelek (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

would be interesting for me to learn why this view of a church is not ordinary File:Červený Kostelec (Rothkosteletz) - church of Saint James.JPG --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in my photo was nice lighting / atmosphere -- Pudelek (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dull weather is a nice atmosphere? matter of taste. my question was about the view and not about the weather. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Little more space was required on the left side and the bottom. That would have made it more balanced. --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll proof if I have enough material to expand the image a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Support The new crop is better and looks good to me now. --Dey.sandip (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded a new crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality and ok composition but nothing I'd consider featurable here Poco a poco (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ST ○ 21:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. I'm not quite convinced by this short distance capture and its steep angle. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A bit low on "wow" factor, but overall still a great image. Michael Barera (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper Carschten. Alborzagros (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose For me FP = very good quality + very good composition + very intersting motive (something special) + Wow. The weighting depends on the reviewer and of course on the motive. With this photo I would say: Quality is good (but not outstanding, see e.g. noise in the sky, some very bright areas), composition is good to very good (slightly too tight at the right), motive is medium interesting (a church with surrording churchyard, the same as in thousand other German villages), little wow (no interestring light or mood, not comparable to File:Červený Kostelec (Rothkosteletz) - church of Saint James.JPG (look at the beautiful and selective light, colors and atmospheric sky)) All in all, QI but no FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bensberg Neues Schloss Denkmal 136 b ShiftN.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 17:55:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Mich.kramer - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 17:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is too close to noon, causing the sky to look slightly washed out and the building in soft shadow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose suboptimal light situation, dust spots in the sky, HDR errors at the people in front of the castle. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Others --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical quality does not meet FP-criteria --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A bit too low on "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose out of wow Alborzagros (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laura Viherva sm.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 14:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lareee123 - uploaded by Lareee123 - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super! Kruusamägi (talk) 14:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blue board or something on the right hand side is really distracting and drawing the eyes all the time. Also, I fail to see whats differentiating about this image or subject (action/dynamism wise as well)-- Dey.sandip (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 16:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much of wow! Alborzagros (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meysamin (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The colours in the background are against the subject. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice: I especially like the subject's expression! Michael Barera (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO the background is not distracting but a nice counterpoint --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Lepidoptera in Isla Margarita.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 20:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infoall by -- The Photographer (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is such a great photography !--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some noise is there, but the capture is really brilliant. --A.Savin 13:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very delicate! --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The head is not in focus (mortal sin? :D); but good wing details. Added to Gulf Fritillary. -- J Kadavoor J e e 06:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 00:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Snarling lion.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 02:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aurearias - uploaded by Aurearias - nominated by Aurearias -- Aurearias (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aurearias (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but tight upper crop, and lightning suboptimal.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Telemaque MySon Alborzagros (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of the Kremlin (Moscow, 2005).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2013 at 03:09:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Godot13. Taken just after May Day celebrations in 2005 (Medium-format digital with tripod). Godot13 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not really fortunate to me, because the bridge appears disturbing. The light is a bit weak, and on the clouds there's some colour noise. I have to remark though, that for a 2005 photo the image resolution is incredibly high, is it actually a panorama? --A.Savin 10:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised if a 22 MP medium format back existed back them. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Camera info added to image Godot13 (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The bridge is a bit disturbing, but overall I still like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose PER A.Savin Alborzagros (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination-- Godot13 (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dust bowl, Texas Panhandle, TX fsa.8b27276 edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 22:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Arthur Rothstein, restored, uploaded and nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply amazing! (And high historical value!) Michael Barera (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nostalgic. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good composition, and high historical value!--ArildV (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 12:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 13:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Very nice picture, great quality Spartan7W (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just as a curiosity, it's interesting to see how this image looks like a "negative" of what would be a rather ordinary picture: File:Dust bowl, Texas Panhandle, TX fsa.8b27276 negative.jpg

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 13:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Thure de Thulstrup and L. Prang & Co., with restoration by Adam Cuerden. Uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Did enough additional edits to this that I thought I had best restart the nomination. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Stained Glass windows in the Saint Antony church of Urtijëi AD 1874, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 08:36:49 (UTC)

Saint Anne with Mary as a child
Saint Benedict of Nursia with the book, the snake, pelican, raven
Saint Joseph and Jesus
Saint Francis of Assisi
Angels with the symbols of the passion of Jesus Christ
Angels with the symbols of the Catholic Church

Info created by moroder - uploaded by moroder - nominated by moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the moment I think the frames around the windows are bothering me : their dimensions are changing, but also they have some grey dark gradients not pretty IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The gradients are due to the shade of the external roof, there is no way to avoid it under normal conditions. The frames imo make them look more natural in their environment. Thanks for the comment. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Good work. Yann (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same opinion as Telemaque MySon. Every isolated window is very nice and interesting, but as for a set, I think that every picture size (scale) must be the same...The correction is easy.--Jebulon (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent!. --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done I gave a more uniform crop --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job Wolfgang! Poco a poco (talk) 17:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The crop of the second window is still different. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Selbymay (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Béria Lima ^msg 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 13:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. - Godot13 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2008-08-22 Skateboarder floating in the air.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 14:25:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Specious - uploaded by Specious - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 14:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gildir (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition: arm cropped and house in the background -- sanchezn (talk) 07:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sanchezn --Dey.sandip (talk) 08:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad frame, and little under Background. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the shadow, but the skateboarder's arm being out of the shot is just too much of a detriment to this image. Unfortunate. Michael Barera (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canard Colvert femelle.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 17:51:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by FF23-fr -- FF23-fr (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FF23-fr (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A nice duck -- Spartan7W (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP, not a bad photography however below the bird FP bar. --PierreSelim (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PierreSelim. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No effect, Wow. The caption is minimalist, if we assume a label FP: the captions should be more consistent --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose A nice image, but not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus Alborzagros (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helicopter with Dent d'Hérens.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by SteGrifo27 (tell me)
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 18:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its too fuzzy Spartan7W (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Blurry and I don't like the white-balance.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kruusamägi (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --cyrfaw (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hippocampus hippocampus (on Ascophyllum nodosum).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 20:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Hans Hillewaert - nominated by Ivar (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 06:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but I'd like to see info (category?) where it was taken. --A.Savin 13:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture with high resolution--David1010 20:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Schloss-Linnep-Vorderansicht.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2013 at 21:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle of Linnep (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany)

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Overall, composition is fine, but the quality of light here really bothers me and IMHO, its not really helping the photograph or highlighting details --Dey.sandip (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad angle Alborzagros (talk) 13:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I cannot figure out what you mean. I see nothing "bad". Please clarify. The idea with this perspective was to photograph the beautiful entry for Schloss Linnep. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support - On my monitor it seems to have some blue colour cast, which really annoys my eyes. --heb [T C E] 12:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've slightly modified WB. I hope it is now OK for you and your eyes :) Question Is your monitor calibrated? My one is and the former blue cast was nearly invisible. -Tuxyso (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Now that it has been fixed :) Yes. I do regular colour calibrations of my monitor (a Samsung SBX2450) using a Spyder 2 Pro. Though it is by no means a top-end monitor and the Spyder 2 isn't among the newest, I do believe that it still gives a correct representation of the colours. --heb [T C E] 11:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tour de l' Oisans 2011 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 16:51:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by--Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nederlands: Gletsjermeer van Arsine in Parc National des Écrins.
- English: Glacier Lake Arsine in Parc National des Ecrins.
- Français : Glacier Lake Arsine dans le Parc National des Ecrins.
- Italiano: Glacier Lake Arsine nel Parc National des Ecrins.
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, interesting subject, but the snow (white) is severely overexposed. Yann (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please kindly attach a geotag --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I do not know the coordinates.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not so difficult to find the place on Google Maps with your description. Yann (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe 44.969535 6.414385? --Viscontino (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at maps, but there is little about Glacier Lake Arsine in Parc National des Ecrins. The lake is very remote.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition mainly.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 03:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Savona panorama 2012 cilindric edit.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 15:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cilindric version and less sky - Created by Luca Martino - uploaded by Mystère Martin - nominated by Mystère Martin -- Mystère Martin (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mystère Martin (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A really nice panorama, but there are quality issues: red/cyan CA at the extreme left, slightly overexposed buildings (in the red channel), and overexposed sky (in the blue channel). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful: the detail is fantastic! Michael Barera (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts: bad light (overexposed, shadows) and quality (CA, poor detail). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thank you. --Mystère Martin (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate Pansy Coimbatore.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 08:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chocolate Pansy (Junonia iphita)photographed near Siruvani falls, Coimbatore,India. All by me -- Cj.samson (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter23 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many blurred areas. The specimen is damaged. QI but not FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Low on "wow" factor, but still very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have many FP butterflies. This is not one of the best, as per Archaeodontosaurus. Yann (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A common, but difficult subject to capture due to its behaviour (frequently change positions) and colours. (I too never succeeded to take a decent shot so far.) The subject is not well focused here. -- J Kadavoor J e e 06:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Minor flaws but alright IMO --Muhammad (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Archaeo and Yann. Remember this is FPC page...--Jebulon (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ka'ba-ye Zartosht.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 09:56:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Faramarz - uploaded by Faramarz - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks tilted. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Really historical and full EV. lots of wow.Peter23 (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with King. Tilt is too obvious to let it be Poco a poco (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, especially considering the historical value. Michael Barera (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted and no "wow factor". For pictures of historical value you better try Commons:Valued_image_candidates --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mahan (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - I like the motif, but I think you should rotate it slightly CW --heb [T C E] 12:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Berthold Werner Kruusamägi (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kölnpanorama bei Abenddämmerung.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 13:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) - uploaded by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) - nominated by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC) -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice view and colors. Like it ! --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical quality not good, there is a small but clear pixelation effect visible --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stunning atmosphere, but soft & oversharpened (see haloes on the TV tower), sorry. --A.Savin 20:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find this pretty acceptable for what is effectively a night shot with lots of bright sources of light. It's a tricky balance. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request could you please fix the geocoding/coordinates? --El Grafo (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info done!--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bad and too-much-photoshopped image. To create better an HDR-image will be possible! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is not an HDR image! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Das habe ich mir schon gedacht, aber ein HDR Bild wäre die bessere Alternative gewesen. Gruß, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but the image quality is not so good, too many artifacts and noise. --Kadellar (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. It s a shame, because the composition is really good.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really do like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, it's a pity. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, everybody, for your encouraging comments, even if you had to oppose. I'll certainly try to take a technically better picture of the same motif, HDR might indeed be useful here. In case you'll ever come to Cologne and want to try your luck - be prepared for this: Centimeters of ugly, dirty security glass This is a pity, too. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nasser al-Din Shah Louvre MAO776-Edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 10:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice painting. right frame and high quality. of course elegant insignia. Peter23 (talk) 12:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one, deserves FP tag --Dey.sandip (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 16:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Meysamin 07:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you don't have enough edits to vote. Please read the guidelines. --Ivar (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This image became a featured picture with that awful green cast? In everyone's haste to slap on their support, Commons now has on their front page for all the world to see a little green man... or rather a little green Persian. Well done folks. – JBarta (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 12:01:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andreas Trept - uploaded by ? - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are some minor retouching issues, but all in all it deserves FP assessment to me. --A.Savin 20:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of noise on the bird. --Aleks G (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Михайловский замок с набережной Фонтанки.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2013 at 07:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aleks G (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs definitely a perspective correction, a subtle lightening of shadows, + maybe also some crop at the right. --A.Savin 10:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support after some improvements. --A.Savin 11:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors! Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Used in the processing of photographic film profile. -- Aleks G (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palma sulla costa di Parenzo, Croazia.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 19:25:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fabio Visconti - uploaded by Viscontino - nominated by Viscontino -- Viscontino (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Viscontino (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kruusamägi (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me. Michael Barera (talk) 01:09, 19 January 2013 (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: No clear subject, severely overexposed. Yann (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2013 (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:Moscow 05-2012 Tsaritsyno 08.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 13:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Image shows the Orangery Pond and Orangery Bridge (early 19th century) in Tsaritsyno Park, Moscow, Russia. All by A.Savin 13:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Support --A.Savin 13:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support VolodymyrF 15:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the left part of the image has some flaws in composition IMO (shadows form,tree cutting the composition, and reflection of tree abruptly cut).--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition! --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 16:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:North transepts - Basilique Saint-Sernin - fixed perspective (cropped).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 10:40:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The North Transept of Basilica Saint-Sernin in Toulouse. C/U/N by me (except the Basilica ^_^) -- PierreSelim (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because I prefer the version with more sight upwards; if you make this crop choice, I would like to know why. I have also issues with the right artwork concerning lighting reflections. Finally, I wanted to see some details on the columns and they lack a bit of definition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice quality of details and beautiful colors. --Selbymay (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ankara (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tobo 2012e.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 11:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Former iron mill (Tobo bruk) in Tobo. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors and lighting, but the centered composition makes it look stilted. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you prefer a crop?--ArildV (talk) 12:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, I don't find a vertical composition very suitable for this. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it that way; very good lightning and colors. --Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool, with great colors! Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture, but please crop that shadow at the bottom. Doing so will give it a more pleasant rectangular format also. Capmo (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --ArildV (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice! Changing my vote. Capmo (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:You need only one soap, Ivory soap - Strobridge & Co. Lith. - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 04:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Strobridge Lith. Co., for The Procter & Gamble Co. - restoration by Adam Cuerden - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thought I might try something a bit more unusual, and I needed a break from the big restoration I'm working on (Battle of Shiloh). Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sperm whale pod.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 03:26:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gabriel Barathieu - uploaded by Kurzon - nominated by Kurzon -- Kurzon (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kurzon (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, with obvious halos. It's OK for underwater photography to be slightly unsharp, but no need for so much sharpening. I have to say, the "wow" factor's huge here, and without the sharpening I'd still find the image sufficiently sharp. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would it be possible to get less sharpened version to be uploaded? The image itself is just fabulous, but that sharpening... Kruusamägi (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image is from a Flickr-User. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversharpened. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2013 (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: reason: oversharpened. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (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:James Webb Space Telescope Mirror37.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2013 at 22:41:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/MSFC/David Higginbotham/Emmett Given - uploaded by Raeky - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case, I think the perspective distortion is really too strong.--Jebulon (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alborzagros (talk) 12:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Cekli829 09:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon + blue cast (?) + apart from EV not really much of special. --A.Savin 14:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture.--Arcalino (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

Image:Bruegge Panorama1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 00:25:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Arcalino - uploaded by User:Arcalino - nominated by User:Arcalino -- Arcalino (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) to few contributions for voting --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed removal of vote: "Everybody can vote for his/her own nominations.", see above. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice but to dark imo.--ArildV (talk) 11:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Tilted (compare rooftops with their reflections, the connection line is not vertical). --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bhuck (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ausgeglichene Farben und durch den Superweitwinkel ein sehr atmospherisches Bild --Ekehnel (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad technical quality (sharpness, noise, partially overexposed, perspective distortion). The image is bad balanced and overall to dark with low details. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I'm not a big fan of the lighting, but overall I still think it is FP-worthy. Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others. Too dark. Yann (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variante: File:Bruegge Panorama1 edit .jpg edit

Info worked a bit on the darkness and rotated it, thanks for your constructive criticism User:Arcalino
Neutral Nice image! Darkness correction is good - the original picture was too dark. Perspective and/or lens distortion is negligible. B.t.w.: not all the old houses and gables in Bruges are perfectly vertical! But sharpness is not good enough for FP IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is a little bit soft in the middle, but it is a lovely scene. Colin (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Much better than the other one. I am hesitant about the perspective. Yann (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Accnis.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 13:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (At the moment) Upper light is disturbing IMO. Some harsh features in the grass background too. A description of what bird is under and why would add some value also.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The face is out of focused.Alborzagros (talk) 12:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice!--Arcalino (talk) 17:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaselaug - Rabivere maastikukaitseala.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 17:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heino Ruiso - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Might have a bit of color aberrations.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed dust spots and reduced noise level on the sky and water. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David1010 20:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice colors and reflections. I think you should crop a bit tighter at the top because the top part of the sky is a bit boring and makes the photo slightly imbalanced in relation to the space left at the bottom. Support after different crop. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Maire (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture, wonderful reflections!--Arcalino (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Béria Lima ^msg 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lindau - Hafen7.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 20:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but large parts of the boat in front are overexposed. If you shot in RAW, try highlight recovery? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me now. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice composition! Overexposure is minor to me, but imho the left and center part has CCW tilt and there is one ghost without a head. Notes added. --Ivar (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK for me now.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King of Hearts Alborzagros (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Until problems will be fixed. --Ivar (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I think I have fixed all problems. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems good now. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture, lovely scene.--Arcalino (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tour de l' Oisans 2011 02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 18:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Parc National des Écrins.
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per King. --heb [T C E] 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Place is nice but image has some problems. And is the horizon tilted? Kruusamägi (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is an issue, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riva Wheel.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2013 at 18:11:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Spartan7W - uploaded by Spartan7W - nominated by Spartan7W -- Spartan7W (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Spartan7W (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full color and lightning.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop below.--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ill-framingAlborzagros (talk) 13:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diplacodes trivialis, West Bengal, India 13 09 2012 (2).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 07:44:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Diplacodes trivialis female. A small greenish yellow dragonfly with black markings. Abdominal markings are broader and continued on to segments 8-10. The 10th segment and anal appendages are completely yellow. One of the commonest dragonflies in gardens, fields, playgrounds. This dragonfly usually perches on the ground and rarely flies above 1m. Found throughout Oriental region and Pacific islands. Created / uploaded / nominated by Joydeep _Talk 07:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 07:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alborzagros (talk) 12:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Moonik (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Call me a bad sport but... big parts of the dragonfly are out of focus and even the head area seems rather soft. The leaf in the foreground is a bit harsh for my taste. Some existing dragonfly FP's (e.g. this or this one) have a better background, better technical quality, and a more eye-catching composition without disturbing elements etc. So, all in all I have to oppose, sorry. --A.Savin 18:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nicely captured, but per Savin. No parts of the dragonfly are in focus at full resolution. Sorry. --Cayambe (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hmmm; I'm personally against nominating/featuring similar pictures from the same set of shots. The other FP is taken only two minutes ago. Joydeep, please select your best for the nomination here; leave others for QI/VI. -- J Kadavoor J e e 05:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination after rethinking of the points made by A.Savin and Jee with which I agree (but if I'm not wrong, I've seen similar shots of same user are nominated and featured). I'm withdrawing this nomination otherwise it would be featured with the support votes. -- Joydeep _Talk 07:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joydeep, for your spirit of understanding. It was only my personal opinion to choose the best among the similar; no such rules. BTW, your pictures are excellent and I would like to see more Insects of India through your lens. -- J Kadavoor J e e 05:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /User withdraw the nomination. Béria Lima ^msg 00:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:ByrneFischer.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 12:27:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Terminatore - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the file has less than 2Mpex resolution. Béria Lima ^msg 22:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image is of historic importance, not artistic. 2Mpex rule does not necessarily apply. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2013 (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: less than 2Mpex resolution, in fact the file has 0,12 Mpex resolution and not in a million years it could be a FP with that resolution, no matter how historic. Béria Lima ^msg 02:50, 21 January 2013 (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:European Otter 1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 11:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juan lacruz - uploaded by Juan lacruz - nominated by Juan lacruz -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Cute! But especially given the 3.5 MP size, I would expect better sharpness. Sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is good, but I just don't find it that good to be a FP. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I withdraw my nomination

File:Glyphodes bivitralis pupa.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 05:57:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staticd - uploaded by Staticd - nominated by Staticd -- Staticd (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought that the image would serve both as a good hook for insect development and be useful to show the moth just before it emerged, visible through the pupal case.Staticd (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Staticd (talk) 05:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark . --Llorenzi (talk) 10:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is poorly framed. Too many blurry areas. Chromatic aberrations.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the framing, either. Michael Barera (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfavorable crop/framing ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vulpes vulpes, Red Fox, Zorro.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 12:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Juan lacruz - uploaded by Juan lacruz - nominated by Juan lacruz -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Yann (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Wow indeed, but I believe the picture lacks lead room, and the quality is deceptive at full size. --24.53.4.36 16:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have checked that I was connected before posting. Above comment is from me. Sorry! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as above. The image looks amazing, but is off-quality when viewed in original size. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing moment, horrible quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's one seriously mangy fox. But what went wrong with the image. Oversharpening and high jpg compression perhaps? -- Colin (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationI withdraw my nomination. The image illustrates a poor fox suffering a sarcoptes scabies serious infection, a common disease in foxes. That day was very foggy and the picture was taken under low light conditions.
The photographic quality of this is amazing, I really think the only problem here is strong jpeg compression and in-camera sharpening. With a raw file, this could definitely be a FP (at least it would have my support). --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An amazing shot, according to the EXIF there is no reason except jpg compression to have such artefacts. And even if the quality is not there, it can still illustrate few pages in wikipedia very well. Do not hesitate to nominate it again if you can improve the jpg :) --PierreSelim (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lake Zug from the air.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 06:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Spartan7W - uploaded by User:Spartan7W - nominated by User:Sprtan7W -- Spartan7W (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Spartan7W (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much haze. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a wonderful picture with great landscape, but the haze spoils everything. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Olympiaturm, Múnich, Alemania 2012-04-28, DD 08.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 21:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Olympiaturm from the Olympic Park in Munich, Germany. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too strong pixalisation effect visible. why do I see this effect so often in your pictures? a software development error? --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a painting, loss of detail. --Vamps (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack Wladyslaw + ordinary composition. Sorry. --A.Savin 23:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, I give up Poco a poco (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 14:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anthony Quintano on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by ViperSnake151 -- ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Personally, I think that the fact that we have such a rare and daring shot here released under a free license, is an accomplishment on its own. But its also one of the most spectacular views I've ever seen of that particular ball on that particular tower. It really gives you a glimpse of a New York landmark in a way that the average person has never seen before. -- ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice perspective. I would support if a slight denoising were done. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting, indeed. But the technical qualities I find not enough for an FP: lots of noise and CA. --A.Savin 23:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice perspective, but too noisy (ISO 1,250). --Cayambe (talk) 07:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ViperSnake151, could you ask the graphics lab to see if they can fix the noise? I see you have it there already and that may have others change their oppose votes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did, but they told me to try nominating it for FP to see what they'd suggest. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like this very much. And just resize to 6mpx to silence the pixel peeping noise nazis :) People should start judging noise when viewing the picture full screen! But I would like to see a shift in white balance because the galvanized steel is a bit too blue for my taste.--Uberprutser (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At its current state, I would like to temporarily withdraw the nomination until we get some work done on it. This could be a real winner, but only if we improve it a bit. ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination by nomintator above. I added this tag in case the bot needs it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mam people.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2013 at 12:03:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ekem - uploaded by Ekem - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ordinary portrait of two women (one of them out of focus). Neither quality, light, or composition justifies FP-status imo.--ArildV (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --cyrfaw (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Full EV. Alborzagros (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A picture of two women, nothing extraordinary Spartan7W (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Peter23 (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bali Khila Rajgad Maharashtra.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 18:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bali Khila is the highest point of the Rajgad fort, one of the famous hill forts during Maratha Empire. All by me -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Looks too hazy. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded Kindly check --Cj.samson (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't think a levels adjustment will do the trick. The lighting as a whole was not optimal, something no amount of postprocessing could fix. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so it appears that the old version has been cached for several days now. I don't know whether it's the fault of my computer or the Wikimedia servers. Anyways, the colors are a lot better now. Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The edit fixes the haze problem for me --Muhammad (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 18:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Brachylophus fasciatus - Reptilium Landau.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 09:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Beautiful colors and image. A better background would be desiderable but still good image. - Unsigned, sorry -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Capmo (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 09:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture.--Arcalino (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome to the iguana club. Nice shoot --The Photographer (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 13:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 13:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cherry flowers (2).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2013 at 16:47:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by SteGrifo27 -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 16:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special justifying FP. Sharpness is not optimal. Taking a (better) photo of cherry flowers should be easy. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not good and only some flowers are in focus, background is distracting etc. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sharpness just isn't there, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice picture but nothing special as Tuxyso. --Arcalino (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plano de Cumaná c.1700.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2013 at 00:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uknown (circa 1700) - uploaded by Hahc21 - nominated by Hahc21 -- — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agfa Opticus 100 BW 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 09:51:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It still is a quality image but there just isn't any wow factor for me. Sorry. Maybe if it would be working? Kruusamägi (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kruusamägi. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough "wow" factor for me either, sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddhist Cave 5, Ellora.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 05:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dey.sandip (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per nominator --cyrfaw (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark!!! --Llorenzi (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Llorenzi. Perhaps a not very easy motif, but the contrast is indeed way too harsh, sorry. --A.Savin 13:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per Llorenzi. --heb [T C E] 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The darkness and contrast were intentional, as it's a minimalist composition. The intention was not to show the details of the cave, instead convey the cold ancient mood in a creative way. I am not sure whether I am successful in conveying what I desired, but it appears, this photo is not so suitable for Commons (going by the oppose reasons). Nevertheless, thanks to all who took time to assess this. --Dey.sandip (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject is interesting, but it must be a stack HDR. To make the outdoor area, less burned. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree, it is too dark. Michael Barera (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gisant Agnès Sorel.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 10:40:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Agota - uploaded by Agota - nominated by Agota -- Agota ^{Oui ? Plaît-il ? / Déversoir} 10:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Agota ^{Oui ? Plaît-il ? / Déversoir} 10:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too blurred for FP (even for QI). Otherwise it needs english description. --Selbymay (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you could use a tripod next time to avoid all that blur. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea, but the blur really is a major issue. Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:KnightsTemplarPlayingChess1283.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 10:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by World Imaging - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The painting is of very high value and importance in both, the history of chess and the history of the Knights Templar. It dates back to 1283 when the rules of modern chess is deemed to have been unknown. -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would love to support it, but the quality is rather disappointing, a quite obvious scan from a facsimile, where the dots are clearly visible. Kleuske (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image is to small and as Kleuske pointed out already then thous dots are really annoying. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dots really bother me, too: sorry. Michael Barera (talk) 01:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Halftone pattern dots removed by FFT. --GianniG46 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento a la Libertad, Riga, Letonia, 2012-08-07, DD 13.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2013 at 20:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Freedom monument, Riga, Latvia. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Some noise in the sky, left part of the image tilted CW?~~--ArildV (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--ArildV (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --cyrfaw (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - imo, for a long exposure evening shot the noise is at acceptable level. The blue hour atmosphere is captured perfectly. FP to me. --A.Savin 13:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new version with noise reduction and a slight perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--ArildV (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Béria Lima ^msg 15:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and the tree on the right bothers me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the histogramm there are no overepoxed areas, where do you see a problem (apart from light sources)? Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry was oversaturated, and some color range with much more light than what I would expect. It is maybe not burned in the histogram, but it does not look very natural to me.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Nice lightning and mood. But for my sensation the composition is a bit imbalanced, but main reason for "oppose" is the massive motion blur at the trees at the right front (it's not a small area in the background it's in the foreground). It looks more than a painting than a photo there. You had better wait for a windless moment. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated. -- -donald- (talk) 09:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't look natural IMO due to oversaturation. Maire (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded with moderate saturation Poco a poco (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image could better be taken at daytime, thus avoiding unnecessary motion blurring in the trees, various ghosts and a very artificial feel. Kleuske (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Алый Король (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Artificial colors, motion blur on trees. --Vamps (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there wasn't motion blur, all critics would say "noisy" because of a short exposure. The daytime picture would be simply different. With five seconds you really need no wind at all. --Kadellar (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per donald. --Selbymay (talk) 12:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really-really like the mood of the image and overall colors but when looking fine details then... Kruusamägi (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but oversaturated. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Desaturated I believe that nobody else should affirm now that it is oversaturated. Would be great to get some feedback from any of the 5 colleagues declining for this reason Poco a poco (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It still looks well oversaturated to me. Maybe this is why they haven't changed their vote. --99of9 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valmy Battle painting.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 12:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by UberCryxic - uploaded by Jack Bufalo Head - nominated by Blaue Max -- Blaue Max (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Blaue Max (talk) 12:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 06:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dense fog over Indian Subcontinent.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 15:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dense fog over the Gangetic plains of the Indian Subcontinent, with the Himalayan chain to the north and the Bay of Bengal at bottom right, on 23 December 2012. Already a FP in Wikipedia. Created by NASA MODIS Rapid Response - LANCE Web Mapping Service, uploaded and nominated by Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are not the author, NASA is. I changed that. Yann (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, sorry for that. I changed it to the exact author. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--David1010 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --heb [T C E] 12:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Honoré Daumier - Le Ventre Législatif (The Legislative Belly) - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 14:21:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Honoré Daumier - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice caricature and good historical value. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice historical image. Michael Barera (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiana World War Memorial Plaza, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 10:04:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Canada geese (Branta canadensis) having a walk around the obelisk of the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza, Indianapolis, USA. All by me. Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, but unfortunately suboptimal lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I have to agree with KoH.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. And the composition is a bit too ordinary for FP standards, sorry. --A.Savin 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stripy candles.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 21:04:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peachoftree - uploaded by Peachoftree - nominated by Peachoftree -- Peachoftree (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peachoftree (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info if the image appears really noisy at full res just let it load for a bit and it will fix itself. -- Peachoftree
Oppose even after waiting for 10 minutes ist still looks very strange at full resolution in Firefox as well as Gimp. I guess the original image was (despite the low ISO 400 setting) just too noisy so that the noise reduction you performed led to some weird effects. I'd try it with more ambient light next time. --El Grafo (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe try reloading and clearing the cache? It was weird and noisy when I originally uploaded hence my noise reduction. Peachoftree (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Peachoftree (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:0 Botassart - Tombeau du Géant (1)JPG.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 14:25:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT -- 193.190.112.194 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place. But really serious quality problem with the image.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an option - slightly reduce noise (upd.). --Aleks G (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alpbachtal Panorama.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 20:20:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of the Alpbach valley in Tyrol, Austria. All by Ximeg --Ximeg (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Nice panorama. Disturbing Area on the lower right corner. Arcalino
~~Neutral~~I'll support, after crop on the right. --Ivar (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support now. --Ivar (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support i dont mind the lower right corner, it is, in a sense, honest to show from where the picture was taken (in this case a ski slope). It is possible to make a small crop to get rid of the shadow, but the ski slope dont bother me at all.--ArildV (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have uploaded a new cropped version. Also it seemed to me that the horizont was slightly tilted CCW, so I turned it clockwise a bit. --Ximeg (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that all file annotations got lost with upload of new file. Is there a way to restore them, or I should add all of them manually? --Ximeg (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The annotations stopped working due to the changed size of the image. You can - partially - fix this by updating the annotation tags (as I did here), though the relative position of the annotations will be slightly different than originally intended. --heb [T C E] 13:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help! --Ximeg (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --heb [T C E] 12:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice and good panorama --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful panorama.--Arcalino (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Amazing, fantastic scene. --99of9 (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caracal Caracal-001.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support—Nice picture, though brightness could be better, and something weird is going on with the background bokeh—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The blade/twig of grass crossing the animal head in bright color is a bit distracting. Could it be digitally removed ?--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful image! Could you please add EXIF data and geotag? --Ximeg (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rough location added (+/-5km), will request photographer to refine location and re-export with full EXIF. --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New version uploaded with full EXIF data --Rute Martins of Leoa's Photography (www.leoa.co.za) 15:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture.--Arcalino (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 22:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment Desirable less noise ... --Aleks G (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead Sea salt formation (Aerial view, 2007).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 21:28:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by -- Godot13 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Please fix the minor CA in the corners. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Godot13 (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - for an aerial pic a real good quality, + unusual view with wow factor. FP. --A.Savin 14:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow and value --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 07:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El Guamache Bay, Margarita island.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 16:22:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima ^msg 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Béria Lima ^msg 16:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VolodymyrF 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Composition is good, but the overexposure and ghosting of the sky close to the sun makes me reluctant for FP.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Nice review --The Photographer (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Support. The flare is a minus, but the comp and lighting are really nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have my full support, now that the flare is gone. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support The light, composition and motive is very nice. Probably you can work on the flare (the one at the left side over the brush) --Tuxyso (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Fixed, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very artistic picture -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Michael Barera (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment slightly tilted (see horizon)--Jebulon (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katholische Kapelle St. Michael, Meckenheim Merl 2012-06-10-8583.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slick - uploaded by Slick - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katholische Kapelle St. Michael, Meckenheim Merl 2012-06-10-8603.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:38:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Slick - uploaded by Slick - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albu mõisa sild 2012.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 04:30:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, QI. But to me not eye-catching enough for an FP. ~~Btw: Geocoding seems wrong (but that's not the point).~~ --A.Savin 23:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Geocoding is correct, the map is not very good. --Ivar (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, what map do you use? I use satellite view of GoogleMaps and it shows me a road, but obviously not a river. --A.Savin 11:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Satellite map is not very good, because big trees are covering small river, better try this --Ivar (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, now I see it. --A.Savin 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image --Famberhorst (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vamps (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear support voters, please don't forget that FP should represent the "very best" of Commons, which means that - unlike QI - their total count should grow, at most, just proportionately to the growth of the total image count on Commons. In 2012, almost 1.000 images have become FP, far more than each year before. As we all hopefully don't want an inflation of the FP star, please, don't confuse FPC with QIC, and consider that a "nice image" or "good quality" alone is not sufficient to be the "very best". Thank you. --A.Savin 23:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that of course, but I still think the picture is very good and represents the very best of Commons. I understand that you don't think so, but that's okay. Tomer T (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically I mean some comments à la "nice image" etc. There's nothing personal against the author and/or nominator, pls. don't get me wrong. But several currently active FP voters seem never to oppose anything, which - as you may comprehend - I find a very problematic development for the FP project. Maybe it's a bit offtopic, but imho (!) there should be no more than ~400 new FP's per year; as nearly every FP deserves to be a POTD one time and a year has 365 days. --A.Savin 09:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't take that so dramatically. The number of images that are uploaded to Commons has also skyrocketed and less than 1000 new featured images out of ca 3.5 million that were uploaded in 2012 is quit a small number. When some people only give positive votes then they are still (hopefully) selecting where they give them (that is to the images they really like).
    - When I started with the new front page in Estonian Wikipedia in September 2008 and needed weekly input, then for the first years that was really difficult to find new images (related to Estonia). For example I started writing articles about well known Estonian photographers and asked some example images from them. Later I moved to organizing photo competitions. Now the situation is so that there are more good images coming then there is room for them in the front page ... at a moment 60+ images are waiting for their turn as a picture of the week. So the situation has changed over the years and now we have much more quality images than we have had before and more are coming. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral For me it is a bit hard to take a side as even thou I like the image much I am not sure that the sky is good enough. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely scene.--Arcalino (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Rhein-Herne-Kanal-Abenstimmung.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2013 at 23:03:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Evening mood at Rhine-Herne-Canal (Oberhausen, Germany)

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about moving it to fix the typo in the title? File:Rhein-Herne-Kanal-Abendstimmung.jpg. Lupo 16:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the best way to do it? I am still unsure how to (let) images delete und rename on Commons. The problem is that the image is already used in different articles. But I think a typo in the file name is non an FP issue. The image is correctly categorized. --16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Typo in filename is corrected (thanks to the admins for the fast renaming). Only the nomination name is wrong, but I think that is not important and I would not like to break the FP process. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The atmosphere isn't bad, but for an FP I expect some more wow, sorry. --A.Savin 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the mood a lot. Perhaps a little less foreground? --99of9 (talk) 12:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. There was nothing really intersting in the foreground. The compositional idea was to use the waterside as vanishing line. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose per A.Savin. Tomer T (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antilope cervicapra from velavadar.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 09:51:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chinmayisk - uploaded by Chinmayisk - nominated by Chinmayisk -- Chinmayisk (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chinmayisk (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Right crop too tight.Fotoriety (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Fotoriety. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The crop is an issue, but it is still good enough overall. Michael Barera (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too tight cropping from right, but i like it personally. Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture even the crop is tight.--Arcalino (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Fotoriety. Tight crop. -- Joydeep _Talk 18:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edible fungi in basket 2012 G1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 18:47:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is rather interesting... --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aleks G (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic but little wow to me--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's a bit on the dark side, but I still like it :) --heb [T C E] 13:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but see Moroder, sorry. --A.Savin 23:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good, but too low on "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this pic anyway. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still like the image and specially the colors. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great picture of great trophies! Miraceti (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Gidip (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Fibroblastid.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 21:10:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heiti Paves - uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also added English description. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing to say the least. Juan Lacruz (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A stunning picture of both scientific and artistic merit. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting. --99of9 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support A very nice and interesting picture. However I think it really cries out for some description of how the image was made. Maybe it was made like this one - computer generated from a 3D model based on w:confocal laser scanning microscopy using fluorescent marker dyes, if I understand Google's autotranslation of the Estonian description correctly. My support is weak only because the description is lacking. --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American style windmotor.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 01:55:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Callistemon-rigidus-02.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 22:09:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archibald Tuttle - uploaded by Archibald Tuttle - nominated by Archibald Tuttle -- Archibald Tuttle (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archibald Tuttle (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral—I am very close to supporting it, but there is a lot of coarse noise at closer zooms—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think the composition is both confusing and not very appealing. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 11:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kath. Pfarrkirche hl. Jakobus der Ältere.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 11:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Steinsplitter -- Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the hillside is hiding the church, the angle is bad chosen, not a harmonic composition over all --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition likewise, but QI thou. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Michael Barera (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not a balanced composition IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Batus barbicornis MHNT femelle.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:25:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter23 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support !!! J Kadavoor J e e 13:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 07:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent detail.Fotoriety (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Peter23 for his choice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support high level of details. Very interesting.--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Speedway Extraliiga 22. 5. 2010 - Joni Keskinen erässä 4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 16:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Kallerna - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice action shot --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely yes.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cj.samson (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Action please --Pitlane02 _talk 23:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:The Forth Rail Bridge, September 2012.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 15:59:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by George Gastin - uploaded by George Gastin - nominated by Capmo -- Capmo (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition (bridge + reflex), great colours. -- Capmo (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful but too soft and noisy, a pity. --A.Savin 16:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are image quality issues certainly, but sometimes the "wow" factor is enough for me to overlook them as long as the quality's not horrendously bad. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely pic. The sharpness is satisfactory - when downsampled 50% & sharpened, it is still 2.6 MP and crisp. ~~I'd prefer a 2:1 aspect ratio, even though that loses the foreground detail at the bottom.~~ -- Colin (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I now see better the diagonal line leading towards the bottom right. So the aspect is fine. Colin (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Still, it's a nice photo... :) Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition and color is impressive enough to overlook zoom flaws. Mono 02:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive! Michael Barera (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but full ack. A.Savin. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Savin, technical issues --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous. It is art, and the color range is pushed to far IMO. FP should be avoiding denaturing reality IMO again, being more ojective than subjective.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Wonderful light, color and compostion, despite some problems with quality --Ximeg (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per above. --Ivar (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others.--Jebulon (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As an option - a little noise cleaned and sharpen file (updated). --Aleks G (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tolmuterad.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 21:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heiti Paves - uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need more information about this image: what is it exactly? Is it colored by computer? Thanks Capmo (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, it seems to be a computer generated image with a confocal microscope about pollen grains of Arabidopsis. I'll try to contact the author and ask from him more detailed info. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks, Kruusamägi, you seem to be right. I found a related featured picture by the same uploader. In this case specifically I don't find the image impressive enough to become a FP. Capmo (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I don't think it has quite enough "wow" factor. Michael Barera (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better description now added. Take a look. Kruusamägi (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tram in Budapest.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2013 at 18:37:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Federico Orsini -- RimOrso (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RimOrso (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if this picture can be a FP, due to the high digital manipulation. On the guidelines it is written that the manipulation should not be intended to deceive the viewer, and this is not the case. Anyway I really like this picture and I hope it is not against the guidelines. -- RimOrso (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice idea and nice picture. but the manipulation runs against the encyclopaedic value. but there are still other reasons: (1) the image is very noisy (2) the bollards are hiding the tram (3) we have a perspective distortion --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to low image quality and tram hidden behind the bollards. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Церковь Большого Дворца. Петергоф.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 05:53:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aleks G (talk) 05:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Красивое фото. Я часто бывал здесь. На мой взгляд, следует немного отрезать справа, а то край тёмный получился. Однако поддерживаю в любом случае -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs brightening on the trees, and highlights reduction on the roof. Желательно уменьшить контраст между деревьями справа и крышей церкви. Неплохо было бы более высокое разрешение. В настоящее время файл едва превышает требуемый минимум (2 мп). --A.Savin 21:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done A new version of a larger size + correction... --Aleks G (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, every time I try to download it I only get the 2 MB version. --A.Savin 19:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Видимо ошибка сервера - сейчас, вроде, загружается нормально...--Aleks G (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Good composition, lighting, stunning water drops of fountain, lovely leaves on trees – everything is pretty! Однако у меня опять же открывается версия 2 Mpx... Кто-то должен это починить. --Ximeg (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the rules, please avoid using other templates than simple "support" or "oppose", and write your comments like "weak" or "strong", otherwise it may cause troubles to the bot in counting votes, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Против каверз здешних серверов мало чего можно сделать. Единственный способ - загрузить файл под другим именем. Только надо ссылки поправить, или со старого имени устроить перенаправление. --A.Savin 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reflection is nice, but it is unfortunately cropped, therefore, I think there is too much water for a too ( unnecessarily) centered picture. I'd crop out the "calm" water in foreground for a more attractive composition. I don't vote for the moment.--Jebulon (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new version. --A.Savin 22:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Очень интересно --Stas1995 (talk) 07:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support О, последняя версия - то, что надо. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Näljakangur (22305).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 22:59:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Just a little bit low on "wow," but good for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low on wow. Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...just take it as a memorial of a Great Famine of Estonia. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port of Sillamäe, Aug 2008, 2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 23:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Hannu - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Many sharpening artifacts. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cervino 2012.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 14:37:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by SteGrifo27 (tell me)
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OK it is a very beautiful place, and the lighting was good. On the composition side, I am not found of the squared centered aspect. On the quality side, I am really opposed at the moment because of the chromatic noise in the sky.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition - too much sky, not enough mountain-range. --99of9 (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting for me --Stas1995 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chrysaetos La Cañada 20120114 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 09:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A golden eagle in flight in the province of Ávila, Spain. Created by Juan lacruz - uploaded by Juan lacruz - nominated by Juan lacruz -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Juan Lacruz (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant Poco a poco (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support The wings are a little too tight, but still OK for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd prefer the dark area in the upper right corner to be cloned out. --A.Savin 14:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cloning the dark area out (a bush actually) would probably result in a more aesthetic image. However I'd rather prefer not to "retouch" it an leave it as shot. --Juan Lacruz 17:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Neutral At the moment, until right upper corner fixed.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the dark area --Juan Lacruz 21:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now. --A.Savin 21:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support now.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Kadavoor J e e 06:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Earth poster.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 23:13:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! Tatiraju.rishabh (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was just about to nominate it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you make a spanish version?, Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done—File:Afiche de la Tierra.svg—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok now :p --The Photographer (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice composition, but I think that some labels could be improved: "Ocean" and "Continent" both seem to point to clouds; try to find places to position them where there are no clouds. "Atmosphere" also could point a bit farther from the globe, it's almost touching it. The others are fine. Capmo (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the labels. I didn't move "Atmosphere"—it's close because the atmosphere is extremely thin. The Kármán line(boundary between atmosphere and space) lies 100 km from the surface—the same width as the two brown "Rigid mantle and Crust" layers. The label is currently pointing to somewhere in the Stratosphere.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Béria Lima ^msg 12:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Flickr - Official U.S. Navy Imagery - Pilots assigned to the Blue Angels join their F-A-18 Hornet strike fighter over the Gulf of Mexico - cropped.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 22:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy Mass Communications Specialist 3 Andrew Johnson and cropped by Pine - crop uploaded by Pine - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support this dramatic photo. I believe that the photographer is reflected a little in the cockpit window but that may be impossible to avoid in a photo like this. -- Pine^✉ 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPer above—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Surely the reflections can be shopped-out with a little effort?! If you want to avoid reflections (or minimise their impact) then you should place the camera as close to the glass as possible.Fotoriety (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice: this would be a full support if not for the reflections. Michael Barera (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reflections and bad crop. Yann (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support weak for the reflection; I don't mind so much the crop due to the context.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to the reflections --High Contrast (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gerald Ford hearing2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 18:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info photographed by Thomas J. O'Halloran - cropped, cleaned up, and uploaded by Durova - nominated by Michael Barera -- Michael Barera (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain (as nominator) -- Michael Barera (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support One of my favorite Presidents Spartan7W (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose need denoise --The Photographer (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a fine historical photo, I personally don't view a denoising as necessary. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Denoising would destroy this otherwise good restoration. It's quite horrifying to see this request popping up every now and then when people nominate analogue photographs. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not old enough to get amazingly special consideration. I don't think the pose, composition, or quality are outstanding enough to justify FP. Valuable, yes, featured... not for me. --99of9 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heimerdingen Vordere Gasse 10 (2).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 18:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Harke - uploaded by Harke - nominated by Harke -- Harke (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Harke (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Michael Barera (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, I don't like the crop on the left. Tomer T (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T. --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Benreis (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katta-Zoo-Muenster.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 18:57:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO flashy unnattural colors, therefore stronger than realistic contrast, though this is really good for composition.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure, I could upload another version, but I think the coat and eyes are brought out well with my editing. The colors are that way. I look forward to the other comments. IMHO flash usage should not be condemned in general with animal photography. Photos at noon become much better with moderate flash than without. Flash correction was set to -1. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Neutral Really nice capture, I just was going to support, but... the focus seems somewhere on the fur, whereas it should have been on the head. --A.Savin 20:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info According to EXIF focus was on the right eye. IMHO the left eye is slightly sharper with the result that the coat comes out well. For me sharpness on both eyes is still OK. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Support Normally I don't like that flash is (that much) visible but in this image it just seems to support the result greatly. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lupus 3 dark cloud.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 19:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO - uploaded by Miraceti - nominated by Miraceti -- Miraceti (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A superb image. --Miraceti (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is desirable to reduce the noise and make the photo more contrast to the black expanse of space was black. I think the picture will only gain... --Aleks G 22:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plano del pueblo de Nuestra Señora de Altagracia c.1704.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown (1704) - uploaded by Hahc21 - nominated by Hahc21 — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I added an English translation to the image description. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Short finals to RW22R at NCE Airport.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2013 at 22:46:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Olivier Cleynen - uploaded by Olivier Cleynen - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 22:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 22:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very cool! Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severely overexposed. Plus I don't like the tilt, even if it is on purpose. Also strong distortions. Yann (talk) 06:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a tilt, or is there? The horizon is (about) horizontal. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great subject, composition and everything, but the image quality, sadly, is too low, with heavily clipped whites, strong color fringing/CAs, heavy noise and low overall sharpness. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose bad quality. --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 23:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Definitely has the wow-factor for me. MartinD (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed on the outside and rather underexposed plus a lot of noise on the inside. It is of course difficult to get good lighting inside and outside the cockpit, but it is not impossible. --El Grafo (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your examples use fill flash and extensive Photoshopping. Is there any room in Featured Pictures for images that are not heavily manipulated? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also notice an opposite standard adopted in animal photos. Extensive fill flash is universally condemned as unnatural. So humans in an unnatural environment require unnatural lighting to meet FP standards, while animals in a natural environment require natural lighting? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't see overexposure as the main problem here, that alone - if unavoidable - would be ok. Although it could be avoided in a dawn/dusk situation. The problem here is very bad quality which could be fixed with slight (non-manipulative) raw editing and a better camera. --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor lighting and chromatic aberrations everywhere. --99of9 (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --Stas1995 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Francis Bay Fire -007.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 19:26:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the contrast between the tranquil waterside environment and the total destruction behind it NJR_ZA (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place, but not convinced by the lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for your comment but could you please elaborate by not convinced by the lighting --Rute Martins of Leoa's Photography (www.leoa.co.za) 15:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject is in half-shadow, and the sky is a washed-out light blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per KoH.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts --Stas1995 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steinen-Hofen - Evangelische Kirche13.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 20:06:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I see halos around the building and the trees. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some lightning imperfections.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place but remarkable haloes. Maybe it can be corrected? I'd also prefer the wire to be cloned out, a bit of sharpening wouldn't harm either. --A.Savin 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info I moved the thumb of the "Better Version?" a little bit up as it was in the "wrong floor", on the same level of the following picture on this page.--G Furtado (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The halo issue seems to be better now, but why crop the tree on the right? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the new version (actually a different shot afaics) has no haloes, but I dislike the crop at the right. --A.Savin 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hellenurme järv (Elva jõgi).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 17:10:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Clipped whites in the clouds. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too simple scenery. Tomer T (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great scene, lovely reflection. But I prefer featured monuments a bit more close up. --Uberprutser (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sauromalus hispidus - Crotaphytus collaris.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 16:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oh cute! Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo,very good sharpness. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Cute! But the flash is too strong and gives the image a typically unremarkable night-time flash photo quality.Fotoriety (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cute, but bad background. Tomer T (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very Beautiful, However, I prefer natural light. I think this type of light can damage the eyes of an animal forever, please be more careful --The Photographer (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash is just too strong. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apis florea worker 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 20:23:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The flower parts on bottom are disturbing the composition; but good efforts. J Kadavoor J e e 06:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Algol AB movie imaged with the CHARA interferometer.gif, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 20:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dr. Fabien Baron - uploaded by Stigmatella aurantiaca - nominated by Stigmatella aurantiaca -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This movie of Algol illustrates the extremely high resolution of modern optical interferometric techniques in astronomy. The images used for this animation vary in quality, but the best have a resolution of 0.5 milliarcseconds, or about 200 times better than the Hubble Space Telescope. -- Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems interesting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support astonishing --Llez (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Yann (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support high value and cleanly demonstrated. --99of9 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very high value. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent illustration. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value, huge wow if you know what you're looking at. Kleuske (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Belgrade sunrise.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 02:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peachoftree - uploaded by Peachoftree - nominated by Peachoftree -- Peachoftree (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peachoftree (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice but too much noise --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Earth's atmosphere.svg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 01:14:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Slice diagram showing layers of Earth's atmosphere. All by Kelvinsong — Kelvinsong (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the rationale for having it be tilted? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know, I thought it helped bring out the 3-D shape. Random artistic thing. I uploaded a new upright version.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose At the moment, the shape inclined is not OK, and the layers at the bottom are too close.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a new upright version. I cannot do anything about the layers at the bottom being too close, that's just how they are—Expanding them would either 1) Make the diagram ridiculously large or 2) Take it out of scale, rendering it useless.—Kelvinsong (talk) 14:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Support strongly for EV, but still not fully convinced by the compressed ratio at the bottom.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Béria Lima ^msg 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it hard to tell at which altitude on the background scale the objects (the balloon for example) are without looking at the values. And the ISS has an orbital altitude of 330 to 410 km, I think this illustration makes it appear to consistently be at 350 km. Not sure if it would clutter the illustration to add this info, though. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new version with the range.—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It took a while for me to "get" that the image is intended to be a three-dimensional, prismatic cross-sectional slice through the atmosphere. I understand the taper is to reflect the fact that this is a radial slice, but the top and bottom triangles of the slice do not match—the angles are very different. Are you trying to convey a sense of perspective? Why are you using a ground-based view of the aurorae? Should you not be using a space-based view? Perhaps if you experimented with re-positioning the clouds in the lower levels, the mental confusion that I have can be alleviated. My brain says, "this is supposed to be three-dimensional", but my gut remains unconvinced. Most of the big stuff is bunched up at the rear face of the prism, hardly anything is towards the front edge, adding to my feeling that this is not "really" a three dimensional view. In that case, what's wrong with a good old-fashioned planar diagram? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the aurorae are correct in their perspective. They look the same from 30° above and from 30° below, as they are transparent. And I didn't find the perspective so difficult to understand, really. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently viewing the diagram on a monitor in which the top portion of the diagram is almost solid black. I can barely see the triangular top of the prismatic section. This forces the entire diagram to look two-dimensional, like a black strip of construction paper with some colored triangles at the bottom. On my monitor at home, however, I can clearly see the top of the prism and the shading intended to give a three-dimensional effect. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1—For the auroræ, you may be seeing an optical illusion, which causes them to seem reversed. 2—Only the cumulonimbus clouds are at the back, the rest of the objects are in the middle or in the front. 3—please see Commons:Image guidelines.—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1—I would say that it is more due to subtle features of aerial perspective that cause my mind to insist that, for instance, the right side of the auroral arc at 10 o'clock, being duller in color, is further away than the left side, and this forces my mental orientation of the other auroral arcs. Compare with ISS photographs of aurorae as seen from space. The Necker cube works because of a complete lack of perspective cues. 2—Yes, and they are far more prominent than the cirrus clouds or the barely visible contrails. 3—The typical computer user does not generally adjust their monitors according to the careful standards outlined. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1—There are no volumetrics in this image—while it would certainly help with judging locations of objects, it is an extremely complex effect that's hard to do in inkscape, and even harder under librsvg. Plus the air is so thin it's almost nonexistent in the thermosphere anyway. The only reason the aurora looks brighter in the back left is because there's a bend and it's curving away from the camera, so you're seeing two layers of auroræ there, as well as a fresnel effect. Also, auroræ aren't homogenous in color and brightness, they an vary and taper off in brightness, even towards the viewer.

3—There is a reason why those guidelines exist—so illustrators and photographers know they are seeing the same things as the reviewers. If I were to brighten the triangle for you, then everyone else would be seeing a too-bright triangle.—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the concept of this image was a very difficult one to pull off. You gave yourself a real challenge here. I visited your user page, by the way. You've done some really beautiful and impressive work! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've brightened the triangle a little, better now?—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can let you know Monday lunchtime when I'm free to browse from work. I expect it to be much better. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it from my work monitor. Much better. Just remember that on LCD displays, viewing angle strongly affects the appearance. Even with the brightening, when viewed from the wrong angle, the shapes at the top disappear. What would happen if you outlined the edges? Would that be too cartoonish? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could give you a long, stupid, "artist-person" answer, but it would probably be incomprehensible to most, so short answer is no—more or less the same reason you mentioned.—Kelvinsong (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only after reading Stigmatella aurantiaca's comment did I notice that this is supposed to represent a 3D object. I was thinking all the time that it was flat and having a very strange shape. I agree that it's because the triangular top is too dark and hardly can be seen. The sides could also be of more distinct colors. Capmo (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've increased the brightness of the top triangle and the contrast in the thermosphere, even though it violates the shading system in the rest of the picture. For Capmo, the sides are shaded differently, but it's very hard to see on a transparent object—they have little shading, so we usually rely on reflection—something which doesn't apply to a volume like air.—Kelvinsong (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scots Pin Utö, January 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2013 at 23:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Scots Pine (Pinus sylvestris), east part of Utö, Haninge Municipality, Stockholm archipelago. In the background the Baltic Sea, with some sea smoke. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice indeed, please see the notes (minor CA). --Ivar (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Done.--ArildV (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support now. --Ivar (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poco a poco (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice picture, dramatic scene!--Arcalino (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scene is a kind of a winter's tale! Reminds me a bit of one of my recent FP's, so I guess I can only support ;-) --A.Savin 20:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aleks G (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the horizontal crops, especially the one on the right part.--Llorenzi (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support simply wow. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Benreis (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Llorenzi is definitively not wrong, but I like this picture and overall it's excellent IMHO. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 13:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Smerinthus ocellatus MHNT Female.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 22:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great !--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A little less crop of the sides would have been perfect.Fotoriety (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to Citron. The black background is interesting for several reasons. Edge definition is fine, and the colors are sharper because a white background, always interferes.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Jebulon (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vintage Köhler sewing machine.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 11:54:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uberprutser - uploaded by Uberprutser - nominated by Uberprutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but no "wow" for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment come on, you must be capable of a bit more constructive comment. :) --Uberprutser (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the crop is too tight, and the lighting and setting doesn't make the subject pop out at you. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No enough "wow" effect (per King of Hearts) --Stas1995 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a sewing machine, it's not supposed to "wow" Especially when you're a bloke :) --Uberprutser (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:China Aster (Callistephus Chinensis).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 06:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Jovianeye -- Jovian Eye _storm 06:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jovian Eye _storm 06:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Just" a flower picture, but somehow this one looks more crisp and inviting than others. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Central color burnt.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Burnt? I don't think so. No part of the image is over-exposed. --Jovian Eye _storm 10:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not say 'over exposed'. Burnt color in a sense that your delta color is insufficient on the center of the picture, plus what says Poco a poco. Histogram is not all in a photography.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject and lighting, but it lacks detail due to reduced size and too shallow DoF (f/3,5), that could have been increased with lower shutter speed, also the branch on the left is disturbing Poco a poco (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Aperture value is tricky in these kind of shots. A higher F-number would mean an even more disturbing background. I would have agreed with you if I chose f/1.8. --Jovian Eye _storm 10:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support By King of Hearts: Only a simple (motive and composition) picture of a flower but somehow special. DoF is more than sufficient, I am with Jovianeye: smoother bokeh is better than larger DoF in this case. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice picture!--Arcalino (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice one, but the background is a bit heterogenous and the detail a bit poor I'm afraid. Nevertheless a QI to me, try this. --A.Savin 20:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly because of the wrong choice of lens. Not much details and disturbing background; a longer focal length may solve all these issues. Further, I prefer an inclined AOV than flat on the flower. JKadavoor Jee 13:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont own a macro lens (a pity)...and what you are pointing to is a studio shot most definitely taken with a tripod to achieve a large DOF. --Jovian Eye _storm 15:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - An effordable lens is the new AF-S 40mm of Nikon, the macro quality is very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes Joe, good macro lens are expensive. You may try with a macro filter in-front of your normal lens. It will help to reduce the subject distance; thus able to grab more subject details. Further it blur the background, separating/highlighting the subject. J Kadavoor J e e 07:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not interesting to me (I dislike flowers being shot from above in perfect symmetry), and more important, unpleasant bokeh (the stem on the left). You can try cropping out the stem and go for a squared frame.Gidip (talk) 11:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Héron garde-boeufs.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2013 at 16:43:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pierre Dalous - nominated by citron -- Citron (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Like it --Uberprutser (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems a bit underexposed to me, and the stain on the lower right is disturbing and should be fixed or cropped. Gidip (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or is it not the picture nominated under that is overexposed ... ?--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I like it very much for the colors and lights but I have to agree on the stain.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nadia Comaneci 1977.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 09:13:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Jonas kam - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, Blur, Low size... --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2013 (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: far less than 2 Mpx resolution Kruusamägi (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (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.

Oppose because this is not among my favorite pictures of this fantastic athlete. I do not oppose because of technical issues. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question — Why are we applying current standards to a 1977 photo? This was taken in relatively low light conditions using film of ISO rating no more than about 400 or so (does not look more than slightly "pushed"). Scanning at higher resolution would not bring out more detail. Noise is intrinsic to the film process. The photo was taken at a static moment in her routine (which is why I do not particularly care for it). Photos taken in more dynamic moments would have quite a bit of motion blur. Are we to exclude all pre-digital age photos because they cannot match current technological standards? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When something is pre-digital then it doesn't mean it has to be small etc. Old photos may be excellent in thous issues (example). Or well... when talking about size then even photos of this person could fulfill the current quality requirements if it would be possible to get high quality scans from the museum (they exist, but are not public). Kruusamägi (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana-001.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 00:23:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love this, but you should fix posterization in the shadows. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And that is why one should always have more than one person look at a photo, I totally missed that. Will speak to the photographer and ask her to correct it and re-upload --NJR_ZA (talk) 01:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I need some help here .... I have uploaded twice now. Just to clarify - the original viewed at 175% on my screen, does not show the posterization. The second one I uploaded, (with crop and a bit of sharpness) I checked it before uploading and there was no posterization, however the upload shows it. I then decided to upload the original (crop only - no other editing whatsoever done) and the uploaded version still shows it. Bear in mind that none of my uploads show it prior to uploading. How do I fix something that does not show on my screen before uploading? Any advice would be appreciated.
  - Comment Try doing a purge (won't necessarily work!). I clearly see the difference between the original and subsequent versions, but maybe you are seeing only the original version. It's possible that I'm hitting a different file server than you are. I recently saw a similar glitch whereby I was looking at one version of an image, the author was looking at a different version of the image, purging didn't help, and only with time did we come to see the same image! See the discusson concerning Radioactive decay modes.svg Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 09:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but not enough knowledge about the technical issues KOH mentioned above. J Kadavoor J e e 14:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maire (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for fixing the issue. Great "wow" factor. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment KoH, We are still not sure where the posterization was introduced, but at least it is gone now. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice details and nice composition, Welcome to the Iguana club --The Photographer (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great moment and amazing quality, that iguana looks real in my monitor Poco a poco (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Joydeep _Talk 16:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iguana see more of this ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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