Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2014

File:Vespa cabro vs. Apis mellifera.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 20:51:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.Ligero & I.Barrios - uploaded by Alurín - nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting event, but the Vespa in unsharp, and the background very noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good idea but bad quality /St1995 10:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Thanks for your comments. --Alurín (talk) 12:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Chess Queen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 21:53:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Fowler - uploaded & nominated by —Mono 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Mono 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reduced noise from the sky. --Ivar (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit oversaturated though.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think a square crop is the best way to do this, but still very good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice noiseless sky. Daniel Case (talk) 04:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  20:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 02:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ceiling Civitas Dei, Entrance of the Cathedral, Aachen, Germany.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 01:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Civitas Dei" (the City of God), neo byzantine mosaic of the ceiling at the entrance of the Cathedral of Aachen, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany. The "City" looks like the cathedral itself, surrounded by allegories of the four major rivers of the Antiquity -- Jebulon (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I support also after the edits. Tomer T (talk) 18:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted ccw Poco² 22:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. Horizontal lines of the city are... horizontal.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but I disagree, the horizontals I see are not horizontal, see note Poco² 17:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - You nitpicker ( but right. Please notice anyway that this design is not flat ) ! --Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the mosaic but I don´t like the format. The ratio of length and wide of the image doesn't work here with the image itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not far of your opinion. My goal is to provide always the more informations possible, but sometimes it does not work very well, and I know I should "sacrify" parts of pictures, but it is not in my mind, and I'm wrong...Do you suggest a crop like this one ? (see annotation)--Jebulon (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also would go for a crop like the one suggested. But leave the original for encyclopaedica purposes! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's go for the new version, with a better crop (original is kept as first upload) ! Thanks to reviewers, their idea is actually an improvement.--Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The new version works. --Godot13 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the crop is an improvement for this image, but the not symmetric pattern of the arcs distract the image impression, nice documentary image, nice mosaic, but not an impressive picture, I´ve seen much more impressive pictures of intersections --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice detail, interesting subject, good crop, but still tilted Poco² 11:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- horizontals ? Verticals ? I don't see what I could change. Remember this is an arched vault...--Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Girl Posing at Glacier Point Yosemite 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2014 at 14:33:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Posing girl at Glacier Point with Half Dome in the background
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice. Tomer T (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request Maybe you could add the "personality rights template" in the file description page ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done But imho she is not identifyable on the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jebulon is right, she is. Tomer T (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I tried it several times but didn't come to the conclusion that this composition is really featurable. I don't observe any harmony between the girl and the background. Is she actually posing? it doesn't look like that to me. Maybe that pose makes somehow sense from a different angle, no clue. Btw, it is blueish, you should increse the temperature a bit. Regarding personality rights, please, go ahead, is it allowed to stay there? I know the place and don't remember such an spot. Poco² 21:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Poco for your careful review. First: I've uploaded a new version with slightly modified WB, but I think WB is OK (even a bit too warm when you take the sun side of Half Dome as basis).
  Some background information to the photo: The rock where the girl is sitting looks more dangerous than it is - it is far from being dangerous :) The "rock" is about 1 meter high and is easy to go there. It is located on the public accessible part of Glacier Point, it is like a podium. The clue is that behind the "rock" there is no deep hollow (as the choosen perspective pretends) but just the normal visiting point where other tourist walk around :) The idea for the photo was: A lot of tourist (also me) go there and pose in front of Half Dome and take a photo. I saw this girl there during her friends were photographing her and asked if I can also take a photo. To the composition: For me there is a lot of tension between her and Half Dome. The curvature of her body corresponds to the curvature of the Half Dome - I tried to capture this moment. Also the sun lightens her well - head and legs are bright, her shirt is in shadow. I hope you understand my motivation of the nomination and the context of the photo better now?! --Tuxyso (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  Add: On this photo you can see the "dangerous" situation quite well. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to you for the detailed explanation and motivation, still, I'll keep the opposing vote. Poco² 13:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem. Just to be sure: Your only remaining reason for opposing is missing Wow of the composition, right? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - No wow at all due to the fact that this composition is IMHO artificial, looking at the picture I don't see the harmony you seem to observe, even after your explanation. She on that rock is rather a disturbing element to a nice background Poc o² 17:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support wowww. Impressively and dangerous. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco a Poco. Although the image is technically good, I don't find the theme or composition featurable. Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support because this is the closest I've ever seen (and for that matter may ever see) anyone come to properly imitating a Maxfield Parrish "girl on a rock" illustration in a photograph. Really ... you should have had her dressed like one of his models, and just gone wild with the color saturation and the light on the rocks. Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Daniel for your informative comment. Up to now I have not known these illustrations, but you are right there are some similarities :) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Daniel Case's explanation of the similarity in composition to Maxfield Parrish illustrations. JesseW (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now, I'm the master of the future of this picture... If I oppose... Mmmmh delicious ! Happy new year !--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three more minutes for that cute girl. J e e 14:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Red Bridge Embalse Burro Negro.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 20:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Red Bridge Embalse Burro Negro. All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not the best sharpness due to the f/3.8 aperture. Nice colors but composition-wise I'd include more at the bottom (wider). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DoF missing (f/3.8), sorry. --XRay ^talk 16:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vendor babies Balls.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 20:00:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No "wow" effect. Just an ordinary snapshot. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 09:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Florian Fuchs St1995 12:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Florian Fuchs --XRay ^talk 16:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glacier diagram.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 00:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A picture of an alpine glacier and surrounding landscape characteristics. Made with ♥ by kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer ^TALK 07:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MainFrame (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very useful. Halavar (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chamaeleo namaquensis (Walvis Bay).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 13:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yathin sk - uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the best pics I've seen in the last few months. Just tested the new fave gadget with it. --A.Savin 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great  Richard  [®]  20:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Alex. J e e 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, great image! Halavar (talk) 22:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Solves the DoF problem perfectly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mercedes-Benz Museum 201312 08 blue hour.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 07:30:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MainFrame (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hard to find any shortcomings here. Probably the crop at the left looks a bit random / unmotivated to me despite its function of bringing the main motive out of the center. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'am not a friend of too tight crops ... let it breathe.  Richard  [®]  20:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment, neither am I, really. I didn't shoot it wider because there were some distractions on the right. I probably should have. I could include more on the top though, would that help? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of centered composition Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Étang de Thau, Mèze 04.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 19:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love the peaceful atmosphere. Technical quality and DoF are excellent. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not fond of the composition: not balanced due to much earth in the foreground Poc o² 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilea involucrata, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 01.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 18:15:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes, it's OOF. ISO 800 with noise kicks also in. --Ivar (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fear, that's right. The picture is not sharp. That's why I didn't consider to nominate it to QI, either. Poc o² 22:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor technical quality, and blur. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tuc-tucs en la Calle Maha Rat, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 01.jpg[reply]

File:Porto Covo July 2013-25.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:50:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Walking on the beach in Porto Covo, Portugal. Long live minimalism! All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) I really like the interplay of different surfaces: brown beach, water+beach with a nice diagonal line and white parts, water with a gradient from green to blue. My opposing reason is due to the person walking there. Her white dress creates imho not enough contrast to the white water parts beneath her and thus the walking person does not work as central compositional element for me in that tiny size, sorry. Nonetheless quality and idea is very good. Probably a black dress and a white bag had been perfect :) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality and technically flawless but there is nothing featureable. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposers. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing featureable /St1995 19:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't find the theme or composition featurable + no wow. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trichomes of Arabidopsis thaliana edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 21:08:31 (UTC)

Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to understand, whether this is intended just as a modern art contribution or as a scientific contribution? The file descriptions are very short and for some of the images only a file description in Estonian is given. A size scale is neither provided in the images nor in the file description, though at least some of the images appear to represent different magnifications. I understand that all images are electron microscopy images, being artifically coloured, but I don't understand the colour coding. Why is a yellow colour chosen for some trichomes while the others are coloured in green/blue/red? -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, thous are SEM images that have been artificially colored (technology uses beam of electrons, not light, and therefor allows no color), but the images have no specific color coding -- only goal seems to be to distinguish the trichomes from the leaf. I would view it as both modern art and as scientific contribution. Even the author is know for both of his scientific work and from photography (example). I asked from author to add the information about the size of the structures on the images. As additional information I might point out that this series (and there where some other images as well, that I didn't included to this nomination) won the Estonian Science Photo Competition 2013. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support enough wow for me. --Ivar (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think it is justified to feature five similar images of the same subject at once. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are you exactly opposing? Are the images bad or you just don't like that there's a 5 of them? And how should I choose if they are "five similar images"? Btw there where more images uploaded by Heiti, but I already choose the most different ones to show how different the trichomes can be. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I may support this nomination, if you compile the set into a single image and if appropriate scientific information is provided in the image description (scale information, instrument used, differences between the investigated samples, if any, etc.) -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow factor and high scientific and educational value. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the step, I want more good scientific pictures for Wikimedia --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe "artsy", but not scientific IMO. Colorization troubles me, I don't know where is the truth, even with explanations. And colorization is not well done technically, especially on the last image. --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should I withdraw this nomination and nominate thous images as one-by-one? Kruusamägi (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LighthouseKiipsaate.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2014 at 16:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Info Lighthouse is really leaning. --Ivar (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, OK, but "featurable" ?--Jebulon (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hm, the main, the lighthouse, is simple to dark. The rest another random sunset image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lighthouse seems half inclined. ArionEstar (talk) 15:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems inclined because it is inclined.--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) Inclined or not in real, it destroys imho the harmony of the composition. The slightly diagonal coastline is nice, but not the lighthouse. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. While it is a nice sunset image -- the focus is the lighthouse, and more detail on is needed for featured quality. JesseW (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well I prefer the silhouette. I tried also HDR and different exposure settings but this one is definitely the best result. The lighthouse has not many details to be exposed. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp + composition. I expect the lighthouse more on right than blocking the view as here. Expect more grass; now it is ending on the left bottom corner of the frame. J e e 02:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geweihförmige Holzkeule - Staghorn fungus - Xylaria hypoxylon - 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 07:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created uploaded and nominated by -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. J e e 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Fungi

File:Tallinna Niguliste kirik 22-03-2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 12:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn, all by Ivar (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light is excellent as usual with your shots but imho the composition is unbalanced. I guess that you would like to take the nice "onion dome" at the very left into the picture. But the problem is that the church, your main motive, is turned to the right image border and thus creates due to its right placement an unbalance. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) There still is something in the composition that is annoying me but I am not exactly sure what it is ;) Kruusamägi (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support ArionEstar (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Use bot friendly templates; please. J e e 02:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:A5 with Frankfurt airport on the horizon - Autobahn A5 mit Flughafen Frankfurt am Horizont - 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 11:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Light traces of traffic: Many cars and one airplane.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as nominator. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was just about to nominate it :) Tomer T (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice symmetry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Wir fahr'n fahr'n fahr'n auf der Autobahn ...". Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Munich subway station Mangfallplatz.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:02:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Munich subway station Mangfallplatz with train arriving - all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, although the signs and the clocks are a bit overexposed.--Florian Fuchs (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's true, Florian. Usually the lighting in underground stations is very demanding, often being too bright and too dark at the same time. The dynamic range in need is huge. So this image forms a compromise. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment That's why I supported it anyway. Although, you might have considered creating a DRI... --Florian Fuchs (talk) 16:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Yes, in fact I had considered that option, but there were too many non-static elements, i.e. the train and the passengers. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment With a DRI you could have chosen certain parts from each picture. In that case e.g. the signs from a picture with a shorter exposure time and the remaining parts from the photo displayed here. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Unfortunately I'm still not really familiar with exposure blending and HDR techniques - sounds like a good new year's resolution ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny, this is my subwaystation. I live 300m from there :-)  Richard  [®]  20:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Florian Fuchs, but per the author answers too...--Jebulon (talk) 15:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The picture is a bit soft to me, and the design of this station doesn't generate much of wow (this one is way more interesting), although the long exposure of the train is of course a very nice idea. --A.Savin 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Whatever one thinks of the station's design, I like the composition it offered. I wish the lit signs at the far end of the platform weren't so blown, but given how far they are from the camera it's a miracle we can read anything at all down there. Daniel Case (talk) 05:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak  Richard  [®]  20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prefered the another FPC, this station is too ordinary to me and the perspective distortion is not helping, either Poco² 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Info there's no distortion, in fact the walls are slanting. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:05:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Running into the light. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer b&w. -- Colin (talk) 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Preferred. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the world is colorful. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I support the colored one (if issues fixed) Poc o² 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Alchemist-hp (the world is colorful), all see the world in color, so show something in black and white makes us see in a new way, and I think that our friend Alvesgaspar trying to convey .In my little experience think the color catches our attention visually, but it distracts the eye so they do not see certain things so easily. I like this photo. Greetings to all and Happy New Year 2014 --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info -- Colored version -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support also very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me an old man walking in this (?) tunnel...--Jebulon (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the same tunnel! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Artistic composition. Excellent --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Neutral Both are very good, but I prefer the b/w version. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- changed to neutral in favour for the b/w version. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the color version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ruminant  Richard  [®]  20:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colour is unappealing and distracting to the subject (silhouette of runners) -- Colin (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like b/w treats; but Here I enjoy the "real colored" textures on stonework. J e e 02:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better this one than b&w but this one has blue CA in the silhouttes, the image is also ccw tilted. I'd support if corrected. Poc o² 11:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colour, please--Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg

File:Theba geminata variability.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 06:09:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support As already said on QIC: Very good and high EV (if one is interested in shells). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should be a wonderful poster ! --Jebulon (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support One frame is rather unsharp (note added), otherwise very good. --Ivar (talk) 10:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Correction done --Llez (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is good science considering the information provided with the image. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a great (and hard) work! High scientific and educational value. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very hard work, well done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
strong support what for a work!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. Halavar (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support How much will it take photographs, to make this picture? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support ArionEstar (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Use bot friendly templates; please. J e e 02:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentA scale to compare sizes would be greatly appreciated. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vihren (Вихрен), Bulgaria (by Pudelek).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2014 at 13:17:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no "wow" effect. Personally, I find the motive boring. It is just a snapshot of someone hiking on a mountain to me.--Florian Fuchs (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Florian Fuchs St1995 20:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Valuable uploader.  Richard  [®]  20:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No technical problems at high-res, and I like the composition: nice vanishing-point perspective on the trail, and the contrast between this solitary (yes, others are visible in the distance if you look at it at full size) hiker, so small, in front of this massive massif is just great. So great it adequately offsets the imbalance created by that annoying rise on the right (although I'm sure there's nothing that could have been done about that). Daniel Case (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brasilia Supreme Federal Court of Brazil 2009.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 13:45:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cayambe - uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The height of the picture is 1196 pixels, below the required, but it reaches more than 2 megapixels.
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't there a limit of 2 active nominations per nominator? --P e z i (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The voting of the my last nomination ends today. ArionEstar (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blurry. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After rev. by Colin: Better, but still per Colin. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've reverted the noise-reduction applied by ArionEstar as it removed all the fine detail from the image. Please don't do that to other people's pictures. User:Cayambe is active on Commons and if there is noise reduction necessary (there wasn't) then I'm sure he could do it from the RAW file. The building is impressive but this photo isn't up to FP. The resolution is relatively low these days and the cleaning equipment and man on the RHS are distracting. -- Colin (talk) 15:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ Colin: Thanks for reverting the image. --Cayambe (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /ArionEstar (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont de l'Amour (Aqueduc), Villeneuvette, Hérault 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 06:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice image, but the wow-factor is limited. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Norbert, the place is pretty and I am satisfied if I managed to make a very nice image. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:39, 03 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 01:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Annie Leibovitz photographed Eileen Collins as part of the NASA Art Program at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, during training.

Info created by - uploaded by Mrjohncummings - nominated by Mrjohncummings -- Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mrjohncummings (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed, distracting shadows. Far away to be featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either dawn or dusk, so exposure is correct. Love the atmosphere. Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great image, and of historic significance. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good image of a culturally significant person taken by a culturally significant photographer. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the horizon isn't perfect... ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Andy Mabbett. ArionEstar (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist, + crop too tight above and below.--Jebulon (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist, shadows are too much of a distraction. Daniel Case (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, Annie Leibovitz can't handle exposure; should stick to "auto" :-). Come guys, you make fools of us. Nasa usually give us this sort of bland studio portrait and now we get real art and we can't spot it. Per Kleuske, the lighting is fantastic. She jumps out the screen in her red uniform and the eye is instantly drawn to her no-nonsense face. No wonder Nasa chose this image to publicise an exhibition of their Art program. -- Colin (talk) 10:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That Annie Leibovitz took it does not give the image a pass here. Yes, she is famously talented. But even extremely talented artists make crap sometimes. Are "Do You Want to Know a Secret" and "You Know My Name (Look Up the Number)" towering achievements in popular music because the Beatles recorded them? Is Topaz a classic film because it was directed by Alfred Hitchcock? Daniel Case (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You miss the point (though the photographer is famous enough for us to consider this work in the "Artwork" category to be honest). You agree with Alchemist that Leibovitz underexposed this picture? Are you now saying this is "crap"? -- Colin (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hesitated, Colin convinced me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colin's arguments let my cold like a piece if ice. I don't care about who is Anne Leibovitz, with all due respect. "You make fool of us" is not acceptable. I have the right to dislike the work of a sacred cow, and I have the right to write my disagreement here. To me, this picture is full of flaws, regarding our usual criteria. Thank you and happy new year.--Jebulon (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. Agree full to Jebulon. A happy new year for all. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the Internet makes you brave enough to ridicule a pro portrait photographer for not being able to expose or crop her pictures properly, then you should have thick enough skin to take what reaction you get. Yes you are more than entitled to your opinion and to stand by it. I agree there are no sacred cows and even pros take bad or mediocre pictures at times. Review, discuss, challenge, think. If you just want to vote and run away, then the unwatch button is up the top-right. And, yes, a happy new year to you to! :-) Colin (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not ridicule anybody nor anything. Are you suggesting I am a coward ? I'm afraid you are going a bit too far, dude. If the Internet makes you brave enough to (try to, without any success) ridicule me as an amateur photographer, feel free. No offense: I am an amateur photographer. (Not exactly the same meaning in french, less pejorative). If you are soooo politicaly correct to think that any work, because of made by a well known photographer, is obviously good, feel free too. I agree: think. Your first comment, dear Colin, made me have a strong reaction because you say, in other words: 1) this picture is good, because of made by Anne Leibovitz, therefore, shut up. 2) who are you, poor insect, to contest the Nasa choice for its Art program. And you suggest me to "think" ? "Think" yourself too, by yourself. And many thanks for your wishes.--Jebulon (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Jebulon, I haven't said anything about "amateur photographer" (that's Kleuske below), and your points 1 and 2 are not what I said at all. There is a difference between commenting on a work to say what you like and dislike, and commenting to say the photographer made a basic technical mistake like "underexposed". You might not like the lighting effect here, and you may hate it enough to oppose based on your own tastes, but you claim Anne Leibovitz, one of the worlds top portrait photographers has made a basic mistake. And also, when picking the which image to use from her shots, she picked the faulty one. And then NASA chose to exhibit this faulty photo and to lead with it in their publicity. This is all too much. I suggest you stop digging and consider the oppose was badly worded. By all means say it is too dark for you or that you don't like the lighting effect, but please, "underexposed"? -- Colin (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As for me, I think that I've nothing more to say. I've given my opinion, arguments and vote, and have nothing to change. I think it is time for an EoD, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It may be time for a DR, sadly, as the copyright status of the image has been questioned. -- Colin (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't see any DR? J e e 07:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        See Village Pump "NASA art program" -- Colin (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm; I noticed that discussion earlier, but didn't notice the "update" by Russavia. Something wrong as I doubted below. J e e 14:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd be sorry if this picture should be deleted, even if I voted "oppose" here. But I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Frankly, I just looked at the image, which struck me as brilliant, the fact that it's Leibowitz escaped me. Lemmesee... Internationally acclaimed photographer on the one hand, amateur photographer and Commons regular on the other... Now who am going to take seriously on this... Kleuske (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"She jumps out the screen in her red uniform" - except its orange and you should be able to tell that from the photo. Rmhermen (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sorry, I do agree with Colin on this one. This is far more interesting than the bland portraits they usually take. This is an artistic portrait and you can tell that it isn't accidental that the photo is 'underexposed' in parts. Targeted lighting is a completely legitimate method and I think it's been executed very well in this case - the only question is whether you like it or not. As with any art, we're all entitled to make our own mind up about that, but the photo does not contain major flaws in any objective sense. Diliff (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked the file history, visits the source pages several times. Personally I don't like full body portrait; so prefer a half body one similar (but a bit more generous crop on bottom) to one in Flickr. But showing the full costumes may have more EV.

Does PD NASA overrides non commercial restriction imposed at http://www.si.edu/termsofuse/ ? J e e 03:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "half body" is just a crop someone made. The actual portrait has the same vertical size but is actually a bit wider. See this photo of it. It is interesting the white balance appears different in that photo and the colours more saturated -- but it is hard to tell what is right. Another photo from that set has Collins with her helmet off and two examples here and here look different to this. I prefer a less sickly coloured sky. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Notable work by a noted artist with historic significance. Targeted lighting to feature the upper body and face works great as a deliberate style, even if it's not to everyone's taste. -- KTC (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack KTC. --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfetto! --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 9:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image is now at DR here. russavia (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no image available - Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/

File:More London Office Development at Dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:45:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 13:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good work. The people on the right look weirdly grey, but it's not distracting. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good scene and detail, and the brickwork at ground level show no parallax problems, which is hard to achieve. However, there's a glitch in the sky at the top (above the Shard). Of the three blurry people on the RHS, the middle one looks like a solid grey smudge has been applied rather than the result of overlapping frames or motion blur. I'd be very tempted to see what content-aware-fill can do with that, or see if you can rescue something from an individual frame. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I wasn't that happy with the grey smudge person but I was too far along the post-processing to go back to the originals as it was quite a lot of work (so many minor adjustments here and there as Photomatix doesn't provide consistent output for each frame - ie if one frame has a lot of sky, it tends to process it very differently to a frame with a lot of bright lights) so I spent quite a bit of work re-balancing it both before and after the stitching, which may have introduced the weird glitch next to the shard... Content-aware fill just makes a hash of fixing the person on the right side though. I don't think the image would suffer too much to just crop that section out completely. The smudge in the sky next to the Shard is easily fixed. Just need to decide whether to leave to start from scratch again or crop. ;-) Diliff (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do the HDR on each frame before stitching? I can see how a tone-mapping program might produce wildly different output for each frame. Is the alignment not good enough to process HDR after stitching? -- Colin (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I typically do process each frame individually prior to stitching. I can see how it might be useful to stitch first and then tone-map afterwards, but you lose the ability to remove ghosts using Photomatix if you let the pano stitcher (Hugin, PTGui etc) do the HDR-file creation. The ghost situation would probably be far worse if I hadn't eliminated them prior to stitching with Photomatix. Once the HDR file has been combined with PTGui, they'd be one big swirly smudge... Swings and roundabouts I suppose. I'll try the stitch-first-then-tone-map method on this scene and confirm. Diliff (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Seems to have been a success. I've uploaded the new version over the top of the old. Hopefully it's not introduced some new glitches that I've somehow missed. Diliff (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Great. -- Colin (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ I support, when the above mentioned glitch in the sky is removed. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The glitch has been fixed (as have a number of ghosts on the right hand side). Diliff (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 18:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is tilted ccw, would support if fixed Poco² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this should have been fixed yesterday but I just realised I had uploaded the old version straight over the top of it, rather than the version with the corrected verticals. Should be corrected now. Diliff (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Poc o² 17:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love that pissy-colored light in the buildings. Makes me feel sorry for the people stuck working there so late that we can see them in the windows at their desks. Daniel Case (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:52, 02 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Support Very sharp for me. ArionEstar (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image! Halavar (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thorny oyster.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 12:51:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 20:55, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Probably a bit oversharpened but very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Never seen such an oyster before... Nature is wonderful.--Jebulon (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In spite of the tight crop Poc o² 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Geranium nimbus.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 06:13:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Background is distracting, picture is rather pixellated, and most importantly, the flower and stem is blur. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Famberhorst (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prague Firework 2014 7.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 20:37:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot. Noise is fine at night (correct me if wrong, I'm inexperienced in this), but this is too much. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just some firework. It's not outstanding (hardly any colour) and there is no other subject in the photo to make it interesting. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian H. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Karelj (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amanecer en Huitzila, México, 2013-10-10, DD 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 10:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sunrise landscape near the village of Huitzila, Morelos, Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 10:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 10:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MainFrame (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support cheesy 90% ev 10% .-)  Richard  [®]  20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good job photographically, but in the end it's too ordinary a sunset over too undistinguished a landscape. Just doesn't do it for me, sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: In agreement with Daniel Case. Pretty, but not enough to meet the sunrise/sunset bar. Julia\^talk 11:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 12:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Daniel Case and Julia Dubya.--Jebulon (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but only nice. Featured picture needs something more. Halavar (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Avenue des Champs-Elysées from top of Arc de triomphe Paris.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 10:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opponents convinced me, I change to Neutral --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:03, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- C'est ton droit le plus strict, mais c'est un coup de poignard dans le dos d'une inélégance crasse.--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support And again I change, I'm not an inelegant murderer... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thank you very much Paris 16 for surprising and unexpected nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but it's oversatured and has obvious lacking sharpness, even QI is questionable in this case --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support great photo. Tomer T (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice shot, but lacking some sharpness. I wouldn't request too much of this, since it's hard to get it so nicely sharp, but sharpening it a little more would be good. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sharpening added. One can read the name of the subway station, and count the number of cobblestones on the ground. Please see annotation. --Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I don't see any difference (sorry if I'm blunt here). But I do find that viewing it on the file's description page is good. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry I don't understand your comment. A cache purge problem ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, unfortunately it does not seem so. I opened 2 tabs, with 1 tab containing the full size of the older version and the other the full size of the newer version. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak)Looks as if the farer part of Champs-Elysées is in shadow (see note). Is it due to a cloud? For me the photo has a lot of Wow in thumbnail size but is somehow distappointing in full size. Sharpness of the foreground is good, but the last third is in shadows / dust and looks imho unfavourable and lacks sharpness. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the shadow is due to a cloud. The avenue is almost 2 km long, and it is impossible to have an uniform light.--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But I guess the weather in Paris is much better than in most parts of Germany :) Watching for a moment where parts of the Champs-Elysées are not under a cloud should be no big deal and makes for me the difference between FP and non-FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Amen. (it is raining a lot because of a storm during the time I write this. No way for me to take another picture tonight, sorry. And october was very nice in Bavaria, far much better than in Paris (see following pictures, coming soon)...--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having looked at it at 100%, unfortunately, I have to agree with Wladyslaw. --A.Savin 18:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm normally very pleased with Jebulon's work, but Wladyslaw is right, here the quality is not good, even with the resolution being fairly low for such a "large" view. A reproducible shot, no reason not to anticipate a better photograph. Julia\^talk 11:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reproducible shot" ? I'm a Parisian, and it was my first time at the top of the Aec de Triomphe ! And who will pay for the ticket ? Maybe I'll ask Wikimedia France for a support ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't speak for Wikimedia France, but it's the kind of thing that Wikimedia UK would give "microgrants" for. You should ask your chapter! :) Julia\^talk 20:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral +:view, -:lack of sharpness Poc o² 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral +:view and color, -:lack of sharpness --Claus (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crystal Mill, Colorado.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Fowler - uploaded by PDTillman - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Mono 00:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice composition, good light and interesting motif. Who dares to enter the hut? Seems to be a fragile construction :-). But too much is blurred due to long time exposure and inappropriate aperture (f/5.6 is not suitable for a landscape image with foreground). The blurr is OK for the water, but almost all leaves, parts of the hut and mountains are blurred too. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 09:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much blurred --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place and composition, but oversaturated and not sharp enough. Some parts are too strongly denoised IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) I fully agree with Norbert, f5.6 was not a good choice but the compsosition and light justifys my pro vote. To the sharpness: IMHO sharpness has to be assessed with regard to the resolution. In the case here we have full size D800 resoultion. If you zoom out 2-3 steps in Firefox the water part and the house are incredible sharp. For me it is a bad habit to scale down and make an image "sharper" rather to leave it at sensor resolution. Although a photo looks sharper after downscaling you loose nonetheless information. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture very much. Especially, the light is amazing. However, as previously mentioned there are too many blurred parts due to the badly chosen aperture. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion Wow factor there is! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The quality is not too bad IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) It could be better technical wise  Richard  [®]  20:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case I find the perspetive distortions disturbing, composition is really nice, though Poc o² 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Crystal Mill = compressor station = Places/Architecture/Industry? J e e 16:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dead Cypress at 17-Mile Drive 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2014 at 22:30:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, just a dead cypress. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hehe, not only a dead cypress :) You also have rocks, sea, sky and probably an intersting composition... --Tuxyso (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 14:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Very nice compo, but imo the light isn't favorable. Cypress is almost entirely in the shadow. --Ivar (talk) 16:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The tree could be slightly brighter, but great shot nevertheless. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, not only a dead cypress! Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice dead cypress, indeed !--Jebulon (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Donauuferbahn-Oberleitung-DSC 5892w.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 00:47:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice silhouette, nice sunset but ... I have no idea what I'm looking at and why it's important. So I look at the image and see it's supposed to have something to do with a rail line in Vienna. OK, what does it tell me about the rail line that serves to illustrate useful information that might be imparted in an encyclopedic article (something which this image is currently not used for at all)? Also, frankly, as an image itself it's just too cluttered, between the stuff on the tower and the wires running across it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is the Overhead_line#Tensioning, a very essential part of a power cable. I think the structures and details are even better visible in this silhoutte than in an ordinary picture. It's not in use because I've uploaded it recently. (And generally I think there is a trade off between wow and encyclopedic value.) --P e z i (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:32, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Daniel Case. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opponents convinced me, I change to Neutral Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:11, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Daniel. and no wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose somewhat per Daniel Case. It doesn't look impressively beautiful to me. The composition is ok for an encyclopedic shot but nothing special artistically and I think that would be the only basis on which this could work as fp. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 17:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Brazilian model, actress and television presenter Fernanda Lima in TV Globo International Emmy Awards Nominees 2012. Created by Alex Carvalho - uploaded by Sealle - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality -- ArionEstar (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 12:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:55, 02 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment portrait is really nice, but the background has many dust spots and signs of posterization. --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sealle (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Niklem (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Support--Dogad75 (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilfracombe (Devon, UK), Damien Hirst's Verity -- 2013 -- 5.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2014 at 07:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 07:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 07:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think the perspective works, a less distorted view from farther away would be desirable imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may be right, but farther away there is a lot of water.--XRay ^talk 09:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual perspective but featurable for me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the perspective --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I change to Neutral --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:12, 03 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a very unfavorable perspective. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You may be right, but not are aware of the geo-location. A better from your (and maybe my) viewing position requires that one would have to stand in water. The theoretical ideals are not always available.--XRay ^talk 14:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eine Unmöglichkeit es nicht besser abbilden zu können rechtfertigt nicht zugleich eine Auszeichnung als ein FP-Bild. Ich würde dann eher sagen: Pech gehabt. Und wieso nicht aus einem Boot auch photographieren!? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's right. I respect your decision to oppose. (I like the image and the perspective too. The perspective emphasizes the size of the statue. That's why I've nominated it.)--XRay ^talk 16:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 22:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting! Halavar (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. J e e 02:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose perspective --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit too close and/or seen from the wrong side IMO. --P e z i (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yikrazuul.--Claus (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 15:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The violent youth of solar proxies.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 13:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by IAU/E. Guinan, uploaded/nominated by me St1995 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Halavar (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alurín (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:St Olaf's church, Tallinn, July 2008.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 21:06:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info St. Olaf's church, Tallinn. Created by Olga Itenberg - uploaded by Hannu - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geo location is missing.--XRay ^talk 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ArionEstar (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing exceptional. Most of the church is not visible. -- Colin (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Most of the church is not visible" -- is that a joke? Most of it IS visible and as the church is completely surrounded with buildings, then there is no way to get the rest of the church to the image without some heavy demolition. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See other image that is larger than that, and realizes that it is surrounded by buildings and, indeed, it is possible to see the entire top of it. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustave Le Gray, Pavillon Mollien, 1859.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 10:00:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gustave Le Gray - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk)
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 10:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support at least without this %$¥£€&@# pyramide ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support The level of detail amazes me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 10:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, historic image. Very useful. Halavar (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:39, 03 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Le ito xx 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Chethi poo in Thiruvananthapuram, India.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 01:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Yes.aravind - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, and the composition looks a bit awkward. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-08-06-abu-dhabi-by-RalfR-098.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abu Dhabi, center of town, View to Al Istiqlal Street near Airport Road

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 11:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sure what the subject is. The red pole in the middle? Kleuske (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kleuske. And also, where's the wow? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per all the other aboves. I think I know what you were thinking, but it's hard to tell. Daniel Case (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ok --Ralf Roleček 08:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Endla looduskaitseala õhtupoolikul.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 20:13:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Siim Kannistu - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Significant CA (red/green). Should be possible to remove. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request please add a geo-tag and correct the visible CA. The perspective distortion is borderline, but for a landscape image "ok". --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the coordinates. Kruusamägi (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ivar helped with removing CA and noise. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but despite traces of over sharpening, not especially sharp and relatively low level of detail in large parts of the image. I am also not convinced by the light / composition, with darker foreground. Heavy colour noise in the water.--ArildV (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:World Trade Center, New York City - aerial view (March 2001).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 12:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jeffmock - uploaded by Jeffmock - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think a good VI image, but not an FP: very noisy and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with Alchemist-hp /St1995 13:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, CA, Clipping and cropped antenna. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others and File:Twin Towers-NYC.jpg is better in many aspects. -- Colin (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amboy (California, USA), Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 5.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 15:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I find it a nice shot, since I'm not a American (if not I will oppose!), but I find that there is slight insufficient of wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the idea but feel the "Route 66" logo is placed too high up the image. This would work better if the camera were placed closer to the logo and a wider lens were used. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per KoH, but I think we could get closer to a support just by cropping all that dead space at the bottom. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for review! IMO it's better to have look to the other images than this one. --XRay ^talk 13:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Western massasauga rattlesnake.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Aaron Goodwin - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry but IMHO this image has DoF problems --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Needle Galaxy 4565.jpeg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 11:24:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Crawford - uploaded by Planet Herald - nominated by Planet Herald -- Planet Herald (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Planet Herald (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC) FP now ;-)[reply]
Comment If the image is already FP, then this nomination no more has reason to continue open. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

? Please don't close nominations, if you don't know the rules. J e e 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the picture is already FP, why then it continues open? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only en:Wikipedia:Featured pictures; see my reply on my talk. J e e 13:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From above: Pictures are speedy promoted if they have 10 support votes or more and no oppose votes. (Note that if it takes more than five days to reach this threshold, the picture can be promoted as soon as it is reached.) There are less than 10 supports at the moment. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, the nomination Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fernanda Lima in 2012.jpg can now be finished because it has 11 supported votes and none in opposition. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait till 17:29, 05 January 2013; the bot will close it on next run. No need to hurry. J e e 15:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to suit your timezone (mine is different). ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not my timezone; GMT as written on this page while saving your comment. J e e 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am aware now. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:VISTA's infrared view of the Lagoon Nebula (Messier 8).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 13:04:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/VVV, uploaded/nominated by me St1995 13:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 13:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Informative *and* aesthetically pleasing. Kleuske (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--MaHaN ^MSG 10:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry; not eligible to vote. J e e 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 22:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakri tuletorn1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2014 at 15:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pakri cliff, all by Ivar (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 15:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support St1995 10:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice light but very empty composition and depressing-looking subject at that time of year. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Monument Valley 2.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 19:09:55

Info Does not meet quality standards for FP. (Original nomination)
Delist -- —Mono 19:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- —Christian Ferrer 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist /St1995 19:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the FP-tag is and was simply a time stamp in the past. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you clarify? I'm not quite sure what you mean from what you said. —Mono 20:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look here. Do you like still and continuously renominate all our FP images? This image was excellent in 2005, not today. The 2005 award says all. Please think about it. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I agree with Alchemist-hp. Imo we should stop delisting older FPs. These had been promoted for a reason, and we should honor and thus historicize that decision, especially if we can't agree with it anymore only due to technological developments. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --A.Savin 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I follow Alchemist-hp's und Martin's arguments. I don't see any sense in delisting old FPs for the reason that sensor technology was not as advanced as today. Will 16 MPs be enough in three years? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Alchemist; but only in cases like this, where the resolution would be the problem nowadays. --P e z i (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Blur, and looks oversaturated to me. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is a tired debate and folk who don't believe in delist should seek to abolish it by consensus rather than disrupt the voting. Is this among the finest on Commons? No. Look at the Category:Monument Valley. When there are dozens of better pictures than this, then something is wrong if this remains featured. The only people who care whether a photo was featured in 2005 are the photographer, the nominator and perhaps a few voters. Nobody else gives a damn and would prefer if FP isn't cluttered by images kept out of vanity. Using the "sensor progress" argument is a fallacy, all that counts is what people take and upload to Commons. If the average photo that just anyone can take and upload is so much better than an FP like this, then who are we kidding? -- Colin (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hard words. I didn't want to 'tire' anybody or 'disrupt' anything... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it is tiring to keep these debates for every delist. While we have a delist mechanism, votes here should be done in the spirit of that: that FP is the best on Commons, rather than a record of what was best at some point in time. This image is now among the worst on Commons. Please everyone take these other arguments to the talk FP page and debate there otherwise just abstain from delist voting altogether. -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ok, alright. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Not convinced by the composition (overlap of foreground and background subject), slightly tilted, quality insufficient (independent of the year it was taken, since better resolution is possible with relatively inexpensive film equipment). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Julian (and others), can a non-appealing composition be an argument for delisting an FP? OK, you have other quality arguments, but imho delisting an image only because one does not like the composition is not sufficient. During an FP process you will always find reviewers who do not like one or another aspect (like composition, crop, motive). But as stated on the FP page, delisting is done because [o]ver time, featured picture standards change. The compositional standards have not massively changed but mainly the quality standards (over-exposure, resolution, advances in image editing software). Thus compositional aspects cannot serve as only delist reason. Delisting cannot be understood as second regular review just with different reviewers compared to the original nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - In this case, that doesn't matter because the other arguments are sufficient imo. In general, I don't know, but if (a significant amount of) people complain about a composition in a delisting-nom and didn't in the original nom, that tells me that the standards have changed, purely by observation. If that's not the case, it won't be delisted for that reason. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that delist is not just another FPC round and shouldn't be used as such (e.g., you think we made a mistake). But standards can change in all ways. We sometimes make allowances that are no longer justified. But let's kill this "sensor progress" argument dead. For a start, this image is actually a slide that has been scanned. Look at File:Monument Valley (4998504149).jpg, File:Evening in Monument Valley (4077440899).jpg, File:Cowboy (4013367806).jpg, and File:Monument Valley (3871718849).jpg -- all shot with a D80 (launched 2006) or File:Monument Valley, late afternoon Cropped.jpg short with a D70 (launched 2004) or File:Monument valley.jpg taken November 2005. Some of these would stand a chance at FP even today. The delist image has simply been outclassed by better pictures, not by just better technology. -- Colin (talk) 16:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Colin. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need not delist all old FPs due to the technical enhancement of today. But we have a lot of low quality FPs due to lack of enough contributors (work and reviewers) on that days. So IMHO, we can delist a few of them. Remember, "This formerly was a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and was considered one of the finest images." will still remain on a delisted picture. J e e 03:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Sorry Huebi--Claus (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I follow Alchemist-hp --Ralf Roleček 11:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Colors are great, I think it is still good enough for FP. Michael Barera (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- -donald- (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Jee 03:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domesticated goose head, Chaguaramal, Venezuela.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 22:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and object in prime focus. Ethically Yours (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 05:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Temporary oppose. Could you please correct the file name and the description? It is categorized in Embden geese, but it is described as an Anser cygnoides—see Anser cygnoides and w:Swan Goose to compare. --Myrabella (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded to MPF for opinion. J e e 04:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done J e e 08:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledged, thank you. --Myrabella (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice eyes  Richard  [®]  18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 15:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mesquite Flat Sand Dunes Panorama Morning 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 10:35:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mesquite Flat Sand Dunes panoramic view in the morning, Death Valley
all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 14:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Christian sent me an email with two ideas for improvement: I have now modified WB (slightly warmer) and reduced overall brightness and increased whites. IMHO the image has been improved due to this changes. I look forward to further comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support You made a compromise -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd like it even more, if some of the left part would be cropped ;) But it's a FP nevertheless. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The complete pano was MUCH longer at the left side. I cropped it that way in order to start the composition with increasing mountains. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and 10 :) Poc o² 12:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Apis melifera on Hypericum perforatum-DSC 5123w.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 13:57:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is distracting and the bee isn't fully sharp. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but unfortunately, the head, and the left eye in particular, is out of focus. --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Picture and subject is out of focus, distracting background. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Bithnah Fort, Fujairah, UAE.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 01:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mike Che - uploaded by Mike Che - nominated by Mike Che -- Fasmike3 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fasmike3 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose Too much noise in the sky. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts --Florian Fuchs (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ramblin Wreck leads the Georgia Tech football team in their Homecoming game..jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 01:37:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Will Folsom - uploaded by User:An678ko - nominated by User:An678ko -- User:An678ko (talk) -- (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)01:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too strong distortionm, by the way: the image has not correct category --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amboy (California, USA) -- 2012 -- 4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 16:43:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. ArionEstar (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 19:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice scene, but I feel the image is too dark. The whites should be actually white, i.e. at a level where they would blow out if pushed any further. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May be that's a good point. Thanks for the advice. I improved the white color.--XRay ^talk 07:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and clearly improved now. --Julian Herzog 08:35, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  14:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overpolarized sky and composition just a bit too cluttered. Daniel Case (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is very good and of course image also:) Halavar (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alurín (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 07:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Munich subway station Candidplatz.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2014 at 21:49:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Munich subway station Candidplatz

Info Now I'd also like to nominate the second of my two recent (imo and hopefully also in your eyes) FP-worthy images of Munich subway stations, with this one being the way more friendly and colorful candidate. All by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please take a photo of the subway station Großhadern too (U 6); it shows painted stratums. --Schnobby (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support HDR technique for preserving the details of the hightlights had been a good choice here (e.g. at the clocks). Nonetheless a great shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  14:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, this one is too similar to the other subway station photo, which you nominated below and which is is likely to become a featured image based on the already given votes. One featured image of this kind/type is enough considering the FCP critera. Also the mirror image of the photographer on the glass plate in the front is a bit disturbing. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Diliff, Colin and their arguments in the discussion above. As this is an image of a different station constructed with a totally different design, I think both images could get a promotion to FP. As far as the reflection is concerned, see below. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the reflection of the photographer and his tripod.--Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I've come to consider this as more a feature than a bug: A clandestine portrait of the artist as a young fool, going on a photo spree late on Christmas Eve, hoping everybody else would stay home... ;-) Honestly: Even a polarizer doesn't help here, and as for photoshopping the reflection: I simply don't feel competent enough to work on that, considering all the different lights and shadows besides my own. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharp. Exposition. Photographer on his own photo. --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Царський курган 007.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 17:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Anatoly Shcherbak - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:00, 02 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, but it is not perfectly centered. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image! Halavar (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Горизонт завален --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What horizon? Kleuske (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Anatoliy (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:7 More London Riverside at dusk, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:53:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 12:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Superb! --Ivar (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much glass, too much blue, the composition is so so.--Claus (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, tell me how I can take a photo of a glass building while reducing how much glass is shown. ;-) As for blue, well it was taken during the blue hour... Sorry for upsetting your compositional sensibilities. Diliff (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't see anything wrong with the photo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange building and weird reflections. The building looks aglow with yellow light. Good level of detail. -- Colin (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice shot, but the other photo of the same object below is better and the idea behind FP is to feature the best photo, not the best and the second best. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other photo below is not of the same object. In that image, which is a panoramic view of the complex, the building is mostly obscured and you certainly cannot see it in any detail. The two photos are sufficiently different. Diliff (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well both photos are in same wiki category and show buildings of the same building complex. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NorbertNagel, we often have several featured pictures of the same subject, sometimes even the same angle of view. This view and the other are different enough that many would not even suspect they were the same building. So please strike your invalid reason for oppose. -- Colin (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, that we have different opinions on this topic and that it may have happened earlier that several pictures of the same subject have been featured, but this does not mean that my position is invalid. I ask you to respect my opinion as I respect yours. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are suggesting this is how FP should operate, which is a question beyond this individual picture. The idea behind FP is to select the best pictures on Commons, not the one best picture. I can respect differing views on one picture but if you want a different FP from the rest, then you need to get consensus for that change. I can also respect your view of how FP should work, but fundamental shifts such as this may be considered disruptive change is suggested by voting at the image-level. You've chosen a rather bad example to make your point. We do often oppose or go neutral on images that are too similar to others (especially recent) but never because it is the same building, even from the other side. -- Colin (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert, so if there is already one FP of an entire category, by your logic there should not be a FP of any other photo in that category? In this case, the category is for an office complex, and in that complex there are many notable buildings, each deserving of a FP IMO. As the two images are both clearly a different subject and a different object, the category they are in is mostly irrelevant. All it does is suggest that perhaps we could create more specific categories for each subject. That is not the fault of the image(s). Diliff (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like it. Enough wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it as it is. --Cayambe (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Florian Fuchs (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose: First: I've seldom seen such brilliant combination of HDR and stitching technique - probably the highest quality shots of that type we have on Commons - you master the processing of those images in a nearly perfect way. The same with the image here: The quality is far beyond QI average - I've only discoverd a small artefacts from stitching / fusing (see note). The reason why I oppose anyway is mainly due to compositional aspects: the different widths of the framing building at the left and right, diagonal elements on the floor starting amid the image and not going through the complete picture, the building at the right background distracts the symmetry, an unclean border of the right framing building and finally the different types of surfaces at the left and right which also distract the symmetry. All in all: This centered shot can for me only work with perfect symmetry which is distracted by several elements. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that it could possibly be improved by centring the image so that the widths of the two surrounding buildings are equal. I left it slightly off-centre because I thought the tree would seem cropped otherwise but I concede it might be better. I'm happy to upload a centred image over the top of this one. I assume this is not enough to convince you to support however. I did take a similar panorama of this building another evening but I wasn't as pleased with the lighting as it was too dark. It may solve some your compositional issues. The view is from much closer so the building is more distorted, but the distracting foreground elements are minimised. What are your thoughts? Not as a potential FP candidate, but in terms of the composition. Diliff (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer the closer view. I am personally a great fan of close shots of buildings because the lines and architecture are accentuated well there. See for example this shot I've photographed with a T&S optic. To your closer image: It is much better that the pyramid-shaped building at the right is hidden. But there are still distracting elements at the left and right. I would crop them out - see my proposal. But cropping is always a matter of personal taste. But you are right, light is better on the nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will see if I can revisit (for a third time!) and improve on both images with good composition and good lighting. As you say, cropping is a matter of personal taste. I try to 'let them breathe' (as Richard Bartz mentioned on another nomination) but sometimes it's just not possible. In this case, the building is cropped either by the framing or by the buildings - you can take your pick about which. ;-) Diliff (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp for me. ArionEstar (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice light. --Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capra pyrenaica victoriae baby.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:37:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.Ligero & I.Barrios - uploaded by Alurín - nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 12:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I would have loved this photo to be featured...but sorry, the background, I have to say, is quite distracting. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it's mainly a little dark, which should be easy to fix. Not sure whether or not the background is still distracting if it's brightened. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually don't mind the darkness, even though it does affect the picture a little bit. As for the background, I've tried different brightness levels on my computer, but none works. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 18:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no geo position.--XRay ^talk 08:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Alurín (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The background isn't a problem for me. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay ^talk 06:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 09:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition + the cuteness of the subject. -- Lionel Allorge (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:D9-40C.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 09:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Will Folsom - uploaded by User:An678ko - nominated by User:An678ko -- User:An678ko (talk) -- (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)09:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose washed out colors. The strong perspective distortion is disturbing. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as Alchemist --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also very strong CAs, the perspective in unfortunate, the locomotive is too close to the left border of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concur with Alchemist. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isabelle Faust B 09-2012.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 14:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Previous FPC: 3 x support, 0 x oppose --A.Savin 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Terrible flash (shiny forehead, cheeks), terrible colour (jaundiced middle, flushed side), terrible clothes choice (for portrait clothes need to not grab the attention), poor pose (looking away), unfortunate facial expression, distracting background (tubes coming out of her back, into her neck), unflattering lighting direction (highlighting pores and facial hair), strange crop (you've only kept the LHS because she is looking there). The camera did its job but everything else is how not to make a good, never mind flattering, portrait of a lady. -- Colin (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Probably the most flattering feedback on my work ever. Just don't forget to open an RfD, as terrible photos are out of Commons scope, as you might know. --A.Savin 15:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a courtesy deletion would be best :-). -- Colin (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry. Although Colin put his decline rather harshly, I totally agree with his findings. --Florian Fuchs (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support After the well-balanced feedback at the beginning, now my extreme opinion: I'm not so much in the portrait business and the slightly different skin colours in the face are a bit surprising (make-up?), but I would consider this as an clearly above average portrait of a concentrated looking musician with instrument. Light and pose are good considering that this is not a studio shot. The background and the clothes are not disturbing to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good in every respect -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Yellow nose is disturbing :( --Kikos (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Cannot follow Colin's severe assessment. I like the expression of face and body - it looks rather concentrated. Two aspects are disturbing: the steel banister at the left side in the background and the strong highlights on the face resulting from sweat + flashlight. IMHO some basic standard retouching work (skin) should be done before uploading female portrayals to Commons. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needless offensive, assessment of Colin.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We find it easy to pick fault in some remote professional's donation (e.g., although well done and looking fantastic on preview, one of the eyes isn't completely in focus at 36MP peeping or similar fussiness). Here, because Savin is one of us, we were too kind last nomination by saying nothing and he has misinterpreted that when renominating. Or perhaps we are looking to make allowances. Why? Nobody makes allowances for one of our holiday landscape/building snaps being the wrong light or bad weather? I have a whole gallery of Scandinavian professional portraits, some candid like this and some posed, and many of them could be FP perhaps and many far better than this. Do a Google Image search on the "Isabelle Faust" to see how a good portrait of her (posed or playing) might look. Then come back here and consider if "very good in every respect" is a reasonable conclusion and whether my comments are harsh but fair. FP is supposed to be our very best and make us go wow with appreciation. -- Colin (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentI do not doubt your honesty! Your choice of words is a bit disappointing. End of discussion?--Famberhorst (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank-you. I accept some may prefer I mince my words. Sorry to A.Savin if feeling bruised. Stand by my opinions, though. Better luck next time. -- Colin (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg. I rest my case. -- Colin (talk) 10:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just all wrong for an FP—bad crop, shadow to side too distracting, composition is off, and why use landscape orientation when portrait was so obviously called for? Daniel Case (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMHO, I find that Colin's thorough (albeit harsh) assessment is fine. Through all this comments, photographers can learn more, understand their mistakes and thus improve their photography. If everyone is so "kind" and "considerate", how is a photographer going to improve, and how are we going to learn from one another? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture doesn't do justice to this person. --Lionel Allorge (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Klodzko Ratusz wieczor.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 17:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jar.ciurus - uploaded by Jar.ciurus - nominated by Jar.ciurus -- Jar.ciurus (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jar.ciurus (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some issues with the sky (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done Spot and light banding corrected. -- Jar.ciurus 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per {{u|Iifar|Ivar}. Support I think I was too picky earlier on. Now I find it OK. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Wrong WB (it is blueish), perspective correction on the left improvable. I'd support if corrected Poc o² 11:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better now: Support Poc o² 18:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Those background buildings and the town hall were just a little tilted. I've corrected it. The picture has been warmed a little. -- Jar.ciurus 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 11:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WB is ok now but was also ok before. Don't understand the criticism towards it. The issues are fixed and I support.
Info I reverted the image back to older version. Please read my reason for the revert. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /LE ITOXX 20:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matsalu metsas.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 12:44:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There in no perspective issue. The hut is actually crooked. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Awesome shot. Sharp, great colours and composition. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the atmosphere and image composition, on the other hand there are substantial blurred areas around the house (mainly in the tree regions).-- Norbert Nagel (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture. Impressed with reed roof and forged parts. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is ok but there are too much blurred areas in the trees -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This blur is actually intentional and it the guidelines it is called "motion blur". the branches are moving in wind. If all the branches in the background were sharp there would not be enough contrast between the hut and the trees. I actually would prefer even more blurred background but it was quite windy and with longer exposure time I would have had some overall blurriness due to camera shake. I nominated this picture because I was encouraged by the success of another picture of mine also with large blurred areas that was unanimously elected to featured picture. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The blur is also to make the hut stand out, or it would just blend in with the background if everything is equally sharp.
Support (weak) I consider it an interesting approach to leave background blurred like that, but at the same time I am not so much convinced about the overall wow effect of this image. You have some really nice shoots from Matsalu, ones that I consider even better than this. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Namikawa Sosuke - Bowl with Chrysanthemum Blossoms - Walters 44546 - Profile.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 18:44:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Walters Art Museum - uploaded by User:File Upload Bot (Kaldari) - nominated by Spinster -- Spinster (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spinster (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice and delicate, but disappointgly small.--Jebulon (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A very nice object indeed. But the overexposed part is too large for me. Also per Jebulon. --Cayambe (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cayambe + die DOF + sharpness can be also better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like many Walters Art Museum donated images, this is professionally taken but miserly in size. The subject poses a lighting problem with reflective silver and translucent colour. I think the degree of "blown" silver highlights is acceptable but would prefer perhaps a little more silver rather than the quick change to dark shadow for the metal. If it was larger, I'd support, but the subject itself is rather small. -- Colin (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sinemorec - rocks.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2014 at 22:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 22:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I change to Neutral -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't you guys see it's not sharp at all? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urmas. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crëusc de Secëda d inviern.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 15:34:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imo the sun (even if overexposed) makes a dramatic counterpoit to the nude body of Christ in the ice -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also OK. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support prefer this one; the sun is already big enough --P e z i (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one.--Alurín (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral With such a bright sun, I would have expected the snow to be much more white, not blueish-gray. Especially in the foreground and along the ridge top. Lupo 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow is never white, specially in a backlit photo. Thanks for the note --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it should be white, but whiter. I think the foreground was underexposed because of the bright sun. Lupo 19:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not underexposed, as you can see it still fits in the histogram, but it is a lot darker compared to the sun - I don't like HDR btw or at least I'm not comfortable with it ;-) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support It speaks to me...--Jebulon (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Poc o² 13:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (crop and WB) edit

Support --Christian Ferrer 16:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer this tighter crop and hence more simplistic composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange artifacts to the left of the cross (halo & shade, both even visible in the thumbnail), halos to the left and at the top of the foreground fence poles. These artifacts do not exist in the original nomination. Lupo 21:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done New version, thanks, you're right, oversharpening is certainly (one of) my biggest default. --Christian Ferrer 08:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to my eyes, nothing much has changed. The fence poles still have the halos left & right, and the cross a slightly less noticeable halo on the left. However, I've given this image some more thoughts, and I must say I'd even oppose this crop being featured if these halos were completely fixed. First, I do think there's something wrong with the snow; see my comment on the original nomination. But more importantly, I feel that by cutting off the cliff at the bottom right you lose the vertical dimension. It's nearly as if the cross stood on some unremarkable hill. Lupo 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Too bad the snow is trampled. A nice fluffy snow cover would make it perfect. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why, lots of people go up to the crucifix, that's why there is a fence --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Crëusc de Secëda d inviern.jpg

File:Bois des Aresquiers, Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 06.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2014 at 20:24:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ArionEstar (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition with the dirt path leading our eyes to the trees, which are well-balanced with the water and sky on the right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but no wow for me. -- Colin (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It would be a great background for something but this something is missing here. It would be a great landscape photo if the trees were fully in frame--Urmas Haljaste (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the calmness coming from this photo. Well composed, nice colors with high technical quality. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow: a random landscape view + the sky is a bit overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no wow, ok if you want, it's your point of view but overexposed certainly not. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:15, 05 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(weak) Support --A.Savin 20:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guildhall, City of London - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 23:16:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp and detailed, nice lighting. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! Technically challenging, interesting motive, outstanding quality / sharpness.
Question What pano hardware do you use? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather find out the pano SW... Poc o² 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's PtGui as you can see in the image description. Also Hugin is very good for multi-raw panos (leaving the stability issues aside) - I've compared the results of both programmes with different multi row shots. The key questions with Diliff's panos is which hardware (surely not computer hardware but camera hardware) is used. Pano head? Nodal point adapter? Special shooting technique? Would be interesting to hear something about that. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is PTGui (and Photomatix) on the software side. I use a Nodal Ninja 3 panoramic head to avoid parallax issues. Diliff (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Another hammer shot Poc o² 13:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support self-explanatory --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Xxlfussel (talk<) 16:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PM08-13 img03 Kloster Lehnin.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 11:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 11:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer this version, maybe you can work again a bit on the WB on this last one, but the view is more captivating IMO--Christian Ferrer 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is also not bad --Christian Ferrer 09:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My second choice. Michael Barera (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (wide-angle) edit

Support --A.Savin 11:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it in spite of the barrier on the right --Christian Ferrer 11:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ack Christian. --Sputniktilt (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My first choice: I prefer this alternative. Michael Barera (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support LE ITOXX 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:PM08-13 img02 Kloster Lehnin.jpg

File:Penguin in Antarctica jumping out of the water.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 16:39:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christopher Michel - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant work, ~~albeit a touch overprocessed~~. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Horrible CAs all over the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice shot and action, ~~but oppose per Tuxyso.~~ (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~temporary Oppose.~~ Can somebody please correct the CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version with less CA and noise uploaded. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Ivar (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
now Support. Thanks to Ivar, a good work. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Ivar. I personally find this an fantastic shot, and it would be a pity if not promote to FP. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think he deserves a {{Creator}} tag. J e e 06:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zhuyifei1999. J e e 14:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very good.  Richard  [®]  07:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good indeed! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image! Halavar (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good photographer and image --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shipka pass (Шипка) - Monument of the Russian emperor Alexander II (by Pudelek) 2.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 18:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Qi but not FP, nothing outstanding here --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 22:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympic Parc Munich at sunset.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 05:44:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice sunset, but main object not visible. -- -donald- (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really *that* fantastic. Foreground is a bad one, and the sun is all the way to the left and barely visible or obvious. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, per others. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Alright – I wanted to get some reactions and see if a silhouette of the park could work. Obviously it doesn't. Thanks anyways! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cetorhinus maximus by greg skomal.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:47:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Greg Skomal (NOAA)- uploaded by Yzx - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice! And people say I have a big mouth... Kleuske (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo looks a bit unsharp because has a bit of noise. it is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing behemoth.  Richard  [®]  18:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 16:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eurema tominia tominia.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 21:57:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by A.S.Kono - uploaded by A.S.Kono - nominated by Ariefrahman -- Ariefrahman (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ariefrahman (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, invalid nomination; page created on 03:27, 2 January 2014; added now in between the nominations. Jee 13:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good thing is still added within 24 hours. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page is created with {{FPCnom}}. I didn't see a relevant documentation anywhere. It seems the FPCBot closes such nominations earlier. Anyway it is not a good practice to add nomination in between the list. J e e 15:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hong Kong skyscrapers in a night of typhoon.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 22:37:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Hong Kong skyscrapers in a night of typhoon. All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but why f/2.8? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentCircumstantial elements like high winds and instability --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overzoomed IMHO. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question See note. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for your comment. Edition problem is fixed now. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Unbalanced. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC) please avoid using not-bot-friendly templates. Only "support" or " oppose", and write the comment. Thank you .--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{OK}} :-). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thought about this for some time now. Thanks for fixing the problem I mentioned, looks good now. But I'm worried about the banding in the sky and generally not a fan of these full-nighttime photos compared to a photo with a little bit of light from the sky. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lijiang Yunnan Old-town-02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 17:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Cccefalon - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality. The water wheel is cropped very tightly though, especially on the bottom. Additionally, the light highlights the background and only shows small parts of the foreground. I therefore think the composition doesn't meet FP standards. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:58, 02 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Julian is right with the light, but this time it creates an interesting contrast. The composition is very appealing. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tuxyso. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Riwaq at Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 17:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Riwaq at Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque, Muscat, Oman c/u/n by  Richard  [®]  17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --  Richard  [®]  17:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting and valuable view, good impression of depth, harmonic image, very good quality, pleasant transition of light and shadow --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like an illustration rather than a photo. Strange. -- Colin (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Art! J e e 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If Noise in shadown is fixed I will change my vote --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Colin - Godot13 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw. Great. --ArildV (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support what kind of camera is this ????? --Jebulon (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Credo 80; I think. J e e 03:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was more an exclamation than a question !!! I'm not sure I could save enough tough buy this... Should we create a special category for "E.T." materials ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb, it is available for rent (for curious guys). I saw Godot13 used a (somewhat) similar one in his Jerusalem tour. :) J e e 16:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'am for rent as well :-)  Richard  [®]  16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rent you: you support my FP candidates for free !--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ralf Roleček 20:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista de Ciudad Ho Chi Minh desde Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 13.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 19:22:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Night view of Ho Chi Minh City from Bitexco Financial Tower, Vietnam Poc o² 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shaky tripod? Or do people actually drive like that? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to tell, the tripod is pretty robust but the location, in the 49th floor of the second tallest building in Vietnam, could be the cause. Anyhow, the picture itself is not "shaked". Poc o² 23:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It kind of looks like the shaking tails off at the end so it might be from the shutter actuation. I don't have a ton of experience with this kind of photography. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The streetlights throughout the picture are not blurry, so it's definitely not the camera. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition. I am not sure but wasn't a similiar image already nominated? Or do I just remember from QIC? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You promoted this one to QI some days ago. Poc o² 11:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. Both are nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but I don't see anything special in the composition, perhaps because it was shot from so high up relative to the other buildings. It looks like just another competently-done nighttime cityscape, a QI for sure but not an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, composition is really nice. But it's blurred. Also quiet noisy but it does not bother me. I think ISO 100 was not a right decision. Exposure time 8 seconds is a lot and there is always some camera shake. ISO 200 or 400 do not cause too much noise. It would have given you a lot better exposure time and less blurry result. I also don't like the DoF. Both bigger and smaller aperture would have given better result. With big aperture and focus on the middle bridge would have given you nice bokeh at the distance. Smaller would have given you more detail at the distance. Average aperture has given you average result. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 00:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cueva de Basconcillos el Tozo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2014 at 23:27:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by mario_modesto - uploaded by mario_modesto - nominated by mario_modesto -- mario modesto (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mario modesto (talk) 23:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Support Good, but lens flare on the right.--XRay ^talk 08:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, it flares on the right but it does not affect to the general composition. You should note this is a huge image due to it is a panorama made merging 5 vertical photographs and the position of the sun is perfect to give light to the main entrance of the cave. I had to take a decission: to maintain in darkness the cave with no sun in the composition or wait until the best hour to take the pictures, that is, with light inside the cave (you can check the river entering inside) and the green valley. I preferred the last option.

Oppose Some very significant halos and a band of strange colour and noise that goes through the sky are problematic in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per XRay and the noise in the sky. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but per XRay and Julian -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI uploaded an update image. What about this one? This is a new panorama correcting the problems of merging of the last image, as well as cropped to avoid those lights. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes better but now new lens flares in the valley on the right and IMO the quality in the upper part of the picture is not the best (sky and top of the mountain), however very nice at low resolution -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 00:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern rough greensnake.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Aaron Goodwin - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jpeg artifacts and low quality (maybe camera sensor), remember italic in specie name. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Blur, among other things. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landscape south of Pájara.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 06:43:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, with lots of outlines/CAs around the subject. Certain parts are also very pixellated. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The foreground looks sharper than the background. DoF missing.--XRay ^talk 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated removal nomination

File:Kizil Hauzen Bridge by Eugène Flandin.jpg (delist), not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:59:30

Info I think it should had never been selected to be a FP image due to the very low quality of the photo. It shouldn't had been nominated as a set and the other image was the only reason it got the FP status. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The quality is perfectly fine for a historical image. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Looks for me like a scan from a small print of the image (e.g. from a book). Sorry, not excellent for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was promoted in a set, if you want to delist this image, the other must be also delisted because the other one would not maybe have been promoted without this one. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian, if you see there, you will realize that most people who oppose against this zoomed image, liked each other, for example: Kruusamägi, said: "If it should be seen as a set, then I can't agree with the nomination due to the very low quality of the second image"and Julian H., who said: "Fully support the first one, but the second image has quality problems and I don't see a reason for nominating this as a set." ArionEstar (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry; this is recently promoted (24 December 2013) and we can't discuss it again and again every week. J e e 16:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think we need a rule: a "renomination" is possible after a half year at the last nomination, better one year. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Jee, we can't discuss it again and again every week all the promotions of the past week (in 3 or 4 years, ok) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO the general problem / failure with the original nomination was to nominate it as a set. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I personally against set nominations and they are not properly handled in our FP galleries. But we have to respect community consensus here. Any attempt to improve set nominations and how they should be handled (whether equal preference as single nominations or not, whether eligible for POTY or not, etc.) can be discussed on FPC Talk. As far as I know not all sets are going to our chronological lists and so will not appear in POTY. For this set, I only added the first picture to the chronological list. J e e 17:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see Alchemist-hp --Ralf Roleček 11:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it was said, then the problem is that with set nominations, images like that may pass to become FP-s. How could this be any reason at all, that this was "recently promoted"? Specially, when the problem is that, it shouldn't had been promoted at all. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be decided by the majority of opinions. Can't you see "9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral" there? J e e 14:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per King of Hearts. Michael Barera (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Jee and King of Hearts. --P e z i (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 delist, 7 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Jee 05:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted in March 18, 2024 with 13 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:Kizil Hauzen Bridge by Eugène Flandin.jpg -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bombus pascuorum Zurich lateral.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 14:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Sputniktilt -- Sputniktilt (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have lot of FB images from bees that I'd consider better. At a moment I don't like the position of flower that is coming towards viewer and therefor is mostly out of focus and distracts viewer. Image could be bigger (seems like a rather strong crop from larger photo). Kruusamägi (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support J e e 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

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

File:PanoramaFrías.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Frías (Burgos, Spain), merging 3 horizontal photographs, with their typical hanging houses and rests of the old castle.

Info created by mario_modesto - uploaded by mario_modesto - nominated by mario_modesto -- Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job! --Alurín (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cannot open the file at full size Poco² 13:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My two browsers can't open it neither. --Ivar (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have realised that it cannot be opened at full size as well. How can I solve it? Do I reupload it? Do you know if something similar happened before? --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can open the first version, maybe there's something wrong with the image you included in the last version. Try to export it again. Poc o² 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, can you open it? with which browser? Poc o² 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, Poco, I cannot open the file itself, but I can navigate it easily with ZoomViewer (I use Mozilla Firefox with Ubuntu 13.10, by the way). Michael Barera (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reuploaded the image and now I can view it at full size. I hope you can also as well. I think the problem was that I uploaded it with Adobe RGB colors and not with sRGB, because this is the only parameter I changed. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Problem fixed (at least for me). Thanks Mario! Michael Barera (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and the seventh support,now FP? ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced noise from the sky. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porto Covo December 2013-12a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I have been chasing this subject for years, with mixed results: here, here and here. This time I believe the conditions were unique, with the stormy sea all white and the foam, illuminated by the setting sun, dripping down the dark rocks. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's good. Really! But I just wanted to ask that first: if there are 2 very similar FP images, where 1 seems better, then should the other be delisted? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info -- We don't have a specific policy on this. Everything is analyzed on a case by case basis. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, anyway I prefer this image to the other. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally prefer File:Porto_Covo_January_2011-2b.jpg. The light there is warmer, the sky and composition more interesting. On your current nomination the foam from the water has a relatively strong blue cast in the shadow parts. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- I have slightly decreased the blue cast. However that was the light at the place just before sunset. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Defintely better than before. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one actually, because there's a more pronounced effect of the waves crashing on the shore. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I change to Neutral --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I prefer the other photo, mainly due to a more interesting sky. In comparison, that is just missing here. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As long as there is an almost identical photo of the same user already featured:
Comment Please give us the choice to select between both images. There is no need to have both images featured. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Norbert, but I don't accept. There are several duplicate FP with the same subject, and the lighting and colors of the two pictures are different. But you really don't need me to make a choice. Supposing that this picture is promoted (which is far from guaranteed), the other one can always be nominated for delisting, invoking that it is identical to the present one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a {{Delistandreplace}} for identical images from same authors. So better try that. The documentation also should be amended to include this. Currently it is "It is not intended for replacing older photos of a particular subject with newer photos of the same subject, or in any other case where the current FP and the proposed replacement are essentially different images." J e e 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. J e e 03:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 04:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valle de los Ingenios. Trinidad.Cuba.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 17:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful landscape, but slightly blur. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support LE ITOXX 21:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 11:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:VilniusCathedral square 2014.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 21:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember taking care of overcategorization (corrected), thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cut off church (on the right) is not harmonic, technical accomplishment average and ok, but not outstanding --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is another building next to the cathedral at right. This is all you can get at this side. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Andrey Di Silvassex (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. 10 days and 50 edits required. --A.Savin 10:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some problems (see note), oversharpened and too much noise reduction in my opinion. Composition looks not outstanding but ok to me. Not knowing the place, I'd guess a photo from the left side rather than from the right could work better. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Done some corrections. Retouching errors fixed, more noise and less sharp. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't agree with what you said about the noise and sharpening. I don't notice any losses in details. I could do without any but then the sharpening and no-noise fans would mind. I agree what you said about the composition. It's not the best to capture it from left because you can't go far enough and so the bell tower would be distorted to a degree that cannot be fixed. Haven't seen any better solutions in Commons. My idea was to show the whole square with the bell tower and the statue. If the intention is to show only the cathedral then it's the best from left. Will try to fix the area you don't like. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise reduction in my opinion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Luminance noise reduction is 15% and color noise reduction is 20%. Really too much? Do you see somewhere loss of details? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 04:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zollhafen Mainz-Weinlagergebäude Südmole.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 18:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Historic wine warehouse on the southern jetty of the port Zollhafen in Mainz, Germany. All by Martin Kraft -- Martin Kraft (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Kraft (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  19:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requires CW rotation. --Kikos (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kikos What exactly do you mean by "CW rotation" --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
clockwise rotation = Rechtsdrehung. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Arcalino (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Müürlooga (Arabidopsis thaliana) lehekarv (trihhoom) 311 0804.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2014 at 22:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Parque en Casco Historico. Trinidad.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 22:19:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too-tight crop up top, but even without that the composition isn't that exciting. Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duck at Munich Zoo2.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 10:50:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alurín (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blur and noisy. Background looks unnatural as well. Even for zoo shots, I would expect something looking natural. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Montreal - QC - Gipfelkreuz Mont Real.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 18:41:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Wladyslaw - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again this image? Kruusamägi (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I know, it is permissible nominate an image again if it was not promoted. And the nomination occurred last year. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination occurred less than a month ago and it had nearly no "support" votes. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I opened this nomination. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: This image wasn't FP last month. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment The image has to be FP to have another nomination? In my knowledge, if an image has not become FP, she can be nominated again. Or is not that how it works? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my talk page. J e e 04:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Groomed skirun from Seceda Val Gardena.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 07:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 07:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good.--ArildV (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imo minor sharpening could make it even better. --Ivar (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. This picture comes out of the camera "as is" and I am proud of that. You are right, a little sharpening could make it more appealing, but I prefer to supply Wikimedia with the raw material so anyone can adjust it to his needs. (I also detest downsampling btw). Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Lots of wow, especially with no post-processing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kungsgatan January 2014 02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 11:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kungsgatan (Swedish for "King's Street"), Stockholm. Exposure fusion from 2 exposure (5 and 1/10 sec. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Left and right are leaning in at the edges but it's not very disturbing, nice warm atmosphere -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thank you.--ArildV (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would make a nice desktop. Daniel Case (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cannot recognize anything featurable here, great quality, though Poc o² 13:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Amboy, Kalifornien, USA, Hist. Route 66 -- 2012 -- 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 13:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info (This image with alternate clipping replaced a withdrawn image.) created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 13:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 13:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) The photo draws my attention and is technically well done. I wished the background had been a bit more intersting and not that flat (mountains only very far away). --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Music to my eyes, since I had suggested this crop. Daniel Case (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm really liking the symmetry. --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Chicken Egg without Eggshell 5859.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 16:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gangulybiswarup - uploaded by Gangulybiswarup - nominated by Mahan -- MaHaN ^MSG 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MaHaN ^MSG 16:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous attempt with another version. Hope improved. J e e 18:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alborzagros (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in EN. J e e 14:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nixón (wop!) 20:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very interesting photograph. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Dome Cappella Chigi from inside, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 16:01:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info designed by en:Raffaello Sanzio, executed by Luigi da Pace (1519) - photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Creation of the World, Extraordinary cuppola and drum of the dome of the "Chigi chapel", showing the planets, the sky, and in the middle God the Father, in the church Santa Maria del Popolo in Rome, Italy. Cartoons are from Raphaël, and there is no other example of mosaic by him. Please enjoy the details. I chose a black surrounding, in order to eliminate ugly distractive elements below, not made by the master.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Technically well done near to perfect. You managed a difficult light and shooting situation very well. But I am thinking if it is eligable to remove the whole [[::File:Roma-santa maria del popolo.jpg|context]] of the painting and put just black around it. Probably you can provide some background information about your rationale for this decision. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What may I say ? Only this : please, read carefuly the nomination and the file description page... Of course the blind background is intentional, in order to focus the attention on what I want to show. I hesitated with a .png version with only a round pic and no backround at all. My goal is to question the reviewer too. "Is it a plate or what ? Oh no, wow, it is a ceiling !" Anyway, sorry, This is not a "painting", but a mosaic. Of course we all have seen the picture you links. The "context " you mention is out of scope (i.e. Else than the mosaic, and not by Raphaël), as I was just centered under the drum, there is nothing else to see, except, as I already wrote, distractive lights from windows, and other architectural concentric "circles". And I wanted to hide all little parts of the paintings/frescos if any visible, only distractive (and again, out of scope). But you understand this very well, I'm sure, even if everything is always discussible without end, of course.--Jebulon (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Thanks for your explanation. It stays a very good shot. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand Tuxyso's concerns; but satisfied with the reply by Jeb. J e e 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail. Excellent. -- Colin (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very valuable, good quality and concept.  Richard  [®]  13:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kallukse mänd 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2014 at 16:07:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kallukse pine (Pinus sylvestris), all by Ivar (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great technical quality, but limited wow-factor - fairly ordinary landscape. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is monument of nature. The detached wood at least 200 years. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as per above.Fotoriety (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a good QI, but nothing special, no wow. Sorry. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The telegraph poles and the random other trees are distracting. -- Colin (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others Poc o² 13:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this landscape and especially sky looks very interesting. Halavar (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 14:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The power line is a problem imo, many things are good but not outstanding. I dont't know what's on the right, so I'm not sure if rotating -70° around the tree would create new issues. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lafarge, ZI Horizon Sud, Frontignan, Hérault 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 09:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 04 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No offence Christian, but I think most of your nominations belong at QI. Please can you explain why the viewer should go "wow", which is necessary for FP. -- Colin (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No offence Colin, but can you explain the question? Do you ask me to convince the viewer to go "wow"? Because I can't do that, I am not a carpet salesman! If my photos are for your eyes of a status insuffisant, you can pass your way or oppose. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 05 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Convince" is too strong and not what I asked. I feel many of your nominations are technically ok pictures but lack "wow", or even any clear subject. Why do you go "wow" when you see this picture. If you can't express your own amazement at the picture, why should anyone else be struck by it. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colin, I could very well say why I find it wow, but I prefer to let each make the own opinion each. Good state of mind, isn't it? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:38, 05 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd why on Commons FP people don't give a rationale for their support/nomination like they do on en:wp. We are left with a picture and to figure out why it is special. A really special picture is obvious and gets 10 supports before the next day. Sometimes it takes some help to know why something is good - it isn't obvious. But also, if you can't explain to others why it is special, then I feel you shouldn't nominate. Seriously, Christian, why is this special? You might not convince me, but you might convince someone else to support. -- Colin (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you or someone else see nothing special in this picture, maybe it is not special and do not deserve to be promoted, I choose to let my photographer's talents to convince you. Is it so bad? Sorry if my pictures irritate you or someone else. I work hard to improve and I consider good to use my current and future actives nominations to make you share my work and my "extraordinary photos of landscapes". -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 05 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A high quality photograph of worlds largest cement manufacturer in the middle of a nice landscape taken at very good light. No wow? --P e z i (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company, Lafarge, may be the worlds largest cement manufacturer, but this plant doesn't look special at all. And the light is not good photographic light. And the landscape doesn't, I'm sorry to say, look that nice. There's really nothing FP about this. -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De gustibus non est disputandum :-) --P e z i (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

De gustibus et coloribus non disputandum ? That's what we do in every review ! Discussing about matter of taste ! :))--Jebulon (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ No wow. --62.65.223.70 22:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (IP) votes are not allowed. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:08, 05 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nixón (wop!) 22:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, as noted. Daniel Case (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 14:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The shadows are too dark imo, and many areas look strange because some selective blurring (or noise reduction) has happened. I don't see any noise, so that's unnecessary. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed should be better now --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. A bit too much sky, and the sky looks overpolarized. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it has signs of oversharpening. --Ivar (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I guess I'll have to work on the image - maybe I'll nominate it again after that. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013-10-05 Valbona, Albania 8806.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 15:03:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Qafa e Valbonës, or Valbona pass in Albania connects the town of Theth, located at Theth National Park in a valley formed by the Shalë river with the town of Valbonë in Valbonë Valley National Park. This photograph was taken in October 2013 on the Valbona side at about 2/3 of the ascent to the top of the pass. It shows the mountains surrounding Maja Grykat e Hapëta, which is one of the highest mountains of all of Albania.

Info created myself, Tobias. This is my first candidate/nomination for a featured photograph -- Tobias (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit unsharp -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too unsharp, unfortunately. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is too unsharp, and maybe a little bit noisy. But as it is your first nomination in FP, I think you deserve more feedback: my opinion is that except unsharpness, this picture is very good. The colors are nicely contrasted, the white balance is good. The composition works very well with the mountains, the valley, and the transversal foreground. The landscape is appealing and eye catching. And we have not so many good pictures from Albania. Well, don't discourage, and we wait for your next nominations !--Jebulon (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info new version uploaded. --Ivar (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Ivar (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp enough. Indeed a very good picture. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photograph is shot with a modern full-frame DSLR at ISO 200 (hence I also do not understand why there should be noise) and a good lens (and appropriate shutter speed) at f/11. The detail is in my opinion definitely there. In Ivar's sharpened version this is much easier to see, so thank you Ivar! --Tobias (talk) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 14:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Viscontino (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jõesuu vaatetorn.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 19:22:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Amadvr - uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Pudelek (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 07:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shouldn't work so well, but it's so stark that it does. Daniel Case (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support An english description should help...--Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the English description and coordinates. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Foreground shadow (author) is bit distracting. --Ivar (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - Essentially per Ivar. Beautiful scene all around though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kreta - Bucht von Malia1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 17:15:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info amazing view at the different landscape types of Crete and the Bay of Malia, high resolution (approx. 110 MP) view with many interesting details; all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose notably curved horizon, harsh mid-day light, stitching issues on the bottom right corner (sharp and blurry frames). --Ivar (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) absolutely straight horizons for such wide angles of panoramic views are unnatural. (2) harsh light? I see no overexposed parts here (3) stitching issues: hardly to see, not significant for the image impression, even in 100% view of this irrelevant image part --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: our world isn't flat. The world is round, since Copernicus and Plato :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most of the buildings are with "blown out highlights" (ausgefressenen lichtern). I think this image is a bit overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info (1) I have eliminated some minor clone errors that Julian H. mentioned, (2) I have darkend the image a nuance (3) precised the location data by adding a description and the geo code of the camera location --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I disagree concerning the horizon, I think that in a 180+°-panorama (almost 360 here?), the horizon is the main horizontal element in the photo and the panorama rotation axis should therefore be aligned to that. But the resolution and detail is fantastic and the other issues have been fixed, it's FP for me now. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.  Richard  [®]  18:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gelungene Komposition. --ST ○ 15:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 14:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral blown whites + some visible stitching points, however a very good panorama, maybe it could be used somewhere --A.Savin 11:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait (rotated and cropped).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 17:12:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by a female Celebes crested macaque - uploaded by Odder - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst this image is under the resolution normally required of FP, there is precedence in this instance as per Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Firing Squad in Iran.jpg, so I am ignoring all rules here and nominating this for FP as it has both the WOW and the LOL factor. Any copyright concerns that people may have are covered in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg. russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Another great pic, heck the image could have its own article on WP, but I am not sure I am convinced by the no copyright argument. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Saffron Blaze: Go on… odder (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that DR established anything other than what most people write at DR is a completely uneducated guess. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- odder, it is exactly as Colin pointed out it. As is often the case at DRs like this the result is without case law or even a legal opinion to back it up. In this case the outcome was very disrespectful of the photographer who created the conditions that allowed these photos to be created. There are some jurisdictions where even the monkey could be imbued with the copyright as its creator. Regardless, in absence of actual case law, legal opinion, or even an informed one, it would seem the precautionary principle would be the best approach instead of participating in a self-serving rights grab. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It isn't uncommon to have nature photographs triggered by the animal passing some light beam. Or lightning photographs triggered by the flash. Or a camera installed to take pictures periodically. These presumably give loads of duff shots and some person chooses the decent ones and works on them a bit and publishes. And we really have no idea what processing the photographer did of the raw shots. We wouldn't have this photograph if it wasn't for that photographer. Morally, I think the photographer (the person who owned the camera and "developed the film") has some rights to it, regardless of whether law has anything to say on the issue. -- Colin (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The owner of the camera is named at the image description page, which is a good thing I think. Jcb (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - selfie of the year - Jcb (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, too low resolution, 2MP needed. - Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC) + a too manipulated original. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Alchemist-hp, just a quite note, the FPX template shouldn't have been used above as this already had a support vote other than mine (the nominator). Anyway, sure the image is below 2MP, and that is the "guideline", but we can, and do, ignore all rules on our projects (as I showed above with the Iranian nomination). I think the photo basically has all other requirements needed for FP, except for the 2MP, so how about ignoring all rules in this instance. :) russavia (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:russavia: a rule is a rule for me. When we ignore our guidlines then we don't need these. Please delete these now ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Alchemist-hp in line with your request I have gone ahead and deleted Commons:Imаge guidelines. Now that we no longer have this to deal with, can you now vote with your heart and change your vote to support? russavia (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ha, ha, ha. A good joke :-) but here still readable: Guidelines for nominators ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Jcb. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs to brush ~~his~~ her teeth. I find the plaque very distracting. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Her teeth, she is female. Jcb (talk) 11:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Jcb for correcting. :P (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if "rotated and cropped." Only original as it is by the Macaca nigra has any significance here. Good work by her, indeed. J e e 08:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ per Russavia --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- see legal discussion below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Russavia --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - awesome selfie JurgenNL (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cool, but the resolution just isn't there, without strong mitigating factors. Yes, it's uncommon for an animal to take a selfie, but it's not like a similar photo can never be taken. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (original) edit

Support per Jee --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was to nominate it... A "selfie" by a monkey, that's a FP !--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho FP --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Wow! Wonderful example of animal intelligence and ability to learn from. Certainty our ancestors! J e e 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry; but I sympathize with the efforts of "the photographer in background". (per Saffron's comment below) J e e 03:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support The original is nice as well - Jcb (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this one is also great. I love this pic. Natuur12 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Just don't like the rotation. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, still too low resolution, 2MP needed, but otherwise a nice and interesting shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon :) Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - awesome selfie JurgenNL (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the resolution is really low. --Ivar (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) low resolution, 2) possible copyright issues - the Daily Mail photoghrapher could claim copyright due to staging, postprocessing, or simply having had the funny idea. Sorry --A.Savin 19:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As A.Savin. --Karelj (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As A.Savin too. Halavar (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to concerns over unresolved copyright violation. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a selfie it should be more far away (close up distortion) since these persons have long arms --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my comment above. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- see legal discussion below --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distorted face because of too short distance to the object. -- -donald- (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many users voted against ensuring potential problems with copyright, however, no one is able to make a nomination for deletion. :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why bother with a DR when people pick and choose when copyright is to be respected based on little more than personal opinon? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the finest on Commons"? Don't see what is "fine" about taking someone's work without permission. -- Colin (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Get me the contact details of the monkey, and I'll be sure to contact them for permission, if you do desire. russavia (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm being serious Russavia. The monkey did not buy the camera and travel to a foreign country to take pictures. He didn't download the images into Lightroom, choose the ones that worked and delete the failures, adjust the levels and noise, crop and tidy up, save as a JPG and then contact his agent to get the images released to the press. This isn't some funny random cameraphone facebook photo someone found on the internet and appropriated. This guy takes photographs for a living. These photographs are his work. -- Colin (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you should nominate this picture for deletion. odder (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm tempted to use the "Commons is not Facebook" rationale. :) J e e 15:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        What is the point, odder, if the project only cares about copyright law? I just don't think this is anything to be proud of. Now, if the human photographer wants to donate the image CC then I'd support one of these. Has anyone asked him? After all, the Internet has stolen his picture already. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with the photographer and he indicates that the first time this image was uploaded to Wikimedia he requested it be taken down and it was. He is quite unhappy it was re-uploaded and asserts his copyright over this image and is seeking legal advice to escalate this further. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a serious issue. If that what you state above is true, those three images should be suggested for deletion asap. Sandstein and odder are OTRS members, with the result that their real names ( + probably the adresses) are relatively easily ascertainable. I think none of both would be pleased to be taken to court by a photographer who claims copyright on that pictures and has a real chance to have it adjudged. --A.Savin 21:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to me to sue individual volunteers. If somebody has doubts about the PD rational, he/she can start a DR and the community will discuss and decide. Also the photographer is able to contact the WMF legal department. If they think he is right with his claim, they will remove the files. Sueing an individual volunteer instead of contacting WMF will fail in most jurisdictions I guess. Jcb (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this process, but the deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg resulted in keeping the image, and as discussed there other media organizations have also refused to recognize copyright claims in this image. Sandstein (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A glorified blog whose underlying mantra articulates that "I want a PRINCIPLED Free Culture Movement" is to be trusted as a reliable "media organization" when it comes to the discussion of copyright, given their disdain for the photographer in this case, is quite a dubious position to take. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reomäe kiriku sisevaade.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 19:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Amadvr - uploaded by Amadvr - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Please fix chromatic aberration. See notes --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ascetic but lovely. --Mile (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an image note about symmetry.  Richard  [®]  14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and agree with crop suggested by Richard.--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rethymno - Wellenbrecher.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 20:20:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting textures ... it seems like it's waiting to be used as an album cover by some interesting band. Daniel Case (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose Not enough wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow. --Claus (talk) 07:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's just a fragment of the breakwater. Definitely not an outstanding composition. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These tetrapods can produce great abstract photos, but this isn't an interesting enough composition for FP. You might want to look at this month's photo challenge Commons:Photo Challenge/2014 - January - A bunch of stuff to see if you have a photo (or cropped photo) in your collection that could be entered. -- Colin (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

different people, different opinions --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I wrote previously in the QIC page, I think there is something different in this picture. Something "more" I would say. I like the random geometry (can geometry be random ?), the various lights for the same objects, the composition, and the minimalism. Well, a FP for me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting view. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 20:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow /St1995 14:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Viscontino (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suitsu jõgi Matsalus.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 17:03:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 12:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Athanasius Soter (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--XRay ^talk 14:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very picturesque. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La nascita di Venere (Botticelli).jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 07:43:39

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)
Delist Too much FPs of Venus.-- Claus (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As long as we have the Google Art Project version (or another high-resolution version) as an FP. Michael Barera (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Michael. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist /St1995 15:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Jee 13:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013(2)-Israel-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-View 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 23:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Temple Mount, Jerusalem

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The columns of the dome on the left are not perfectly vertical.
~~Support~~ -- Godot13 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky color is a little unnatural; plus the composition isn't sufficiently striking. Daniel Case (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Daniel --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will go back to the raw file and check on the sky color (I processed this image on a different computer). As far as composition, I thought the framing and deep DOF was interesting (at least to me). Thanks for the reviews...-Godot13 (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version edit

Reworked from raw file

Comment Reworked from the raw file. While the composition remains the same, I hope the sky is better.-Godot13 (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version 2 edit

Comment I preffer this version with natural sky --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup, so do I... Today was a bad sky day for me. - Godot13 (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kosterhavet-Ursholmen 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2014 at 23:28:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Petr Vodička - uploaded by PetrVod - nominated by PetrVod -- PetrVod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- PetrVod (talk) 23:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness --Claus (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - to say "lacking sharpness" is to say nothing; I'm sorry --A.Savin 22:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-08-09-peak-by-RalfR-04.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hong Kong; View from Victoria Peak to Victoria Harbour and Kowloon

Info all by -- Ralf Roleček 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 11:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment big dustspot on the left. -- Christian Ferrer 19:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- right, i have it corrected. --Ralf Roleček 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail really deep, and I checked since now, thanks to Wikimania, I have good first-hand knowledge of what I'm looking at on the Kowloon side. I like the idea of coming in tighter ... not every picture of the Hong Kong skyline from the Peak needs to show it all. Daniel Case (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Banteay Kdei, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 15.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 11:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sandstone bas-relief of a Dvarapala statue (gate guardian) in Banteay Kdei ("Citadel of Chambers"), built in the mid-12th to early 13th centuries AD, Angkor, former Khmer Empire, today Cambodia. All by me, Poc o² 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice Christian Ferrer ^TALK 12:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, just good quality image. No wow. --Karelj (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and the plant is "the" detail ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Red-rocks-park-in-autumn.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 07:48:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded and nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ethically Yours (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but not very sharp. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition ok but not outstanding. Technical quality poor - unsharp and heavy JPG compresssion. -- Colin (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality issues, mainly compression, that are visible at a reasonable viewing size. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baum frisst Schild.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 19:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Happy meal, a hungry tree :-) all by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Baum frisst Schild - it sure does. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be truly spectacular if it burped... Kleuske (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and about what is written there? Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Surely an interesting photo and a technically well done shot. But imho the motive is not spectacular enough. If you are frequently in German woods you know such kinds of hungry trees very well. A simple Google Image Search reveals that there are much more spectacular examples of Baum frisst Schild. A more illustrative example is when the tree eats the sign from both sides as on this shot.--Tuxyso (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, and lack of wow. Daniel Case (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare scenario and well, lets say a wayward composition. I entirely share the consideration of Kleuske  Richard  [®]  14:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upper Antelope Canyon 03 2013.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 15:14:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea what exactly I'm looking at. More like an abstract piece of artwork (no offence, dude). Also, no wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if you are inside the Canyon you don't know what is really around you. The whole place is some kind of natural artwork - people who had been there will agree with this statement. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a fantastic shot. However, for me to be considered FP it needs an scale, as a person around to compare and to know how big or how small are these fantastic geological structures. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. There was a previous (unsuccessful) nomination of mine with scale. I have another shot with a stick as scale. Do you think the one with stick is better? I like the composition with the nomination at hand. You can fully concentrate on forms, structures and light/shadow parts :) --Tuxyso (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - With the scale it is better because we can consider how big the structure is. On the other hand, I prefer colors of the image above; it has more contrast. --Mario Modesto Mata (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Similar one already featured. I'm sorry (I didn't check for the quality). --A.Savin 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
sorry,but both images are VERY different. They share the same material but have nothing else in common. Really a reason for opposing? Hardly to understand for me. Even the orientation is different. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an image within the same scope. FP ist the "very best" of us, and sometimes, less is more. --A.Savin 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Brilliant! Arcalino (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture shows another aspect of the very comprehensive canyon.  Richard  [®]  18:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 21:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support still nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As A.Savin mentioned:Similar one already featured. As long as you don't give us the choice between the two, I oppose. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I still find this argument rather strange. With this argument you could delist a lot of FPs, e.g.
  File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG / File:Taj Mahal N-UP-A28-a.jpg / File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India edit2.jpg / File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG
  
  In the case if you have exactly the same perspective, with the same framing, with the same objects and with similiar light I can follow your argument. But I see no reason to have different very good shots from the same place. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your comparison with Taj Mahal is not very relevant as people need different views of such a famous site. I am tempted to consider these two works as separate as the previous FP is about a particular spot (Heart formation) and this one is a generic view. But we can't blame the opposers if they are a bit selective, considering you have several successful FPs of this particular place. J e e 05:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Viola tricolor pansy flower close up.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2014 at 16:31:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Photos Public Domain - uploaded and nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ethically Yours (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing really sharp, chaotic background, strange white spots in the purple part of the blossom. --P e z i (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Le Signal de la Grave, (2446 m.). cairn.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 06:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info: Le Signal de la Grave, (2446 m.). Cairns are landmarks in a mountain landscape. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not very sharp, and the scenery doesn't blow me away. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manchester Cathedral (12645032543).jpg

File:Sadhu and a picture of Siva.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 11:36:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by travelwayoflife - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 11:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 11:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare ! --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info This is not Krishna, this is Shiva. --Joydeep _Talk 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Should be better with a "personality rights" warning in the file description page.--Jebulon (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How sure are we that the painting of Shiva is de minimis? Looks borderline at best to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are reproductions of ancient arts/concepts; so no one can claim copyright for them, I think. We made such a conclusion for similar works, earlier. J e e 05:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the gist of the discussion from what I've read. Lets say I take Vishnu, and depict him in a new way, perhaps inspired by public domain works and in a similar style. The new poses, backgrounds, etc. would still draw a new copyright. Otherwise every depiction ever published of any public domain figure would also be public domain, which is certainly not recognised. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; but most of the "components" I'm seeing on those pictures (including two small pictures on the stick) are very common in India. They are heavily re-printed and sell on roadside for a price of their printing cost. The watermark we are seeing there is that of the re-publisher. Here, in India, we use everything for free, including Microsoft Windows. :) J e e 06:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, it's very similar in Indonesia ;-). However, as the servers are in the US, and US copyright law is a bit stricter, I'd want proof that this print is already public domain before supporting (unless, of course, we determine that it is de minimis). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good photo. Halavar (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Surfers Paradise Dec 2013.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 13:56:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Surfers Paradise, Gold Coast QLD, Australia created by Donaldytong (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC) - uploaded by Donaldytong (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC) - nominated by -- Donaldytong (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great! But some geometric distortion required - tower in center of picture is "fallen" :) --Kikos (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but tilted + perspectives --Christian Ferrer 12:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome photo. And reminds me of the great time I spent at Q1 a few years back. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, I'm dreaming ... and visit the Gold Coast again :-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Donaldytong (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quai François Maillol, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 06:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not outstanding. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a random view from eye level. Nothing captures my interest. No wow. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the (wide) angle(s). --Caecilius Mauß (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Viscontino (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Santuario nacional.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 15:48:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Valter Campanato/ABr - uploaded by Limongi - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Could benefit from some haze removal (unsharp mask with large radius, small amount). A pity there's this gray building in the bottom left, but I guess that can't be avoided. Lupo 12:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Kapfenburg mit Himmel.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 20:42:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Kapfenburg Castle and sky on a sunny winter day. All by -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like this picture, nice colors, unfortunately the composition is not the best, too sky. Main object too distant. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Strangely enough, I like this image particularly because of the big sky and the clouds gathering above the castle. Well, de gustibus … --92.203.122.181 21:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the IP. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The scenery is important and emphasises the castle. --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 22:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uncommon comp but interesting.  Richard  [®]  13:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! I like this kind of sky. Halavar (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wilfredo. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AC-130H Spectre jettisons flares.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 15:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by United States Air Force - uploaded by SpecialOpsGuy - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wingtips are cut off. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH. Daniel Case (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The photographer made a bold choice in this composition and I think it works quite well. The observer feels much more drawn into the drama than it would normally be offered by a conventional shot. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isla Tapu, Phuket, Tailandia, 2013-08-20, DD 36.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 19:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Ko Tapu is a 20 m tall islet in front of the Khao Phing Kan islands, in the Phang Nga Bay, in Thailand. The island belongs to the Phang Nga National Park and since 1974 is also known as James Bond Island, because the James Bond movie The Man with the Golde Gun was filmed there. All by me, Poc o² 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ralf Roleček 20:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nixón (wop!) 20:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 dustspots (see notes) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed, thanks, Poc o² 08:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support James Bond is missing. ;-) --XRay ^talk 13:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) ~~IP vote is not eligible --P e z i (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support No la había visto, sino la habría nominado de inmediato. Excelente toma. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and seven ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I suppose I could complain about the very slight CA at the left or the shadow at the right but ... Phuket, this is a beautiful image. Daniel Case (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Viscontino (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Origanum vulgare - harilik pune.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 16:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Inflorescence of Oregano (Origanum vulgare), all by Ivar (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good details on the focal point; but the stem, leaves, etc. all OOF. The first comment I got when I started posting at whatplantisthat was "although abstract works look beautiful, they are less useful for us to describe the subject." I think your lens is very good for a single flower or its fine parts; but not enough for an entire ~~plant~~ inflorescence profile like this. (Good work; this comment is intended as a positive criticism to improve your works. Keep on.) Jee 03:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment main subject was not entire plant, only inflorescence. --Ivar (talk) 07:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected; thanks. :) J e e 07:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Thillebierg 2014 07.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2014 at 17:02:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pithead building of the former "Thillebierg" ironmine in Differdange, Luxembourg. All by VT98Fan (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- VT98Fan (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 10:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Graffiti has never been nice. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what?! —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.144.66.76 (talk) 21:24, 8 Januar 2014 (UTC) (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Männikjärve raba laugas.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 12:23:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice sharpening and colors. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Darkening the sky if it is very bright makes sense to me. Making it even darker if it's dark already doesn't. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gradual filters are a quite commonly used in landscape photography. Sky is dark? By far not dark. You can see the sky in histogram. I prefer some texture in the sky and not the solid light gray surface. I know that at such high latitudes where I am living I should not even take may camera out of the bag from October till March because there is just not enough daylight and only few days with clear skies but I am stubborn and I am capturing photos in winter and am using different techniques to make these photos look close to what is captured by human eye. Sky is dark only at night. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The main problem I have is that the reflection of the sky in the water is brighter than the sky itself (in the photo) which can never happen in reality and looks wrong to me for that reason. Some darkening is ok, I frequently darken skies myself, but it's very far from being white and losing texture here, so I just don't see the necessity. It's entirely your decision though, only a question of taste. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Potentilla indica - Toulouse - 2013-06-16.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 19:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flash light or artificial light in natural environment is not a good practice because this generates wrong exposition and hight contrast. Distracting left background --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem of flash is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The use of flash is usually inevitable in macro photography but here it is too intensive. Flash diffuser would have made the flash softer and the result better. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to agree with Urmas Haljaste, the flash wasn't really well used. I'm sorry but I believe the nomination is bound to fail because the picture is not really good :( --PierreSelim (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don Quijote de la Mancha. Teatro Teresa Carreño.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2014 at 17:56:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The position of the legs of the female dancer are perfectly aligned to the three background elements. The photo is definitely an eye-catcher. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp. --Kikos (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the copyright situation here? Isn't the performance & set copyright? -- Colin (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in order. For more information, you can talk to the person author of the choreography, Laura Fiorucci --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Family Anatidae edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 17:28:22 (UTC)

The Egyptian Goose (Alopochen aegyptiacus) is member of the duck, goose and swan family Anatidae. C/u by User:Richard Bartz
Chestnut Teal (Anas castanea), Gould's Lagoon, Tasmania, Australia. C/u by User:JJ Harrison
A family of Canada Geese in Redwood Shores, Redwood City, California. C/u by User:King of Hearts
A Greylag Goose (Anser anser) in St James's Park, London, England. C/u by User:Diliff

Info Set created ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful Set. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent selection. Could be nice see geolocalization --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anatidae is a family containing 146 species in 40 genera on nearly every continent. That's just too big a group for a set of four rather common birds to be special. And the individual pictures, while ok, are not among our finest. -- Colin (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, the family is too big for one set, I can maybe support every only images but not this set -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These images are just a few, and could not exist another set with other images? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered that you like my photo, but the same problem exists as with your Brasilia nomination: the purpose of a set is not to choose a few representative examples from a gigantic category of loosely related things. Examples of acceptable sets would be four pictures showing the metamorphosis of a butterfly, the eight pages of a pamphlet, or a pair of pendant paintings. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But these images do not cease to be good. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose Sorry; set is not intended for these types of sets. We already had a similar discussion recently while some one nominated a "birds" set with 16 pictures. We have a difficulty to present sets in POTY and the current consensus is to preset only the first or best picture in a set (the nominator can decide if he/she prefers) and mention others in description. See related discussion at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2013#Set_nominated.E3.80.80FPs and the notice at Commons:Featured pictures/chronological/current month. J e e 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Set improbable to be promoted. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment King of Hearts, How about nominate your picture of family of Canada Geese? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Côme & Saint Damien Grandes Heures Anne de Bretagne XVIe.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 22:13:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean Bourdichon - uploaded by JLPC - nominated by JLPC -- JLPC (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JLPC (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Restoring scratches, blemishes, etc. went quite well, and applying a black background is a good idea. As the high resolution original reveals, the colours in this nomination are a tad too bright. Assuming the original faded over the years it's quite reasonable to apply some sort of brightening and contrast enhancement. I'd be glad to support an improved version. The book's binding (and the resulting bend) is always an issue, but I think it's fair to assume that separating the original is not an option. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 05:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for your revision. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As some may know, the "Community" nominates me as a kind of specialist of restoration, and of this special book. No one have any idea of how such a restoration is difficult, and needs time and care in post-processing. Far much more than for any photograph here around. And this one is very well done. Yes, the brightening is maybe a bit strong (faces), but illuminated books, especially made for a Queen, were painted with "harsh", and flashy colors, with exagerated contrasts, in order to remain colorated for years or even centuries. Remember that this was painted around 1500; 500 years ago ! And we kept enough of original colors, to be able to restore almost how it was. Look, one can see the brush marks ! So, I support strongly this picture of the famous two brothers, patrons of med. doctors. My advice: add a bit of darkness, and reduce the brightness a little, then adjust the contrast.--Jebulon (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New file uploaded. I understand Chistoph Braun's arguments ( he's an expert too) but I think Jebulon, who worked on this book before me, understood what I tried to do : I wanted to show the picture as it could be seen by Anne de Bretagne the first time she had a look at it... I know it's difficult and probably impossible but it can be honestly tried, especially with somebody else's advice. So I've modified a bit my first picture according to the upper appreciations. I hope the difference with the original is now not so big as it was previously.--JLPC (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Jebulon (not that I could claim his expertise...) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon--Famberhorst (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 11:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --A.Savin 13:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tu y es ! Almost perfect, now.--Jebulon (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balliol College Dining Hall, Oxford - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 13:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressed my dad during a visit earlier in the day. Daniel Case (talk) 03:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Viscontino (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support brilliant --A.Savin 11:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support eben ein Diliff --Böhringer (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chaplin The Kid.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 21:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown (Publicity photo for "The Kid") - uploaded by Jbarta - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Iconic. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A posterchild for FP. Iconic, indeed. Kleuske (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can not resist. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moi non plus. This one is good as it is, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the sake of alt. J e e 02:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Child labour.--Claus (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info an edit by Crisco 1492, with some more restoration. Tomer T (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The is an uncontroversial edit and would recommend you just upload over the original. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do so as the image was up for FP, and thus (in case there were issues) I wanted others to have a chance to easily compare them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. You did an excellent job of repairing the large scratch but otherwise the two images are identical, hence my suggestion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to the de-artefacting I did on the JPG, actually. A little bit of detail appears to have been lost. I don't think it's a significant amount of detail, but others may disagree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but also pro uploading this over the other version. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If for the simple fact that there are still some large scratches in the first image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and suggest people who voted on both to choose one. Jee 06:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes closing easier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes; now both of them have 9 supports. So the closer need to toss a coin. :) J e e 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

The chosen alternative is: File:Chaplin The Kid edit.jpg

File:Friedenskirche November 2013.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 10:48:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Friedenskirche (The Church of Peace) in Potsdam (Brandeburg), Germany. View from Marlygarten im Schloßpark Sanssouci. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak). The image is technically without flaws and winter is the best time to take a photo from this side. But I have looked several times on the image to find something special. It is carefully composed, light is good but it looks imho rather flat due to the centered perspective. I guess a perspective as on this image is much better and has more FP potential than your back view. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image would be much more captivating with a crop at bottom, I've tried and IMO it's much much better, see note. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not entirely convinced, and now has more user voted for the current version.--ArildV (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiipsaare leaning lighthouse.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 13:31:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Urmas83 - uploaded by Urmas83 - nominated by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far much better than the night version (bis).--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. Halavar (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Viscontino (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice color handling and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on Support Simplicity rules. Daniel Case (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 13:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pelecanus erythrorhynchos at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 03:58:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Bruce1ee^talk 07:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice shot, but some blurness at the head and upper neck area. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry. It's a really nice image. The body and the feet looks sharper than the head, but the head is important IMHO.--XRay ^talk 13:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@XRay: I carefully applied some selective adjustments. Please check if the new version works for you. As for the back part of the head – that's where the feathers are softer and I left it as it was. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support It's better and good enough now, but IMO it could be sharper.--XRay ^talk 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Henri Frenay, head and shoulders ppmsca.13371 edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 11:01:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frink - uploaded by Christoph Braun - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for three reasons : a/ Very good restoration, b/ a true black and white photography, i. e. without any "absolute black" or "absolute white", but subtle grey mid-tones c/ Obvious historical value. --JLPC (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait of a french hero of the "Résistance" during the WWII. Per JLPC --Jebulon (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For all the reasons mentioned above + historic value. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schöne und handwerklich exzellente Restaurierung, nicht übertrieben aber es betont den Bildcharakter. Schönes Korn --Ralf Roleček 20:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent B&W portrait + historical value. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:The statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il on Mansu Hill in Pyongyang (april 2012).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 12:27:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by J.A. de Roo - uploaded by J.A. de Roo - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both statues are blur. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes - the technical quality of the image could be a bit better. Still, the unusual and uncommon subject, the artistic banality of the two "demigods' " statues, in short: the absurdity of the whole scene wow me quite a lot. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one makes me grin. We need more of this. --A.Savin 19:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for sure a valuable picture and a very useful documentation. But not every reasonably proper image of North Korea can get because of the restricted entry requirements automatically a FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the quality isn't perfect, but imo acceptable. I had seen pictures of worse quality become promoted, and they were nowhere near so valuable. --A.Savin 21:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop: too close to the top. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but neither the quality or crop convinces me. I guess this is a standard stop for all goverment-run tourist groups in DPRK and the picture is not unique enough to compensate for quality shortcomings. I am also not convinced that this is the best picture of the monument on Commons (see category:Mansudae Grand Monument).--ArildV (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wedding Skyline San Diego 2013.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 06:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Wedding shooting in front of the skyline of San Diego all by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Some feedback is appreciated. No wow? Quality problems? Compositional problems? I like the photo and it is (at least for an average European) relatively spectacular to have a bridal couple in front of such a nice skyline. I think this photo is also educationally interesting because it shows a typical action of a wedding photographer - placing the couple in front of a nice background. Where is room for improvement? Thanks, --Tuxyso (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. May be less green at the bottom would be better, but it's OK. --XRay ^talk 14:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per XRay, the green grass is disturbing and break the dynamic of the picture whitch here is horizontal, I think it need a crop at bottom of about 350 or 400 px -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks, Christian and XRay,that was a good idea. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not, pretty picture -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tuxyso I shall have crop the image a little more to have so much sand as green grass, that would visually have been more harmonious and removes none details important for the image -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment I would like to keep it as it is. IMHO the different surfaces (sand, grass, water) and different sizes are somehow intersting. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral shouldn't there be a "personal rights" tag? The facial expression of the spouse seems to tell me, that he dislikes the presence of an additional photographer. The bride looks like weeping. The bag in the foreground (suppose it's the equipment of the wedding photographer) is disturbing (I know you couldn't change that). --P e z i (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Церковь Иоанна Предтечи (Керчь) 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 12:02:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anatoly Shcherbak - uploaded by Anatoly Shcherbak - nominated by Anatoliy -- Anatoliy (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somebody please fix the white pixels at the top border (see image note). Visible only at full resolution. Lupo 22:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and top border fixed.--Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 14:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Crop too tight at the bottom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pixelated sky and some colour banding on the cloud just to the right from the dome, sorry --A.Savin 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crisco 1492. Kruusamägi (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good for me. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Umland, Feld -- 2012 -- 7.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 16:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I am too spoiled by Estonian landscapes but I don't see the right rural atmosphere here. Good photo but not outstanding. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urmas. Kruusamägi (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think it's better to nominate another image. Thanks for your review.--XRay ^talk 12:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kohle-Kohle-Kohle!.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 16:22:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bucket-wheel excavator 255 of Rheinbraun at work. In the background you can see the Tagebau Inden and the power plant in Eschweiler

Info created by Spyridon Natsikos - uploaded by Sarkana - nominated by TCCE -- TCCE (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TCCE (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it!--XRay ^talk 16:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Anatoliy (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality ain't perfect but wow helps to compensate. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kruusamägi --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well an impressive vehicle. Sorry, but this is generally much too dark, the shovel and many details can not be seen. --Böhringer (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Böhringer. -- -donald- (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Böhringer. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a quality image but definitely worth of featuring. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Böhringer --A.Savin 12:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This candidate is very nice but has unmistakeable flaws.  Richard  [®]  14:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much black clipping, sadly. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Театр оперы и балета. Зал.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 18:08:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alex Levitsky & Dmitry Shamatazhi - uploaded by Alex Levitsky & Dmitry Shamatazhi - nominated by Ahonc -- Anatoliy (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Support awesome image. Minor technical bugs are absolutely negligable- --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO noisy and unsharp on top. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Arcalino (talk) 07:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Xxlfussel
Support Corners could be better but good anyway. --Mile (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is some noise but it is not distracting. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Stunning... ! Tomer T (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient dynamic range. Much is clipped top and bottom. -- Colin (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Halavar (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same as I said at QIC great view but below quality threshold for FP, there is a high noise level and the quality drop in the top part is not adequate for a FP, sorry Poc o² 21:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PalmseManorPark.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 14:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 14:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition not really working for me. Like the various subjects are facing out of the picture and a gap in the middle. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mourèze, Hérault 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 11:15:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unattractive light. Key subject is very small and surrounded by too much uninteresting tree landscape and not enough of the interesting rock landscape, which is the big feature of this area. Sky not interesting. -- Colin (talk) 12:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version with new edition -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bellagio Las Vegas December 2013 panorama.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2014 at 22:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 22:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC) too strong distortet but great photo.[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The railing on the right is rather distracting. I find the perspective correction gives all the buildings that top heavy look. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a beam of light in the upper left corner. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That comes from the Luxor. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that sharp, and the thing in the right corner below is disturbing to me.--Jebulon (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dahlia 'Bishop of Auckland.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 07:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Dahlia 'Bishop of Auckland'. A nice selection. created by famberhorst - uploaded by famberhorst - nominated by famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 07:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TCCE (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, the flower actually stand out very well. I had gently pushed down some disturbing leafs to knock the flower more out from the background.  Richard  [®]  13:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the opportunity to do something to lower the flower.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Pterocnemia pennata head Edinburgh Zoo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2014 at 15:17:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Warby - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 15:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am not fully convinced about the DoF (but not the main reason for oppose). But the photo is definitely too dark, look at the histogram. approx. +0.8/+1.0 in LR. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC
- Comment According to guidelines: Images can be on the low side of the tonal curve (low range), the middle (middle range) or high side (upper range). Definitely not too dark. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely can an image be on the low side of the tonal curve but it depends on the motive. With this motive I see no obvious reason for a tonal curve with an emphasis on the low side. Please load this image into any good image editing programm and make your own judgement and do not only cite the image guidelines to argue against my assessment. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dof field is shallow and perfect here. Nice and sharp. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I like the composition but really miss a tick of sharpness, especially in the eye and peak, sorry, Poc o² 21:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Le ito xx 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sorà y Zecca da Ruatsch a Calfosch da pert de mesdi.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 16:40:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition.  Richard  [®]  18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colors and view. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King! interessanter Filename. Ladinisch? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its the two names of the farmhouses in Ladin Language --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have preferred to see a bit less of green grass, but anyway... --Cayambe (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it is overall a bit too bright Poc o² 21:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I worked for a slightly corrected version, but now, after 10 support votes I feel a bit uncomfortable to upload a modified version.--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A tad oversharpened it seems to me; but the color, composition and detail more than make up for that. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has not been sharpened (I rarely do it). Thanks for your support!--Wolfgang Moroder ([[User talk:Moroder--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)|talk]]) 10:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... maybe it was the camera. Oh well ... Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! I was only planning to scroll down the page but this really jumped out at me. -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. I'd like to encourage you to upload the corrected version, though. The current image is slightly too bright. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded a slightly modified (lighting) version --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even better than before! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, die neue Version ist nochmal eine Verbesserung. Danke! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice place, but Per Cayambe. And I find the colors a bit oversaturated.--Jebulon (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are the real colours. I invite you to come visit. I did not at all modify the file in regard to saturation. Farmers here live on cattle and need lots of grass...--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for invitation ! For sure I'll come one day, bacause I'm very interested by earing you speaking ladin !--Jebulon (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have a few word in common with French ;-)--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kapellbrücke with flowers.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luca Casartelli - uploaded by Viscontino - nominated by Viscontino -- Viscontino (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Viscontino (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but imo unfortunate upper crop (also cropped swan at bottom doesn't look very good) and blue channel is a bit overexposed. --Ivar (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad balance, blown out parts, bad crop, boring standard composition of this well known bridge --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and blown sky in corner. Daniel Case (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 14:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Must-Jaala järv1.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 10:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lake Must-Jaala, all by Ivar (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Viscontino (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting enough subject/composition imo. So no wow. -- Colin (talk) 12:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Actually I find the composition quite interesting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is definitely wow for me, but I think the crop is too tight all around. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per King, good attempt of composition but the trunks in foreground are too much close of the sides, however nice picture. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Ivar (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rio de Janeiro Corcovadoview crop2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 20:39:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wolfhardt - uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's that black thing in the middle of the water at left? A bird? A plane? (Definitely not Superman, though). Daniel Case (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prefer the wider crop. Btw, it is a bird. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop edit

Support Prefer this crop which shows the bridge on the left and doesn't lose much important from the bottom. -- Colin (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Previous (upper) version is better but anyway something is not enough to be featured. --Kikos (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Already the coming days of the end of the vote and no one supports. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Domesticated goose head, Chaguaramal, Venezuela.jpg (delist), not delisted and/or replaced edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 12:41:51

Info I think this version is superior than (Original nomination)
~~Delist~~ Delist and replace -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the background seems busy. You can try {{Delistandreplace}} if you prefer. J e e 13:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jee. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the current FP version with less details in background. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question But What about of image size? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Size is definitely better with the new version, but at a moment I don't see that this addition in size will add much to the image. It doesn't bring out new details. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; there is a huge size difference. But I failed to understand your intention here. From the EXIF, I assume both are same work with background retouched in the first nomination. But there is no such information give there. Personally I discourage delist and/or replace if the benefit are marginal as there is a lot of background works we are doing for every FP (including the silent work by Thierry Caro to categorize them properly). J e e 16:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep  Richard  [®]  08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist and replace, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted and/or replaced. Jee 14:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greylag Goose - St James's Park, London - Nov 2006.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 12:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Diliff - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small and therefore lacking detail Poc o² 11:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Diego --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and technical a perfectly fine image, but too small (unfortunate crop).--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution too low, crop too tight. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable be successful because the resolution is low ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Umland, Sonnenaufgang -- 2012 -- 10.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 11:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 11:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 11:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted clockwise, composition is only almost symmetrical and doesn't work overall, in my opinion (especially the bottom crop). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good mood but per Julian, composition seems too ordinary. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. Another image from this series with a better composition will follow.--XRay ^talk 08:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neque Illic Mortuus, inside of Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 09:55:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hell...o everybody !-- Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  DOCTOR NECROS  [®]  13:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Now that's an image that'll jump out at ya. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Halavar (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like that the image is taken from a side and not directly from front. That doesn't seem to be the best possible angle. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My choice: the Death looks directly at YOU ! ark ark ark... and yes, it was the best angle possible to obtain a posed place without tripod...and to avoid flash shadows --Jebulon (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Poznan 10-2013 img06 University.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 10:33:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 10:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info tilt --Böhringer (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
where? --A.Savin 16:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~A bit tilted (the windows of the first and second floor)~~, anyway nice and good IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After another look, I see no tilt, I like the colors, sharpening and the architecture of the bulding --Christian Ferrer 07:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the building is too dark in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian. Lighting is not optimum.--Jebulon (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Light and the total view - good image, but why nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veliko Tarnovo (Велико Търново) - Tsarevets.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light and nice view -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I preffer cut composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but now is view to all fortress, for me is better --Pudelek (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing wrong with the picture for me. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The front part is in shadow, a pity.--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO too much shadow at important parts of the image. Another cut would be better.--XRay ^talk 13:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC) ~~Invalid vote. User need to be registred --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  18:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support due to lighting/sharpness/bit of oversharpening but FP overall IMO Poc o² 21:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop and too dark.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Panoramic view of Istanbul- Yeni Cami (The New Mosque), Galata Bridge. Turkey, Southeastern Europe.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2014 at 18:37:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Mstyslav Chernov - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent shoot, nice details, but tower on top is thin with sky?. Could be more interesting see more on bottom --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot of one of my most favorite cities. Halavar (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love Stambul! _{(FP now)} ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love Stambut too, but weather contitions was far from ideal to take great pictures. --Kikos (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:13-02-28-sektkellerei-henkell-wiesbaden-by-RalfR-09.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 13:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Henkell, Wiesbaden; entrance Marble Hall

Info Henkell, Wiesbaden; entrance Marble Hall; all by -- Ralf Roleček 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong chromatic aberration, need more DoF, noise. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CA and lack of sharpness. --Ivar (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sepolcro Laghel Arco di Giuseppe Moroder.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 11:28:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why this composition ? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It lies behind a grate --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

could be nice open the grate and try another composition. The composition look forced. I preffer look more and more space in eviroment. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe you'll come here and help me to find the key. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can talk to the priest or person in charge. I myself have had to ask permission to take photos in churches prohibited areas. No need to react rudely. :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The priest is a good friend of mine; unfo.rtunatly he lost the keys. You don't tell me that I'm rude while you give me sardonic comments --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry I have to say that whether or not it's possible to open the thing, as a resulting image, this doesn't convince me overall (beyond good quality). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash shadows on the wall do not look good. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]], featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 13:22:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/ Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Info created and uploaded by Loggan11 - modified by The Photographer - nominated by Admrboltz -- Admr Boltz 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Admr Boltz 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, very very hard to take (maybe from a airplane), Nice shoot. --The Photographer (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the shot was taken from the shoulder of the Rodovia Anchieta, above this road. --Admr Boltz 23:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My country! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little more color up top would be nicer but I'd be being picky. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice view, but I think that it is cw tilted and I feel that darkening the shadows in the top part would also help Poc o² 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard [®] 14:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Imzadi 1979 → 05:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 BW.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 19:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chevrolet Malibu 1977 BW. All by --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support BW improves the old car.--XRay ^talk 14:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting idea, but I can't get behind B&W for a new picture. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 07:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Histogram is all squashed together at the bottom; image is way too dark. Judging from the shadows, this was taken in harsh sunlight, so it should be much brighter. Would support a version with corrected levels. Lupo 11:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compare with File:Chevrolet Malibu 1977 Color.jpg! Something went wrong when this was desaturated. The B/W version has a completely different histogram. If re-done, would need to start afresh from the color version. The color version, however, has a problem in the sky where I placed the image note: it's way too red there. Remnants of this are still visible in this B/W version. Lupo 11:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for your comment. Sky is fixed --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, sky is better, though that mountain looks a bit artificial (very straight mountain slope). Also, the bushes there are now heavily blurred, and that sign has gone, too. What is it with that top left corner anyway? The color version also has been photoshopped there. Why? How did this corner look in the original, and why do you feel there's a need to photoshop that corner so heavily?
  
  Unfortunately, the histogram in this B/W version is still badly skewed, making the image way too dark. Lupo 13:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done The montain in "original" version is really artificial. I built photography based on another of the same montain, I think that histogram is fixed. Nice review --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the histogram still looks the same. It's shifted to the left, topping out at about 200, with the range above basically empty. The distribution is completely different from the color version. I tried desaturating the color version myself: a little gamma correction in the highlights, bringing the gamma down a notch to bring out more details on the ground in the foreground left, and then a luminosity-based desaturation. That gives a, IMO, much better balanced B/W picture. But of course, it still has that problematic upper left corner from the color version...

The mountain is now really better, but again this rather heavy-handed edit now lost the left half of the triangular sign on the pole, and gives a strange effect where the shrubs to the left of the pole are dark, and immediately to the right are very bright. If you could upload a color version with the original, unedited upper left corner, I can give this a try myself to produce a B/W version.

I like this image, but I also think the less editing is done the better. Lupo 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're becaming maniac with the histogram, I invite you to see image itself. There is no perfect histogram, each image has a different exposure which creates a different histogram. A perfect histogram kill artistic compositions --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a maniac. I find the image too dark and too subdued, and the histogram and especially its comparison with the color version tells me why. But you're free to disagree, of course. Lupo 20:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not bad, but it's a long way from "not bad" to " featured picture" IMO. I see here a bw picture of an old car, and it is not outstanding to me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Lupo and Jebulon. — TintoMeches, 13:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems a complicated nom ([1], [2]). Please don't close until 19:11, 20 January 2014. J e e 16:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As other opponents. --Karelj (talk) 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dactylorhiza fuchsii - vööthuul-sõrmkäpp Pakri.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 17:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Inflorescence of the common spotted orchid (Dactylorhiza fuchsii), all by Ivar (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ok --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support VeRy GoOd! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far better DOF than the previous one; probably the subject may not so thick as the other. J e e 03:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Admr Boltz 13:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Garzweiler Tagebau-1230.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2014 at 18:19:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raymond - uploaded by Raymond - nominated by TCCE -- TCCE (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TCCE (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice compo and interesting excavators, but imo noise reduction is a bit too strong (washed out details). --Ivar (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Ivar: Thank you for your comment. I have uploaded a new version. Raymond 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tilted clockwise. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Oppose~~ If not fixed. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  @ User:Julian Herzog: Thank you for your comment. I have uploaded a new version. Raymond 13:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing colors, amazing machines, good composition, excellent photograph. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 16:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral May be black is missing and there is noise at the bottom of the excavator. Additionally the DoF with f/5.6 is small.--XRay ^talk 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  15:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Albarracín, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 002.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 23:32:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smial (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course:) Please, let me give you some additional information about what you are looking at:
- Info These cavities are called "Galería de los Espejos" (Mirrors Galery) and are part of an ancient 25 km roman aqueduct built during the 1st century aC and composed of sections like this one caved in the mountain and open areas as most people know of an aqueduct.
  - I added also the geodata. Thanks Smial! Poc o² 17:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it and was immediately fascinated because of composition and lighting situation. One of those photos that work - without HDR, or pushed colours, or other heavy manipulations. -- Smial (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good, interesting and fascinant ~~--200.90.39.49 20:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)~~ --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Smial.--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice find by Smial the tracking dog.  Richard  [®]  14:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Playa de Ojos - Fuerteventura.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 22:56:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Martin Kraft (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and colors. Very nice. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and good image overall. Ethically Yours (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing colors. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just saw it. Many thanks for nomination! --Llez (talk) 11:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast, colors and feeling --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For the great subject, colors and composition, the sharpness is just so-so Poc o² 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colors made it.  Richard  [®]  14:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Socoa, France (panoramique).jpg (delist), delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 15:58:53

Info Very small and not that much of a wow (Original nomination)
Delist -- Kruusamägi (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --P e z i (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Also plenty of overexposed whites. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Ivar (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Admr Boltz 22:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Jee 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ayuntamiento Principal, Gdansk, Polonia, 2013-05-20, DD 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 06:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Scene in Długa Street with the Main Town Hall in the background, Gdańsk, Poland. All by me, Poc o² 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 06:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great streetview.--ArildV (talk) 08:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Let's Gdansk!!! An excellent illustration of an urban focal point, well accomplished. Daniel Case (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Daniel Case. But I definitely hate tourists :) !--Jebulon (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Exeter College Chapel, Oxford - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jan 2014 at 10:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and again: stunning quality. And no: A perspective correction does not seem necessary, imo. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I was going to mention that perspective correction does not work well on this image - the angle of view is already very high, so correcting the verticals would warp the top corners too much. Already they are at the limit of what I would consider acceptable. Diliff (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel uplifted just looking at it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Viscontino (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wonder what happened to the lights? I'm not sure I like it but it's surely FP anyhow--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What happened? The lights were just extremely bright and with a stopped down lens, you often get those star patterns around the light sources. I used an aperture of f/13 so that the whole scene would be in focus. It's quite unavoidable. It could be minimised by using a wide open aperture, but then the image quality would be much worse so it is a sacrifice worth making. I don't mind the effect though. Diliff (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to prevent speedy promotion. Very good as always, but I prefer File:Exeter College Chapel & Lectern, Oxford - Diliff.jpg. Would you mind adding it as an alt? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion is not accepted neither QI nor VI. It's weird that we can make in FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- To say that no uncorrected perspective distortion should ever be QI, VI or FP is very narrow minded. I'm usually the first to correct it where it's appropriate to do so, but I don't think it is here. Some images have such a large angle of view that perspective correction is not appropriate. In the case of this image, one consequence would be much greater distortion in the stained glass on the sides. Diliff (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no excuse for any perspective "distortion" with Photoshop CC. See Photoshop CC Warp Perspective and follow the example at the bottom :-) -- Colin (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Archaeo.--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Terminal 4S, Aeropuerto de Barajas, Madrid, España, 2013-10-17, DD 03.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 11:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Terminal 4S, Airport of Madrid-Barajas, Spain. All by me, Poc o² 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition. Floor reflection is too vague so I would prefer less floor and more ceiling. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urmas Haljaste.--Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Urmas, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhinoceros unicornis (posterior).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 20:06:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biopics - uploaded by Biopics - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  08:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice looking at the ass??? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and

Comment Could add male to category?. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --That is a great picture in which every body can find out amazing encyclopedic value. Alborzagros (talk) 08:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like the textures on back! A proud Indian.J e e 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --Pava (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic value.KhabarNegar (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination B.p. 17:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Akademietheater-DSC 0654w.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jan 2014 at 21:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Akademietheater (Part of Burgtheater), Vienna
Support -- P e z i (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but see note, pixel in upper left corner --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment think it was an airplane or a bright star / satellite. Anyway removed ... --P e z i (talk) 08:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the contrast between the stark white and black is disturbing to me, especially since the crop is uneven. There's also a vignetting effect and the perspective feels just a bit off. —Mono 01:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for feedback. For the "perspective" - please have a look on this different view to get a feeling for the shape of the building: File:Akademietheater-DSC 0656w.jpg --P e z i (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The left seems to be leaning left. Perspective correction overdone slightly? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for feedback. Don't see any leaning out (please take the step in the facade as reference, not the border). As I already wrote in answering Mono, this building has a special shape. --P e z i (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's what I did. All the lines are left-leaning, not just on the edge. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are right; new version uploaded (also with a slightly tighter crop on left side). But still thinking, that ShiftN did a good job; it was definitely less than 0.5° leaning ... --P e z i (talk) 13:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, just normal night image. --Karelj (talk) 10:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 18:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Surb-Hach DSC 4567 01-216-9001.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 19:17:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Haidamac - uploaded by Haidamac - nominated by USERNAME -- Anatoliy (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anatoliy (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow in composition, branches and shadow at right distracting. Daniel Case (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose So plain...and I concur with Daniel above. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wadi Bani Khalid RB.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 21:36:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic image of Wadi Bani Khalid. A wadi about 203 km from Muscat, Oman. c|u|n by  Richard  [®]  21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --  Richard  [®]  21:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The other nominated image of the same motif is better IMO. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great detail, the scene works well in my opinion, but the amount of clarity added looks unreal, especially in the sky. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Montagne Noire, Hérault 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 19:18:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I do not find sufficient interest in the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry to repeat always the same old things, I know I can be annoying: the landscape depicted in this photograph do not send me anything. Clouds and trees are not taken into consideration, yet there are, it follows a nasty cut image. I'm sorry --Pava (talk) 00:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Pava. --Karelj (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Upholstering the seats of your own car.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 23:49:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good idea, good composition apart from the bottom crop, that could be more generous, I miss a piece of the textile. Furthermore the noise level is a bit high, that is especially annoying in the shadow below the textile Poc o² 11:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A potentially great picture has been spoiled by poor execution and post-processing. The room should have high contrast with the light outside clearly outside of the dynamic range of a camera set for exposing inside. The histogram indicates otherwise, with everything in the midtones. Here, the shadows have been lifted such there is no black (as it should be under the table) and lots of noise, and the whites/highlights reduced so much that the window is posterised and falsely coloured. The shutter speed is a little low for capturing someone who isn't holding a still pose. -- Colin (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Explained well by Colin. The highlight darkening worries me the most. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. When you're indoors it's OK if a window is completely blown-out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Nice Colin review. However, I deleted RAW file. Maybe in the future I could try do a reverse engineering Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Müürlooga (Arabidopsis thaliana) lehekarv (trihhoom) 311 1001.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 19:31:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Heiti Paves - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have already featured a very similar image of the same originator recently (File:Müürlooga (Arabidopsis thaliana) lehekarv (trihhoom) 311 0804.JPG). I think one featured image of this type is enough. Another point, which I have already mentioned quite some time ago, is that the image description lacks any scale information. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fragmento del Valle de Viñales. Cuba.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 22:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow in the composition for me, sorry. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Los Angeles (California, USA), South Olive Street -- 2012 -- 7.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 04:39:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 04:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 04:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Pretty, but perhaps composition could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Admr Boltz 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality is nice, but the composition doesn't convince me at all, sorry. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wadi Bani Khalid East RB.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Wadi Bani Khalid (right) and the entrance to Kahf Maqal Caves (left) heading east. Wadi Bani Khalid is a wadi about 203 km from Muscat, Oman. c|u|n by --  Richard  [®]  00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --  Richard  [®]  00:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture! But some some CCW rotation required to fix skew? --Kikos (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.  Richard  [®]  08:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kikos (talk) 12:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one more than your other nomination. The elevated camera position gives an excellent overview of the Wadi. There's a lot to discover in this image. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as in the other nomination, a lot of clarity. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition and high educational value. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colors just right everywhere in the image, detail flawless—anyone who doesn't look at this at full res is missing a lot. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent for me too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angla tuulikud Saaremaal.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 07:46:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Angla windmills in Saaremaa, Estonia. All by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Linie29 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kaberneeme campfire site.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 07:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nomination

Info all by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not very informative and not sufficient wow to do without. It does not look like a campfire, btw, more like a chimney on fire. Kleuske (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Description of the picture is in Englis: Outdoor fireplace at Kaberneeme campfire site, Estonia. You are right, it's not a campfire. "Chimney on fire" would be also a good description but it's not actually fire in the picture. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great picture without doubt. Maybe I'am a bit oldschool but in the earlier days of COM:FPC we had a maxime that a picture should be QI + VI + somehow special to become featured. This image seems to fulfill only the need of a "wow" picture, but nothing more in my opinion. Only recently I've noted that a lot of featured pictures aren't used in the whole project, what makes me sad somehow. FPC is going to degenerate into a cheap imitation of FlickR, instead of being a media file repository for making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content. But don't worry I'am shure there will be a bunch of claqueurs who cheer up this image in their stoic manner, like they (nowadays) always do. Just my 5 cents. Regards 77.187.26.83 19:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe I should leave it be but after you have humiliated everybody who have or would have given their support to this image I cannot keep silent. If you think this photo is not a featured then you can just show your opposition in a way that others do. I am sure nobody will support the nomination because nobody wants to be a claqueurs. Nice move, you must be a politician. I don't know who you are because your comment was anonymous, but even if you are somebody really important, I must say your are going wrong with your statement. There are pictures that are not used in the project but it does not mean the pictures will not be used in the future. The scope of educational and useful content is not limited with your understanding of these things. People are different and they might find different photos useful. Your patronizing attitude towards me and some other users does not honor you. I don't worry about the voting, I have really nothing to lose or win here. To be honest I didn't have high hopes about this photo to be prompted to FP. I leave it yours and others to decide. But I didn't expect the comment "only idiots will support this" either. This is not intelligent. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is no question about intelligence but rather fairness. Eagerly uploaders with "only" encyclopedic contributions will never get a chance to be honoured here. My intention to add my 5 cents isn't personally, nor I want to offend someone, but in my opinion the candidate carries that "wow at any price" thing too far. 77.187.168.116 22:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support stoically claqueuring. Besides, the picture does have EV in more than just one regard and its technical quality is very good. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent example of pathlines visualizing fluid movement. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be POTY Finalist.  Richard  [®]  08:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main reason to vote support/oppose to me is: will I see this picture on startpage of my home wiki? Nope! Nothing to see there. Nothing exceptional. Not all good quality images I'll see on frontpage - only exceptional. --Kikos (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Support. I know it's difficult to make a picture of quality and shooting at the right time. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portal Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 10:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. Created and uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is much noise in the sky. --XRay ^talk 11:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.  Richard  [®]  13:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 06:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Arild for nominating.  Richard  [®]  14:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think there is something wrong with the crop at right.--Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I doubt that it will remain for good due to FoP, but FP to me. Poc o² 22:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rethymno - Neratzes-Moschee1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 06:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info high resolution image of this interesting former mosquee, all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 15:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides my vote on QIC and the question wether or not an historic building mainly covered by scaffolding is really a good subject, I don't like the tight crop on the top and, the "floating" balkonies on the left and this perspective leading to a strong distortion of the towers top. Imo the view point of the previously used picture in de.Wikipedia was way better. --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tight crop I easy can change. The balkonies I can retouche. The former pic is IMO not better because it has very disturbing parts on the left. But I have also a different view of this building. I will upload it the next days. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the crop could be changed, but that should been done prior to the nomination. Once nominated, we can only evaluate an image as it is. Even with that improvements made, this image may be good but still not really extraordinary. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not able to guess which of your points are essential for your opinion and which not. Astonishing that you not argue on the essential point. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read what I've written in my first post: The overall perspective and compositon just isn't optimal. The absence of obvious mistakes alone doesn't make it a Feature Picture --Martin Kraft (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I already have written: a subjective perception without substantive argumentation isn't helpfull. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-06-27-gouda-by-RalfR-127.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 15:33:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cheese market in Gouda, cheese and a brig with Friesian horses for transporting the cheese

Info Cheese market in Gouda, cheese and a brig with Friesian horses for transporting the cheese - all by -- Ralf Roleček 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ralf Roleček 15:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Problem building perspective. The construction appears to be made of cardboard (such as Hollywood scenarios) and that could fall at any time. The point of building some kind of blur is observed. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Das große Gebäuse sieht für mich ehrlich gesagt so aus, als wäre bei einer Perspektivenkorrektur irgendwas schief gelaufen. Schwer zu beschreiben, aber das Haus sieht irgendwie in sich verdreht aus. Auch sonst find' ich's irgendwie nicht so doll: Menschenauflauf im Hindergrund, dessen Grund sich nicht erschließt, dem Pferd fehlt der Kopf … --El Grafo (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild ist nicht perspektivisch korrigiert, es ist original aus der Kamera mit 10 mm fotografiert. --Ralf Roleček 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, dann wäre das vielleicht in Fall, wo eine solche Korrektur angemessen wäre. Ich bin beileibe kein Freund davon, auf Teufel komm raus alles "gerade" zu ziehen, aber das hier sieht für mich einfach irgendwie "falsch" aus. Ist natürlich nur meine persönliche Meinung … --El Grafo (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Despite the technical shortcomings an excellent photograph. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition issue: bad crop right (the horse) and left (person).--Jebulon (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:4.8-17-1990-Guld-koranside-recto-og-verso.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jan 2014 at 15:17:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question I dont know if it is posible. Translate each page in description section. thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:44, 17

January 2014 (UTC)

Support Nice Peter23 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vagues et manchots à l'assaut de la plage.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 20:12:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by franek2 - uploaded by Kikos - nominated by Kikos -- Kikos (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kikos (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the action and the movement in the photo. Excellent shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Mile (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bangladeshi and U.S. Paratroopers Take to the Skies at Cope South 14 Image 24 of 27.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 19:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Captain Raymond Geoffroy - uploaded by Rahat - nominated by Rahat -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Withdrawn? J e e 14:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bibliothèque du Parlement-19729.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 06:11:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gil on cam - uploaded by Gil on cam - nominated by -- ///EuroCarGT 06:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ///EuroCarGT 06:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Despite the lower resolution, I prefer this simply because it has more room to breathe and the light is better. Top and bottom show a lot of CA here, too. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose cut off building, here an image of the complete building File:Ottawa - ON - Library of Parliament.jpg --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Squeezed composition --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serbian Christmas meal.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 11:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Beautiful, nice composition, diferent and sharp. But, please, could you fix chromatic aberration. thanks --The Photographer (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I would, If I could see one. This might be result of stacking, not CA (right-shadowed part of candle). --Mile (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer no longer sees the picture, just the CA. -- Colin (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good food picture. -- Colin (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good photo. Some CA on the bottom left, I think that could be reduced a bit, but not horrible. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, the CA on the bottom left is stronger and worth tackling, whereas the "CA" that The Photographer has been edit-warring on the file-description-page to keep is essentially sub-pixel. -- Colin (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done CA removed, good observing Julian, haven't saw it earlier. The Photographer - I really cant help there, I cant see any CA there, if you could be more precise I could solve. --Mile (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the Candle edge and over the scarf skirt bottle you can see

chromatic aberration, ie an aura of green and red. Still there --The Photographer (talk) 15:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually still strong CA in a few places in the highlights of the silverware. But on the candle and napkin the CA is at perfectly acceptable levels. The Photographer, sub-pixel-peeping a 16MP image is disruptive. Please stop. It will only encourage people to upload downsampled images and then Commons is the loser. If you want perfection, I'd be grateful if you could buy me a Zeiss Otus for my birthday. -- Colin (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am absolutely against perfection because it kill artistic pictures. However, I Will not a beginner's and important error pass becasue the Featured Pictures are the best pictures of commons. Somebody asked me a question and I answered. This error is perfectly correctable in one click with lightroom or photoshop and with some more in gimp. I do not understand how something so easy to fix can be this problematic. This error that you consider negligible, would not have passed the requirements of image quality (see image quality section in commons). If we allow this kind of easy corrected mistakes to pass, we should rethink about this section requirements. This section should use the requirements of quality images (and more), but now is being considered a section with lower requirements. I doubt that this would have happened in QIC. --The Photographer (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a "beginner's error" in thinking the amount of CA on that candle is in any way important. And this sort of fussing is harmful. Software tools can't guarantee to remove all CA and certainly not all kinds of CA and they do so by altering the image, which can be harmful to colour accuracy elsewhere in the picture. And such CA can only be fixed by the creator who has access to the source uncropped image and ideally the RAW file. Attempting to fix CA by editing a JPG or a cropped JPG may actually do much more harm than good. By all means point out minor flaws as a suggestion, but withholding support on the level of issue you annotated is rude and ignorant. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done red CA removal at serviette. Hope satisfied now, did it at 400%. I should say in start - photo is at full crop, no downsizing and hiding like some could or would do. Pixel peeping (among PD) is often done by hardcore begginers but its more domain on dpreview fanatics, but with time it come to normal behaviour. Judge with tolerance full sized photo, be harsh on downsized one. Have a margin for compact camera owner, and other for full frame owner. That would be my advice. --Mile (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Every CA still there. I added another note, you can see strong

chromatic aberration. I really love this image, If you wan, I could try fix it, send me a mail. --The Photographer (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done one more correction. For candle, none to see. I am glad you set new standards, just don't set something you cant follow. --Mile (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I make so bold. I uploaded a version with

chromatic aberration fixed, if you dont like this version, you could simply revert --The Photographer (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your version was based on an old upload so I've reverted it. Mile had already uploaded an improved version (with other quality improvements overall such as to background and stacking). His version doesn't eliminate the CA entirely but the worst bits are now much reduced. -- Colin (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but for me the crop at the bottom left is too tight. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Example of chromatic aberration on the side. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yummy, yummy, and then cheers--Тајга (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of course the I understand that lense distortion is deliberate, but the fact that nothing is straightly vertical is disturbing to me.--Jebulon (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good overview and photographic setting Anonimski (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard [®] 15:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea of creating a still life is good, yet the composition looks rather ill-conceived in terms of arranging objects by colour, shape, size and camera angle of this composition (per Jebulon). I like the soft light but would expect clean reflections for featured picture status. Last but not least: a lit candle would be the icing on the ~~cake~~ Serbian Christmas meal. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 04:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortions. I feel like on board of Titanic :) Can't be fixed? --Kikos (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Tartu kesklinn.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jan 2014 at 09:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ireena - uploaded by Ireena - nominated by Ireena -- Ireena (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ireena (talk) 09:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its ok for QI, but need more details for FP. IMHO --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some white clipping and I don't see a subject that works in terms of a nice composition. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Actually I think the subject and lighting are great for FP. It's a pity that so much of the facade is blown out. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the commnets above.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tête grimaçante Franz Xaver Messerschmidt.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 13:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yelkrokoyade - uploaded by Yelkrokoyade - nominated by Yelkrokoyade -- Yelkrokoyade (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yelkrokoyade (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, however, DoF problem and low quality generalized --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:False turkey-tail - Stereum hirsutum - 02.jpg

File:Säulengang Alte Nationalgalerie Berlin.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 15:25:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 15:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 16:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horst-schlaemma (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice DoF use and good simetric composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image Halavar (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lagoon Nebula.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 14:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ESO/IDA/Danish 1.5 m/ R. Gendler, U.G. Jørgensen, K. Harpsøe - uploaded by EricHS211 - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Arriving the day to close the nomination and no one supports. Maybe another nomination in the future. ARiOnEStAr (talk) from Google Translate. 16:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anglo-concertina-37-button.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 05:06:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anglo concertina, 37 key C/G dating from 1999, manufactured by Colin and Rosalie Dipper

Info created by Peter Trimming - uploaded by Bruce1ee - nominated by Bruce1ee -- —Bruce1ee^talk 05:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Bruce1ee^talk 05:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral DoF problem --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition and subject are great, but I just don't think the DoF is good enough. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of All Saints, Odiham 1.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 01:12:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lewis Hulbert -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been nominated before, people seemed to like it but never received enough votes. I'd like to give it another chance. -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per most enwiki FPC voters. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nev1 (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NGC 6946.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 07:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Ethically Yours (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ethically Yours (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good, but a bit unsharp and there are black round margins on the ends of the image. Even so, it is a good image. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That such make a cut? Can I? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:06, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done and

Support the cut. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Blur, although the galaxy and colours are beautiful (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:NormandySupply edit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 12:25:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MIckStephenson - uploaded by Liftarn - nominated by Mahan -- MaHaN ^MSG 12:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MaHaN ^MSG 12:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe we need a more sofistiqued restoration process, fixing tilt and noise problems --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Party House by night, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 16:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The man on the right is cut. And the picture is a bit unsharp. This is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
crop is no problem, but sharping for me is OK --Pudelek (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I

Support. It is still a good picture :) ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I can still do a cropped version of the image? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done the new version. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cropped version is fine :) --Pudelek (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop edit

Info Floor with something white and right corner with man cropped. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also OK. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ArionEstar I corrected the license and attribution on the crop per the CC BY-SA terms. Feel free to discuss with me on my talk page if you have any doubts or difficulty to understand the terms. J e e 03:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jkadavoor for correcting. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this version. Halavar (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Party House by night, Sofia (by Pudelek, cropped by ArionEstar).JPG

File:Rio Yayabo. SS.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:59:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition uninteresting, perhaps a closeup near the fisherman would have been better or a better weather with blue sky --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose No wow.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Helix Bridge and Marina Bay Sands Hotel, Singapore - 20130103.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 11:30:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dudva - uploaded by Dudva - nominated by Dudva -- Dudva (talk) 11:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --
Oppose Sorry, its a interesting building but the technical quality is too low (blurry, noisy, few details are visible).--ArildV (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of blown highlights in the clouds make the underexposure of the buildings that much more (ahem) glaring. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise and oversharpening, Underexposed (see notes), --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments above.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too pixellated, and bad angle. As a Singaporean myself, I'm sad that I can't support this picture to be promoted to FP. I advise you to shoot the MBS from Gardens by the Bay. That would be a better angle, although you would need to omit the Double Helix. There might be other good locations as well, but those I don't know. As for the Double Helix, sorry, I'm not sure where we can shoot it. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albarracín, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 051.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 21:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the middle age village of Albarracín, located in the autonomous community of Aragón, in the Northeast of Spain. In the picture can you observe the tower of the Alabarracín Cathedral on the left, the village in the middle (population ca. 1000) and the city walls in the background. All by me, Poc o² 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy bien in Spanish! :) ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excelente, para mi la mejor foto al menos de la semana. Se podría hacer alguna versión alternativa con menos cielo, me gusta bastante la idea de una versión panoramica. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light is not perfect, but composition is very good. --Ivar (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 04:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kreta - Ufer bei Kokkini Chani.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 21:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nice coastal view in Crete, all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cropped rock at left is disturbing (my taste). And maybe you could crop/clone out the white part of a boat (?) near the right bottom corner ? Very nice mood anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral notable noise on the sky, one dust spot on the upper right corner, distracting element on the bottom, overall composition not outstanding for me. --Ivar (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
notable noise? I have made this shot at ISO 200 with a camera that is known for it's good noise performance. But your headstrong votes in my pictures is nothing unknown anymore. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nice view and use of diagonal line but placement of horizon is questionable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  15:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moderate new crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be better with cropped rock at the left. Halavar (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halavar: I have made a new crop. --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it looks worse IMO. I uploaded new version with cropped rock at the left. I think it looks better now, that rock is not disturbing now. Of course, please revert my change if you like:) Regards. Halavar (talk) 21:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 04:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Badische Urschiene.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 16:32:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have crop on the sides and the bottom to leave fewer wood (see note) -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The whole original construction consisted of the rail, longitudinal pinewood stringers (on which the rail is fixed) and crossbars of oak (visible in the upper right corner), not only in the rail itself. Here the original substruction is reconstructed. The wood is not decoration, is is part of the original construction (see image caption). --Llez (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Neutral unfortunately there is a very bad crop: that hole in the upper right is irreparable--Pava (talk) 01:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sorry, it is reparable! Upper right corner adjusted. --Llez (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - well yes of course adding in editing a piece that does not exist is obvious that reparabile, I was talking to traditional systems. I change my vote to be contrary to neutral, because they are very tight, but I can not believe favorable--Pava (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination and back to uncropped version --Llez (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broken tree against the sunset.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 06:26:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Norbert Nagel - uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support really great Tomer T (talk) 08:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good example of what is WOW ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support bottom space could be more generous, nevertheless FP for me. --Ivar (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are kidding? Broken tree is "wow"?!! --Kikos (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kikos. If an image could be said to have "anti-wow", this would be a good example. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above opposers. I feel that this picture lacks structure; there is too much going on, causing dilution of the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above, the composition lacks structure. Going close up to view only part of the tree stump with sunset background and some kind of geometric composition would likely have created a stronger picture. -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for nominating, I wasn't aware. It is not so much the tree trunk itself, it's rather the back light of sunset and its reflection on the tree trunk and grass that make up the charm of the image. I curious how the voting ends. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image has something special.  Richard  [®]  15:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I could imagine this to work, but in this case, I have to say it's too chaotic. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am sorry. 15 min trying underestand what is that, however, too abstract for me. IMHO could be better a more detailed explain about this composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bad cut and no wow for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither fish nor fowl; too objective for an abstract image and too abstract for a portrait of nature. Sorry. --P e z i (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no "wow" to me. The trees in the back are disturbing the composition - there is no clear structure visible. BeBo86 (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Binz (2011-05-21) 01.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 03:53:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Klugschnacker - uploaded by Klugschnacker - nominated by Horst-schlaemma -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it does perfectly well for an aerial view. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dubspot and color noise --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I find the composition and lighting lacking. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paide ordulinnuse varemed 2013.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2014 at 23:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kruusamägi (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lovely setting and composition, but I think it is a touch oversaturated. The cars are a real eyesore. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That was a bit rainy autumn day and sun was already low, so it really did looked like that. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mood and composistion is actually good but the top crop is too tight IMO Poc o² 11:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A view with the antenna fully in the picture and fewer branches in front of the building seems possible by slightly changing the position. Currently, the top crop is too tight in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop, disturbing shadows. --Karelj (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hanna book cover.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 14:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonimski - uploaded by Anonimski - nominated by Anonimski -- Anonimski (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anonimski (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some black clipping seems to be going on, but otherwise great. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice details --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mourèze, Hérault 02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 19:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The church and a part of the village of Mourèze, Hérault, France. All by -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice shoot. ~~I will support if sky noise is fixed~~. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done New version uploaded -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Support Well done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 09:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disturbing (overshadowed) hills in background. Not the best daytime for shot. --Kikos (talk) 09:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose half of the picture is in shadow, the subject is now slightly cuter than usual, but certainly already seen. But the thing that I think is wrong is all part out of focus that close to the room that creates a bad disorder --Pava (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but here I find the light a bit too weak, you have much more appealing examples from your FP collection: like that one or this one. --A.Savin 20:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination You're certainly right, the place deserves better, I will go back at this place. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spotted Deer or the Chital.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 19:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vijay Sonar - uploaded by User:Ctg4Rahat - nominated by User:Ctg4Rahat -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 19:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The head is not in focus and the man-made background is much disturbing. ~~Please, try Quality Images Candidates first.~~ Regards, --Cayambe (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cayambe: This image is not a work by a wikimedian and so it's ineligible for QI status. --A.Savin 22:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok and thanks, I missed that :-) --Cayambe (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Man-made bg. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, and need White balance --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no chance to succeed because of obvious flaws already described, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Erdbeerschalen Viktualienmarkt München.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 14:17:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love strawberry. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 15:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is there something to do about the fly? Tomer T (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is random there. -- Wolf im Wald 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A Quality Image, probably, but not a FP, IMO. The thema is common and not outstanding, and the technical result is not extra: only a few of fruits are sharp. And yes, the fly is a bit disturbing.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose shallow dof, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regretful oppose as color pops nicely and composition is striking, but DoF problems more than offset that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced by the composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality doesn't matter for this type of motif (although i am a proven DOF fetishist). Nice composition and color.  Richard  [®]  13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not far enough, not close enough, also a large part of the image is totally out of focus --Pava (talk) 23:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Isla Phi Phi Lay, Tailandia, 2013-08-19, DD 04.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 18:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Long-tail boat in the turquise water bay of Phi Phi Lay Island, Thailand. All by me, Poc o² 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 18:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As you approach the top corners, blurring is observed, however, main subject is water color, almost incredible to believe the purity of the water, like a large swimming pool. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot. The vibrant colors are just amazing. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The water is so clear that the boat does not float, it flies! --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support extraordinary shot BeBo86 (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely Halavar (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredo's explanations for its apparent failings. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 10.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jan 2014 at 16:23:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment dust spots! --Ivar (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up Poc o² 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a thank a lot to Tomer T! Poc o² 19:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice.  Richard  [®]  13:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, no wow IMHO. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tuscan Landscape 7.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 21:04:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and clouds. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice compo and light, but some details are washed out (noise reduction?). --Ivar (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the main object is too far. Sorry. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, I'd argue that the whole scenery defines the motif. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are right. I refer mainly to the elements of the stage, trees, buildings. The fields also gives the impression of being too far. However, I really like the sky. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. (Please add the geo location.)--XRay ^talk 16:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Unfortunately I can't add exact geo information. I was cruising the Val d’Orcia, occassionally stopping to take pictures. This one was taken in the vicinity of Montepulciano. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely landscape! Halavar (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because of the portrait format, I am not sure why that decision, I'd have liked to see more from both sides. Poc o² 13:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hendrik Voogd - Italiaans landschap met parasoldennen.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:43:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hendrik Voogt (Amsterdam 1783 - Rome 1839) - uploaded by Ophelia2 - nominated by --Pava (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Kruusamägi (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anonimski (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if this image is a 100% reproduction of this painting then "unfortunate crop" is an invalid argument --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly that's not completely true. The Nachtwacht by Rembrandt, for one, was cropped, which is still considered to be very unfortunate. Kleuske (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be cropped. See the version with frame. Lupo 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Oppose The version at the Rijksmuseum has completely different colors. Also different and (I think) less noticeable cracks. This version here looks overprocessed to me. Lupo 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- acquisition matters a lot, a good acquisition can have brilliant effects very close to the oil color. It seems to me that it is not true the other image, but it will depend on the light. I do not think we can speak of "overprocesssed". thanks for reporting, very valuable, however. --Pava (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Our version here gives the Rijksmuseum as the source. The direct link in the template on the file description page doesn't work, though, so I don't know if the Rijksmuseum did do two versions of this, or if the one I found was supposed to be the true source of our file. But if so, the difference is striking. I like the version now available at the Rijksmuseum better. Lupo 20:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Switched from neutral to oppose. Lupo 12:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Alternative: from the Rijksmuseum. No restoration attempted by me. Lupo 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but there is now a contradiction, however, with your vote, you should not remove the neutral version and put the other in favor of this proposal that you've seen? --Pava (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's the contradiction? Lupo 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you propose an alternative without vote on it, now it's ok :) but did not want to be a severe criticism, so maybe I was wrong to expose myself --Pava (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lupo 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Far better quality, less reflection problems. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Oops! I voted twice[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Hendrik Voogd - Italian landscape with Umbrella Pines.jpg

File:Santa Francesca Romana Forum Romanum Rome.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 00:39:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by -- Pava (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where ? Improvable ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do not be upset Jebulon: it seems that you write the same things in all the images, it is to be considered as an intervention spam or troll, that one vote. However commons is free, it is for others to evaluate. He used even on a framework, which is an all seen say that it is 100%. Here the cut is good, very good indeed. --Pava (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't worry Pava, all is fine, but there is a mistake in your comment. Do you mean "he writes the same thing", and not "you write the same thing", right ? About the crop: I've tried other solutions, but nothing works better than this one, indeed. It is interesting to see that the church is in the Forum Romanum, just along the Via Sacra... But you know this better than me, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - is what I meant. About the Basilica: It is fascinating location, although it's a bit 'think they have also built a church there in the middle --Pava (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thaks for unexpected nomination !--Jebulon (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, no FP, the cut off ruins deviate the view to the main object. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You are going strong, tonight ! Congrats ! --Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
obsessive annotation? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EoD with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
it would be a good decision not to replay if you haven't s.th. factual. Thank you! --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
End of the Discussion with you, thank you again.--Jebulon (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think it's a bit absurd to declare EOD and replay again and again? I think so. You'll not manage to ban me from speaking. TY. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EoD for me with you, T.Y.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
flim-flam --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What a cheat ! "flim-flam" is obviously not an attempt of "discussion", so, no Eo"D" possible this time. Anyway, only 5 days more to wait before the end...--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

palim palim --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?--Jebulon (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the sky was blurred to reduce noise. Shouldn't be visible on the edges and in the clouds. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I've tried to reduce noise and compression artefacts in the sky, but I don't think it is very disturbing nor visible (around the cross, perhaps...)--Jebulon (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Viscontino (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question We should be interested to know why do you oppose, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the journal: maybe Viscontino is not in mood to get in entraped in a nonsense-ad-infinitum-conversation like we had here already. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

?--Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amerikaanse windmolen.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 06:23:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info American windmill. Location: De Alde Feanen (Friesland in the Netherlands). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness is just ok and the right crop maybe a bit tight but I like the composition overall Poc o²
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened. Would suggest ISO 100 and f/8, maybe less depending on how the lens performs there. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 23:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shaprness. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can upload a little less sharp version.--Famberhorst (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thessaloniki Promenade.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 01:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Zisis Tsampalis - uploaded by Zisis Tsampalis - nominated by Zisis Tsampalis -- Zisis Tsampalis (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zisis Tsampalis (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is too much street at the bottom and it seems to be CW tilted.--XRay ^talk 07:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but for me, this is not a FP. The composition appears randomly set and the image is rather noisy than sharp. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: overall insufficient quality, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I withdraw my nomination

File:Roborovski Hamster Female.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 21:01:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Gourami Watcher - uploaded by User:Gourami Watcher - nominated by User:Gourami Watcher -- Gourami Watcher (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gourami Watcher (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flash lighting is too harsh. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per KoH, unfortunate lighting. Also strong loss of detail through NR in full view. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: insufficient quality, unfortunate lighting, no detail, composition not outstanding, nothing featurable--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12 (crop).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 12:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albin Olsson - uploaded by Albin Olsson - nominated by Albin Olsson -- abbedabb^disk 12:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Lacking sharpness, ovelapping bokeh.--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Emmelie de Forest, ESC2013 press conference 12.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 12:11:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albin Olsson - uploaded by Albin Olsson - nominated by Albin Olsson -- abbedabb^disk 12:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lacking sharpness, overlapping bokeh.--Jebulon (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fisherman in action!.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 20:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adnan Islam - uploaded by User:Ctg4Rahat - nominated by User:Ctg4Rahat -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 20:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the composition and colors, but the image is very noisy. Kleuske (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but too much noise.--XRay ^talk 15:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixable? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong chromatic noise, not correctible. Parts overexposed.--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Virgin River, Zion 2009.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 22:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Scarbrough- uploaded by PDTillman - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated.--Jebulon (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness, oversaturation. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 11:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: oversaturation and lack of sharpness, sorry--Jebulon (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support -- —Mono 22:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anas castanea.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 13:32:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a bit 'small, but I like --Pava (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, that red eye is really interesting... Halavar (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient crop, and pixellated to a certain extent. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny ... this image is the same size and even then it is a FP. And if possible, mark areas where there is pixelation. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about crop, dude, not size. As for the pixellation, the head looks so. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I like this duck, but the reflections are a bit too strong and the detail/resolution a borderline case (4MP picture with an 18MP camera). --A.Savin 21:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Alexander, it is too small IMHO, lacking therefore detail, although it was shot with a 700 mm. So, it looks like the subject was much too far. Poc o² 13:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable to be successful because there are 6 supports and 4 opposes. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dog feeling in Chacachacare Harbour.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 15:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could be nice a comment about why strong oppose in order to improve my quality as a photographer. thank you very much --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The dog and foreground are very dark, despite background objects having clipped whites. This is also a problem in terms of composition, because the eye is drawn to the background with far more contrast, but nothing interesting in it. Additionally, I am not convinced by the sharpness anywhere in the photo. The pose and facial expression of the dog are nice though. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sant'Angelo bridge, dusk, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jan 2014 at 18:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tiber, Sant'Angelo bridge, Saint Peter's Basilica, at dusk, Rome, Italy-- Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Ivar (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose image atmosphere good but not breath taking for me, but strong technical issues here: partial very blurry and not sharp, slobbery impression, see to be a too strong clearance of noise --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "slobbery" ? Wow. I forgot that you know very well how to chose the good word...--Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
look at 100% view at this picture and you´ll see what I mean --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you imagine that I nominate here in FPC without opening the image at 100% ? Please.... Anyway, no matter. Remembers me some months ago...--Jebulon (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
then you should proof your nomination criteria, this image has a serious problem with the mentioned matters --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait what others say. EoD for me with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you take objective arguments personal don't candidate here pictures. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
EoD for me with you, thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didn't support the last one because I thought this could look better in less darkness. This is better in my opinion, despite having less detail. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 22:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful scene. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant! --Pottercomuneo (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support eeeeh Italy ... heart apart, very nice photo, congratulations. Well cut the trees, which is very rare here on FP --Pava (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe agressive denoise (from camera internal filter). Excellent composition --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pro: nice composition / con: halos around the trees, washed out cupola of st. peters (see notes) - too much noise filter? Is there a chance to fix that? BeBo86 (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review. I understand what you mean. I'll try to fix.--Jebulon (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've corrected the halos, but there is no gain with the original raw file regarding the cuppola, please notice the distance between the camera and the subject: almost 2 km. The lens is what it is... In spite of the subject, no miracle ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rome (Italy), Bicycle -- 2013 -- 9.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 16:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 16:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is a bit tight at bottom IMO. Is it possible to have a little more space at bottom and to clone out 2 or 3 disturbings things? (see notes) --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed The disturbing spots are removed or reduced. Another crop at the bottom is not possible, sorry. Additionally I reduced the overhead at the top and on the left side.--XRay ^talk 12:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pleasant and harmonious image of a common object. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the bell is the main subject, the crop does not bother me much. Good compo, good execution. I like it. en ik kan het weten, want it heb een bel aan m'n fiets Kleuske (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful photo, for me it's also available in VI --Pava (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition does not say "wow" for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea is good but I see some issues: the detail is low (the original shot was 3 times bigger), it is overall a bit dark, the reflexion is there but not really drawing the attention (too distorted and the scratches in the bike mine it). Sorry, not a FP to me. Poc o² 13:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--XRay ^talk 04:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Centre Block - Parliament Hill.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 03:25:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Saffron Blaze -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs perspective at both sides --A.Savin 11:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but it really needs perspective correction.--XRay ^talk 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good, but it really needs perspective correction. Sorry, but here it is FPC page, and pictures should be corrected before nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done ` Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image. Halavar (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 17:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Egretta thula at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 05:36:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support GREAT PIC Peter23 (talk) 06:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I uploaded slightly sharper version, please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 16:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support BeBo86 (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome shot. Frank, you shoot some of the best bird photos I have ever come across. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pava (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice Poc o² 13:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Half Dome from Glacier Point, Yosemite NP - Diliff.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 22:26:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Mono -- —Mono 22:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Mono 22:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peter23 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ver good image, I like this kind of landscapes:) Halavar (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and composition. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ariefrahman (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dülmen, Umland, Sonnenaufgang -- 2012 -- 8.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 08:44:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 08:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 08:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, fantastic atmosphere. Compliments. Kleuske (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Linie29 (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pensive. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Laitche (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing is in focus, except perhaps the nearest water --Pava (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like gold colors but I am not sure about of wow factor in this composition. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 14:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kakerdaja raba talvine maastik.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2014 at 15:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Abrget47j -- Abrget47j (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abrget47j (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better than good. --XRay ^talk 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is great. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 13:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice really nice, do not vote for me because the row of trees on the left, you could do something much better at cutting. And that element in the lower right is of considerable disorder, because it is sliced in half (but these are things that just seem to give importance and do not want to spoil the vote). But beautiful photos. --Pava (talk) 23:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subtlety all around; a great desktop image. Daniel Case (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit too much sky IMHO but overall a great shot Poco² 13:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes you are right. I changed it to aspect 1*1.8 and it looks better now. --Abrget47j (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support After cropping.  Richard  [®]  11:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mount Vernon Estate Upper Garden.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jan 2014 at 16:14:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Renomination. I've tried to fix the problems that had been pointed out before. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good composition but most of the building is hidden and the building (as main subject of the shot) is not really outstanding Poc o² 22:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be wise to pay a gardener and try again. --The Photographer (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice roof, per The Photographer, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per The Photographer. --Viscontino (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per diego --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amanita citrina - false death cap - Citron Amanita, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 16:42:49 (UTC)

False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Hesse, Germany.
False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Hesse, Germany.

Info Both images show the same mushroom. Both images created and uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, use {{Withdrawn}} instead. We've a 5 day rule. J e e 16:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schwierige Passage (von Adi Holzer 2002).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 20:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Adi Holzer, Photograph: Bianca Schützenhöfer - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler
Support Michael Gäbler --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fleischblasse Milchling Lactarius pallidus.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 23:15:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- H. Krisp (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- H. Krisp (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but the composition, the subject and the lack of detail (too much cropped out probably) are IMHO not at FP level, sorry Holger, Poc o² 13:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand the scientific interest of to have in many of your photos a cut mushroom put on the ground, but for me it ruins the composition which would gain to be more natural. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
H. Krisp (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Sofia (by Pudelek).JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 10:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good BeBo86 (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another FP of this place is not an issue.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting, subject and composition Poc o² 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Männikjärve raba tornist.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2014 at 09:19:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Urmas83 -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful water. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good but wowless landscape gets it wow from a wooden puncheon bridge that seems to go back to infinity. Daniel Case (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rummu aherainemägi2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 06:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Spoil tip in Rummu, an example of rainfall erosion. All by Ivar (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! --Kikos (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good but there is a dustspot or something else (see note) Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Christian, spot (probably bird) removed. --Ivar (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support !!!!!WWWWWWOOOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but I dont get it. The quality is good (especially the grass in the foreground is very high quality, the main subject is actually less impressive) but imo neither the subject or composition stands out. The light is pleasant, but not outstanding.--ArildV (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition plays an important problem in arid soils. Places like these soon become deserts. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light Halavar (talk) 12:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Siegessaeule Aussicht 10-13 img4 Tiergarten.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 10:28:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin --A.Savin 10:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Is it just me, or should the image be rotated (clockwise) slightly?~~ Kleuske (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's me... Kleuske (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Effect makes the image even if the landscape is not very nice (apart from the trees that lose a bit 'though) no "wow" effect and for me is lackluster, there seems to be a white coating over. --Pava (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC) PS: you can try to increase the brightness? a bit to see if it improves --Pava (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with regrets, because technical quality is perfect. But I dislike the centered composition very much, with the vertical street and the horizontal line of buildings, I find the picture a bit "flat". The crop of the avenue is too harsh at the bottom, IMO. Maybe a portrait framing should work better, if not centered. Well, I'm sorry. Matter of taste, this one does not work with me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Donaldytong (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done, technical and composition --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the symmetric composition. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 04.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The town of Sète and the Mount Saint-Clair from Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pilnīgi nesapratu, kas te ir nofotografēts!!! (sorry, no words to describe in English) --Kikos (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have too fast reacted Kikos. Thank you for to have rewiew my picture. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that I am very far from being a good photographer but it is possible to have a little of restraint in comment, a simple "no wow" is widely enough. I am not quibbling and would not like to be obliged to become it. Thanks in advence for next voters. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment Thanks for honesty about Your professional level. Can I ask: why You are nominating Your pictures if You understand that You are very far from being a good photographer? This is some kind of irreverence to other wikipedians? "How far can I go with this kind of pictures?" This picture is far from simply "no wow", this is something diferent. --Kikos (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Please Kikos don't revert and assume your comments -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - An "undo" can be considered as "withdrawn comment"; so striking off that part. Christian, please take it that way. J e e 05:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version (colors). -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 12:39:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Superb picture. It seems a design made on the computer or a work of art. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could somebody provide any information about FoP in Oman ? I can't find anything about Oman, but there is no FoP in almost all arab countries around... I'm pessimistic --Jebulon (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#FOP_in_Oman_and_Kuwait. Jee 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A pity...--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, I I withdraw my nomination because problems of Freedom of Panorama (FoP). Maybe another nomination in the future. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PIA14712 crop.tif, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 15:13:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by G Furtado - nominated by G Furtado -- G Furtado (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- G Furtado (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wow factor --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the south pole of a planetoid beyond the orbit of Mars... No f*cking WOW?! we're spoiled rotten by NASA, ESA and others.Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry, IMHO I preffer another objects like super nova or god hands. I am not expert in this topic, but I know what is PIA14712, maybe this image has a hight EV and it is important but the image only show a big grey rock. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It only show a big grey rock because Vesta is a grey rock but although it is a big asteroid it is a small solar system body. May be you will find the wow in the fact that previously to the DAWN mission, this was the best image we had from Vesta so although it is known to exist for more than 2 centuries we finally could see it in detail. Last but not the least, "wow" is of course a very subjective criterion but IMHO is hard to be wowed by a Nebula when there are already 29+5 of them in FP and no dwarf planet, asteroid or even Neptune and Uranus. --G Furtado (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love the photos from NASA, this image has a great story, however, IMHO does not have enough interesting visible elements in color, composition, shape and use of space . Sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice image, high encyclopedic value. Kleuske (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Meaningless title. It should be renamed. Yann (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo pano-1-7.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jan 2014 at 14:53:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd support the original image, though --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the fake bull? is it a joke? --2.40.91.160 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a joke based in this for my friends in real life but I forget upload the right version. I hope this is not misinterpreted. I have always been against photo retouching, especially something so obvious. I am sorry, right version is up now. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Question That's actually a good question. I sincerely apologize if I'm wrong, but the bull does in fact appear somewhat fake. How come there's a torero and a bull (both surprisingly sharp btw) in action while the arena is still being serviced by staff? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not wrong --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - changed vote to support again, thanks --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question I'm not so big specialist in this kind of sport but bull appears to be flying some distance above ground. ~~It is mounted there? As toreador too?~~ Of course. Bad joke :( --Kikos (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fake. (see history of image) -Kikos (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Right version is up. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, obviously--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now it is OK. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Veliko Tarnovo (Велико Търново) - Asenova Mahala quarter 2.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2014 at 11:11:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice view, but there is strong detail loss in the background area, I'm sorry --A.Savin 21:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:ESC - United Kingdom 07.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 15:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albin Olsson - uploaded by Albin Olsson - nominated by Albin Olsson -- abbedabb^disk 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Far from current quality criteria in FPC, sorry (Noise, sharpness, crop, composition...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ESC - United Kingdom 05.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 15:55:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Albin Olsson - uploaded by Albin Olsson - nominated by Albin Olsson -- abbedabb^disk 15:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: far from current quality criteria in FPC, sorry (Noise, sharpness, crop, composition...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sofia kyrka January 2013.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2014 at 14:58:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Arild Vågen (ArildV) - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tobias (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Linie29 (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but WAY too tight crop --A.Savin 21:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The light is so nice I'm tempted to support, but the crop really is very tight. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what ArildV wanted to show with the image. All that matters is the church, not the ambiance. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been away from the commons few days. The problem with this almost 80 meters high church is that it is built on a small plateau on the top of a steep hill in a park with tall, old trees. It has been discussed before in FP (see also link to an aerial photo). So either I have to do like the image below or use an even more extreme wide angle (photo taken with 24mm on full-frame camera). Unfortunately I do not have access to any such objective, and it would require even more perspective correction.--ArildV (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info Another angle of the Sofia Church. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is almost as tight. Besides, it is certainly not an "alternative" but a completely different image. (Maybe you should ask Arild what he himself says to a nomination, before simply nominating.) --A.Savin 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not an alternative at all. Different season, light, angle, ... — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An almost identical photo was nominated 2012. But, since it was taken with a DX camera I can retake it with D600 and the same lens and get a less tight image.--ArildV (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ArildV: if you succeed, I'll try to make another nomination with this picture. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info This should be converted into a different nomination, according to the rules -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because tight crop. Maybe another nomination in the future. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stage Door Johnnies.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2014 at 09:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Albov - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 09:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chromatic aberration, noise and poor bokeh. Which is pretty much what you would expect with a 4 year old camera with a ASP-H sensor in poor lighting conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geni (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow. + strange reflection horizontal line at bottom, and blank line to be crooped out. + disturbing thing at left. + noise and CA--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special.--Claus (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: no chance to succeed because of flaws mentioned above.--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gymnadenia conopsea - harilik käoraamat.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 06:26:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Inflorescence of the fragrant orchid (Gymnadenia conopsea). All by Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivar (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good, I think the insect on the flower is a member of the Asilidae family -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess she was more like one of Culicidae, who was resting before next air attack on me. --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I too think so and many of them are harmless. J e e 14:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but why are new version smaller (the original 24 mp versions was excellent in full size)?--ArildV (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not 100% pleased with the full-size version (maybe I was a bit too harsh to myself). --Ivar (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! :) ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unprofitable cast shadow, just an average QI of a flower. just for remembering how FP of flowers could be have a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Wladyslaw + busy background, you can do better pictures of flowers --A.Savin 11:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Wladyslaw. The quality is good but half of the flower is in shadow. Maybe it wasn't the best angle Poc o² 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Strömsbergs bruk 04.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2014 at 21:24:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Part of former ironworks Strömsbergs bruk, Sweden. All by me. -- V-wolf (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as uploader -- V-wolf (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Light is not the best. I preffer a blue sky. I cant see a main subject in composition. I am sorry --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Some blue parts in the sky may be better. --XRay ^talk 16:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 23.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 06:55:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A dolomite rock in a funny shape sculptured by the erosion. Mourèze, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 07:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t like the centered composition too much. Rule of thirds would make a more impressive image. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit all my RAW files and I believe that I have one that can correspond to what you say, I go tried to find the time to edit it and to propose it as an alternative. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SupportArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the other choice (which is not an alternative, but another picture. Beware of the rule of "only two noms per nominator" !) you should maybe withdraw this one, IMO--Jebulon (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Inded it's an other image, but of the same subject, from the same author, with the same material, from the same point, with the same regulations, with the same light (2 minutes of difference between the both), with the same edition, the only difference is 116 mm and 82 mm. I don't want the both promoted, one is enough. I so consider them as versions similar enough to be considered as reasonably alternatives. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is "another image"... So you have three active nominations for the moment, my friend...--Jebulon (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only two can be promoted it is thus only two nominations, I find its rather similar to be considered as alternative and I do not intend to withdraw --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Jebulon. Either nominate each individually or accept that only one can be promoted. For future reference, if I get the sense images are being uploaded just to wear down resistance I will oppose both. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saffron Blaze No problem, I understand, but I uploaded absolute whole lot of my images on Commons, but the lack of time makes that I cannot publish them quite at the same time. I did it this time because it seemed to me relevant because of the first comment. I believed to read in this page this sentence : "Happy judging… and remember... all rules can be broken". Specially in certain cases or the images are very, very similar. Here it is as a crop but for the better, there is no loss of resolution. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yes I accept that only one can be promoted, this is thus the purpose of this alternative. Thanks to me you can find the best for commons (the purpose of this page), you have more choices. And if you believe that it is an attempt of cheating from me, be sure it is not. ~~I suggest you to oppose both.~~ --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As it is not another version of the same file, but another distinct file, I think it is not an "alternative", but a new nomination.--Jebulon (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Linie29 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Composition looks much more interesting that way. Would prefer to have less sky and more rock though. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Kreuzschnabel, new version -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This crop today is a third picture in the same FP. The voting is now confused. I suggest this be closed without prejudice and a new nomination made with whatever is felt to be the best. -- Colin (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peilturm am Kap Arkona.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 00:26:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 00:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --XRay ^talk 07:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 13:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view and quality, any article to use it in? --A.Savin 14:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  11:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Buonasera (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stralsund Marienkirche 2006.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2014 at 14:26:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by Darkone - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think an good image of that building would be a very good candidate, after all it was the tallest building in the world for some time (even if it had another tower back then). However, I feel that the image has some issues: First, there are remaining parts of white background that come from perspective correction (it shouldn't be a QI according to today's standards). Second, I find the sky somewhat strange: very mushy, detail overall also isn't great, you can see that eight years of camera development have passed since then. --DXR (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak sky. --Kikos (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, I I withdraw my nomination. Improbable to be successful because the sky is weak and bad perspective. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 Kraftwerk Heilbronn im Abendlicht.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2014 at 11:08:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

InfoHeilbronn power plant in late afternoon. All by Kreuzschnabel -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that it is too dark Poco² 13:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I already brightened the foreground area considerably, more would raise noise. The light was rather tricky (and changed rapidly, the cooling tower was in that light only for a few seconds). --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing clouds. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great atmosphere. Kleuske (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well... Ummm... the picture, in any case. Kleuske (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kohlkraft? Ja bitte! This is one of those pictures where the large sky portion actually helps (And everytime I look at the title I keep expecting to see Ralf and Florian ... oh well). Daniel Case (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info German Kohlkraft would be cabbage power in English. Try Kohlekraft ;-) --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dammit, there are times when I wish I'd formally studied the language ... Oh well, at least "cabbage power" would be greener (literally and figuratively). :-) Daniel Case (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BMW Vierzylinder.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2014 at 11:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Martin Kraft (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Kraft (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existing FP. J e e 13:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I preffer this version, however, hight EV in both and this is another angle --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wilfredo --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mehdi^Talk 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP, not better than Pocos image, beside of this strong visible blurry area on the upper left corner (BMW museum). --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honi soit qui mal y pense

@Taxiarchos228: Where exactly do you spot a "strong visible blurry area on the upper left corner (BMW museum)"? If that references to the turbulences caused by the the hot air coming from the chimneys beneath: That's physics and therefore unavoidable. Besides this blurriness isn't an mistake but a picture of reality, its only slightly visible at 100% and doesn't even touch the picture's main subject. --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are right because of the blurry area, this is not the main reason for my voting. We have here a boring and ordinary view, nothing special and nothing featureable for me. Please be polite and don't assume me personal stuff, otherwise you'll be mentioned at AN/U. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real "main reason" for your voting is so obvious – I don't have to comment on that ;) --Martin Kraft (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have nothing factual it's indeed better not to comment any more. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is the main subject is out of focus (even if only slightly) and trees (always out of focus) disturb. Too bad because it had a nice crop.--Pava (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pava: Hm, as far as I can tell, the Vierzylinder-Skyscraper is exactly in the focus plane?! Where do you see something off-focus?

And besides I am not shure, wether its worthwhile to extend a chrisp clear focus to the foreground trees, the only possibility to do so, might be focus stacking – The first tree is less then 1/3 the distance between me an the building ;) --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see note (after delete it)--Pava (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pava: I seriously can't identify any off-focus at the BMW-Sign???

As mentioned above, the focal blur of the trees in the foreground is intended an technically almost unavoidable. --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just answered your question, you asked me to be tax and I have been there. Then, in short, is the most obvious point of the building, which is not out of focus a cloud --Pava (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pava: My intension is really not to argue – I'm just trying to understand, what you mean. And, to be honest, I still don't get it.

On my screen the skyscraper ist perfectly sharp. Maybe your browser zoom is activated and you are evaluating the image at more than 100%?! Btw. which "cloud"? --Martin Kraft (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see that logo out of focus, if other users see it on fire then I will not know how to read a photograph, but it seems to me clearly out of focus. It is a very important detail of the building, is not, for example, a cloud or other object irrelevant. But apart from this there is the whole band of trees that disturbs a lot to me.--Pava (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pava: By now I'm in doubt wether we are talking about the same picture?! This is a 100% crop of the logo region from the picture above. That's sharper than many other pictures on this page at 100%. Besides the denoising this IMO is all the focus sharpness one could expect from a more than 10 year old standard telezoom lens at 140mm?! --Martin Kraft (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wait for other opinions is useless to discuss endlessly--Pava (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rather hazy, not the best light. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita sp. 2010-10-31.jpg/2