Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2010

File:2010 mavericks competition.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2010 at 19:36:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Shalom Jacobovitz, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great action shot. One should not be deceived by the apparently not so great technical quality. A 400mm lens is used as a safe distance have to be kept to these monster waves at the Maverick. I think it is extremely difficult to get much better unless you are hovering in a helicopter close by - and those are usually not freely licensed. Soemthing should be done about the indicated blurred area though. Dunno if a crop will do? --Slaunger (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image was taken from a boat. Here's how Shal describes the boat ride: "The boat was very rocky. Many people got sea sick though. One guy (photog) never even got any pictures he was so sick." The image was not freely licensed at all. I asked Shal via private email to release a high resolution image with a free license, and he kindly agreed. I would not like to crop the image. The break of the wave is amazing IMO, and I would not like to cut anything off this wave.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for making an effort to get it freely licensed. I understand your concern regarding cropping. Have you tried just to see how it looks? If it does not work, could the blurred area be repaired somehow then? I find it distracting. Should we ask our favorite physical oceanographer for help

? Or perhaps Lošmi could help? I do not know if he has a magic wand or what, but he managed to get from this to this FP (completed helicopter and sky). --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to do anything with the image. To cut off the "blurred" part means to cut off the most amazing part of the wave. Honestly I wished the smaller zoom were used to get the whole wave into the picture. In the example you have provided the correction was more or less easy. I could have done it myself. IMO to change this image is quite a different story. The surface and even the color of the wave is different in different parts. I am not sure the correction could be done without making too much of digital manipulations, but of course, if somebody wishes to give it a try...--Mbz1 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we speaking of the same blurred area in the lower left corner (annotation)?--Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason the annotation does not work for me, but now I understood what you're talking about, and tried to fix it.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, even with blurred area at lower left. The shot starts to lose its force if this bottom strip is simply cropped off, IMO. -- Avenue (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 1 cloned out the left lower corner edit

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Patriot8790 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The cloning is nice and smooth, but instead of the wave gradually leveling out closer to the viewer, the edited part now steepens again. (Perhaps rotating before cloning could avoid this.) And I don't see a fuzzy foreground as being much worse than the blurred background, so I still support the original version over edit 1. -- Avenue (talk) 09:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good action shot. Durova (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support WOW --Cesco77 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong wow mitigates minor quality issues. --Slaunger (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although the quality is not fantastic – but the composition is great --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good action shot. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bidgee (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Karel (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amir (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

The chosen alternative is: File:2010_mavericks_competition_edit1.jpg

File:Kelimutu 2008-08-08.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 14:19:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Neil - uploaded by Elekhh - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 14:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed sky (dark halo over clouds) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overprocessed water Scewing (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful scene, but I agree with Dmitry and Scewing. -- Avenue (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Judas Priest 2799.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2010 at 01:57:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated --Dori - Talk 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 01:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pretty weird artefacts in the hair of 2 of the performers. Is it due to the scene lighting, or to post-processing of the picture ? Also, a few hot pixels. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 05:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the lighting, the postprocessing was mainly denoising. --Dori - Talk 11:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 10:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks odd with the legs cut off. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. --Dori - Talk 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Digitalis purpurea Norway 07-2004.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 18:16:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Jutta234 (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as I'm the creator. --Jutta234 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid there are quality problems (some areas are blown/saturated, I think). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graylag geese (Anser anser) in flight 1700.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2010 at 05:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by Patriot8790 -- Patriot8790 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Patriot8790 (talk) 05:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Very good timing, and great DOF. --Loadmaster (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I found this one a little on the noisy side too. Basar (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry must agree with kaʁstn & Basar, this image is noisy. --Captain-tucker (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small... —kallerna™ 17:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality in other ways, but the composition looks off to me. Steven Walling 05:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise doesn't bother me but it's too small. --Dori - Talk 01:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image, but too small resolution. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lamprotornis hildebrandti -Tanzania-8-2c.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2010 at 20:45:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noel Feans and cropped by Snowmanradio - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Durova (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. Basar (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great colurs and contrast. --Pullus In Fabula (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Avenue (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colours but considerable quality problems (artifacts as if the picture was upscaled badly, and so it's not really sharp) --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft IMO, sorry. —kallerna™ 17:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. ■ MMXX ^talk 00:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the opposers have a point, lovely image but not really FP standard --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tycker övre delen av bakgrunde är för ljus /Ö 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured picture. JukoFF (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sitta carolinensis CT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 18:54:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cephas - uploaded by Cephas - nominated by Simonizer (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture, good quality, good composition, no disturbing elements -- Simonizer (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice details! --Von.grzanka (talk) 23:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basar (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! JMSchneid (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp details, nice. --Mile (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good detail and lighting, clean composition. --Dori - Talk 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karel (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bojan Talk 06:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Royal Winter Fair Wool 3.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 04:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 04:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't see what's so special in this picture – the quality is not very good (soft and noisy) and the subject isn't that more impressive --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sheep's face, Malta.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 05:03:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 05:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 05:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp and noisy, I don't know waht the main-motiv is (sheep oder ear-mark?). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Sankt Matthias BW 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 09:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice and informative, but imho not sharp enough for FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, I'm now wondering if the white balance is correct. Isn't it on the purplish-blueish side ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Little Blue Heron 9812.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2010 at 22:35:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 22:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good lighting, brings out the details of its plumage. -- Avenue (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality is imo not good enough für FP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Good ! --Cephas (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What an odd looking bird. Tiptoety ^talk 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not quite sharp but a very good image altogether. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small, but good atmosphere. —kallerna™ 10:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ToothLost-2917.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 03:52:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A seven-year old boy's lost deciduous tooth. Primary teeth are seen on the left, and a fully erupted permanent tooth to the right of the missing tooth.

Info created by Loadmaster - uploaded by Loadmaster - nominated by Loadmaster -- Loadmaster (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Loadmaster (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh shadows --Simonizer (talk) 14:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO this photography is not special enough for FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Important milestone for a child. MartinD (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be done much better. —kallerna™ 10:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aluminium bar surface etched.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 13:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alchemist-hp - uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support & good to see something different :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There seems to be a broad band of directly reflected light about 1/3 of the way up. I would support if the lighting was more consistent. --99of9 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Difficult lightning, per 99of9. —kallerna™ 10:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Kallerna and 99of9: I wanted it so. This Aluminum sample is a silvery white and highly reflective metal. It should all be visible: reflections, textures and contrast. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with Alchemist-hp - the whole point of the image is the structure, reflectiveness of the Aluminium. Very good EV. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support = Support Rare, high EV and good quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Gaura lindheimeri Whirling Butterflies.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 10:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks, nominated by Maedin
Support It's so pretty! Maedin\^talk 10:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very well done, excellent... BUT the somewhat disturbing small bud at the left of the upper petal should be removed imo. --Cayambe (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it was bigger. —kallerna™ 10:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lake Vuoksa 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 17:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks magical --Muhammad (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Сказочно красиво! Very nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely light. --Avenue (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose atmosphere super, but unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, good spot...очень красиво. --Mile (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danilo P (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amir (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very pretty. Makes me want to take my boat there. Tiptoety ^talk 07:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - might be slightly overexposed, but nice autumn afternoon light with nice wavy reflection. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours -- Bojan Talk 06:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 23:47:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info -- Portrait of an Egyptian Grasshopper (second try). Frankly, I can't remember if I used a flash or not. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice portrait, although the body is unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Inside the Tarawera rift.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2010 at 01:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avenue - uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does this look unsharp to anyone else? Basar (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Basar - foreground is fine but the upper edge of the ridge is unsharp. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be sharper but I think it's good. --Dori - Talk 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull composition. —kallerna™ 10:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little unsharp and I don't like too much the composition. --Phyrexian (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop edit

Now that two people have opposed based on composition, I'll offer an alternative crop. -- Avenue (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Town tower, Portland Oregon.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2010 at 22:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 22:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So heavily smoothed and "painting in oil"ed that I don't know how to rate it: as a photograph, or not. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 05:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been retouched. But it's the only picture we have of this historic subject, and the retouching does not obscure the educational value of the photo at all, in fact it enhances it by highlighting the text and smoothing out the background. Compare to the educational value and composition of another pretty photo of the same subject linked just below this on its Flickr page. Steven Walling 05:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and sort of noisy. Wolf (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good example for what is wrong with this oversexed Flick stuff. --Dschwen (talk) 23:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze, MMA-NYC, 1851.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2010 at 21:58:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Emanuel Leutze - uploaded by Scewing - nominated by me -- Scewing (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Beautiful historic painting. Critical to wikipedia article Washington Crossing the Delaware Scewing (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, too bad we didn't have this earlier since 22 Feb was George Washington's Birthday. It would have looked good as POTD. Maybe next year. --Captain-tucker (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High historical value, but low quality at full resolution for a painting to be FP, IMHO. --Phyrexian (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Carpodacus mexicanus6.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 08:12:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Basar (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Danilo P (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - central composition --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (cropped) edit

Support --Cephas (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think you're right. Basar (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like it. --Von.grzanka (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good composition and a nice harmonic set of colors. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is better, but I like the central composition version too ;-) --Phyrexian (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative (white balance) edit

Info For your consideration, I have reprocessed the image with Cephas's crop and changed the white balance. Basar (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reflection, I'll return to the version above for support. --Cayambe (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Carpodacus_mexicanus6_edit.jpg

File:Hram v Omsk.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 17:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PetarM - uploaded by PetarM - nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support quality's not perfekt, but I like it --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amir (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. Good photo. --Karel (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, no wow. Good photo.Asybaris01 (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Feels tightly cropped, but otherwise appealing. Strong forms, nice colours, good detail. -- Avenue (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured picture. JukoFF (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bojan Talk 07:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and details quality is amazing. --Phyrexian (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uymon steppe panorama.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 15:54:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danilo P (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks a litte oversharpened and I don't like the strange colours, but apart from that: very good --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What colors are strange for you? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not a fan of this evening-colours, I find them strange compared to normal (mid)day-colours --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Превосходно! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the blue-green colour of the gras. Dont look very natural to me --Simonizer (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Simonizer, don't like the light all that much, sorry. --Dori - Talk 01:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeAs Dori--Amir (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and rich with colors. --Mile (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting image, but I think it's over processed. I've annotated a particular issue. --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Simonizer. —kallerna™ 10:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - a nice beautiful encyclopedic photo of the village. Without the tight bottom crop I would support. Please consider nominating this for VI. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Steven Walling 04:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors don't feel right imo. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carduelis flammea CT6.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 21:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Basar (talk) 06:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. JMSchneid (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the lighting and detail, but the composition is not the best (part of the bird is obscured due to position, and the edge branches are distracting). --Dori - Talk 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dori. 99of9 (talk) 12:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great image but the branches do distract. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dori, especially the branches. --Avenue (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 10:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition.--Karel (talk) 10:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The branches are distracting? What branches—the red breast is so glorious I haven't noticed the rest yet. Maedin\^talk 12:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cow horned portrait.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 04:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user- uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 04:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good photo, but please document the breed. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The description from Flickr does not specify, and I can't tell by the morphology (despite knowing livestock breeds well). It might be Norwegian Red, but it color and other traits are off. Guessing wrong could be worse for its educational value than leaving it unspecified. Steven Walling 00:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, I agree that unspecifying is better than guessing. I'll vote Neutral for now, but am willing to change to support if someone knows the breed and thus increases the educational value of this image. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Bojan Talk 06:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dürrenbach Gletscher 4.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2010 at 20:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Simonizer (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, wirklich tolles Bild-- Simonizer (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support schließe mich an --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely composition, but the ice to the upper left seems quite noisy, and the contrails detract from the wilderness look. -- Avenue (talk) 11:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eine kalte Grotte! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Es ist die seltene Fotografie in der ausgezeichneten Qualität. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the vote and the nomination --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karel (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confusing composition IMO. After a bit of "deciphering", I'm still not exactly sure what/where I'm looking at. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mother shelters goslings.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 04:53:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF - the closer part of the bird is pretty good but the head is not I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Herbythyme --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured picture. JukoFF (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bojan Talk 06:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As opponents above. --Karel (talk) 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In this case I think the multiple subjects mean that the front is almost as important as the head, so a compromise was almost necessary. Nice mood, touching scene. --99of9 (talk) 11:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support see User:99of9 --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Melospiza melodia5.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2010 at 22:58:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Basar - uploaded by Basar - nominated by Basar -- Basar (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Basar (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The flowers in front are distracting. Too bad because I like the bird framed by the two branches! --Cephas (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I guess you're right. Basar (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Thomas Bresson - Panorama de Belfort (by).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 11:38:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Hesperiphona vespertina CT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 22:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! again --Simonizer (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Steven Walling 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basar (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 08:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PortlandCanalEntrance.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 14:36:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good detail and exposure. --Dori - Talk 01:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yep --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To see the "Wow" go to http://home.insightbb.com/~s.schneid/CanalEntranceWithWow.jpg JMSchneid (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive infrastructure homage. --Iotatau (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:360° Flexenpass Straße.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2010 at 21:38:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info 360° Panorama von der Flexenpaßstaße mit Blick auf den Ort Stuben am Arlberg. all by --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! JMSchneid (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very "cool" --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Pretty. Tiptoety ^talk 05:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive panorama, from the very left to the very right. --Cayambe (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goood! —kallerna™ 10:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW --Muhammad (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good indeed --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks really nice. Would be even better with the remaining stitching errors removed and less downsampling. --Dschwen (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support toll! --Simonizer (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ankara (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Hwhoa... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - once again, excellent Böhringer-quality! --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 池田正樹(talk) 10:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leviathan (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Guincho February 2010-2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2010 at 20:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Minimalism (let us count the # of 'nothing special' :-)) ). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like minimalismen and i like many of your pictures, but in my opinion this picture is a little bit boring. Maybe because of the centered horizon or the missing depth. --Simonizer (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is overexposed, probably a bit later/earlier would have been better (or a ND filter). --Dori - Talk 01:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Histogram clearly shows sky is not over exposed - it "feels" tilted to me but I don't think it is. Minimalism works for me on this one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My software shows highlights as being blown in the red channel. Besides, most software allows you to drag the image to the left of the histogram but it starts replacing blown areas with grey or other weird colors. In any case whether it has technically gone 255 or not, I don't like the light to the left of the image. --Dori - Talk 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't like it is fine. Technically it is not overexposed as the histogram has not gone off the right hand side, indeed the exposure can be increased by 0.28 before clipping actually shows. The red channel touches the top of the histogram but is not significantly clipped (indeed the green also touches the top). Technical issues but others here may be interested. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Simonizer Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No "wow." Tiptoety ^talk 07:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MODIS Map.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2010 at 10:59:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the NASA MODIS science team - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info MODIS' instruments are designed to provide measurements in large-scale global dynamics including changes in Earth's cloud cover, radiation budget and processes occurring in the oceans, on land, and in the lower atmosphere.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Its beauty and comprehensiveness outweigh the distortion at high latitudes and defects from incomplete MODIS coverage (which also seem to be mainly at fairly high southern latitudes, although there's a long fuzzy strip running north from Darwin). -- Avenue (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support MODIS. Takabeg (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 07:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Amir (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 15:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - For the moment. Relevant information is missing necessary for understanding what this picture really is. For example: are all photograms approximately synchronous? What is the date? What is the map projection (is it equal-area)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the date the MODIS images were collected to our description page. The description on the source website is not very detailed, and doesn't give the map projection. But it's definitely not equal-area; look at Greenland and Antarctica, for instance. -- Avenue (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like equirectangular projection to me. G.A.S 04:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a plate carrée -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mill Pond Park Menomonee Fallss Wisconsin 9478.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2010 at 01:07:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Amir (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice photo, but it's unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a lovely image with beautiful colours but I agree with kaʁstn --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo, a bit romantic. --патриот8790 (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not so bad. --Karel (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama view of Zavodouspenskoe.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2010 at 19:05:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Const st -- Const st (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Const st (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting scene, but noisy, bad light and unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 to Kallerna's comment. Steven Walling 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chartres - cathédrale - rosace nord.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2010 at 16:00:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eusebius (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There used to be 36 annotations on this picture, but since I have uploaded a new version they have disappeared. I don't know why, I'm trying to solve the issue... --Eusebius (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now ok. --Eusebius (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great shot --Schnobby (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rastrojo _(D•ES) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meticulous documentation. --Iotatau (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IANEZZ (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a little "but": picture looks good, retouching done nicely. I would like to see a variant, though, that shows parts of the window framing, too. Zapyon (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by that? The stone structure around it? It would be a very different picture, showing a priori nothing of the stain glass. I doubt it would be easy to take (or even of interest) because Chartres cathedral is a very very dark one, or at least so it appeared the day I was there. An interesting alternative picture would rather be the exterior view. But anyway we're talking about very different photographs here, not about the candidate picture. --Eusebius (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pieris rapae which copulates 0928.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2010 at 17:17:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 池田正樹 - uploaded by 池田正樹 - nominated by George Chernilevsky ^talk -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very rare, nice and high-quality photo of Pieris rapae butterfly --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Steven Walling 00:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yep, great composition, but noise needs to be reduced. —kallerna™ 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm going to support this one before the denoise because I'm worried that a denoise might lose some of the lovely delicate detail. --99of9 (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Denoise could be done with masking - no detail lost. —kallerna™ 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Iotatau (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good image, but please document the shooting location. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info shooting location. is Saitama Japan N35.95 E 139.67 Thank you 池田正樹 (池田正樹)
- Thanks! And thanks George for adding it to the file page! --82.181.161.91 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --池田正樹
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zapyon (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pinicola enucleator m CT2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2010 at 22:52:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! nice colors --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Steven Walling 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks contrast. —kallerna™ 10:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good resolution and composition. Do you know what is in its beak? Snowmanradio (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A bud. This species feeds essentially on vegetable matter - buds, seeds and fruits. --Cephas (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Second oath of office of Barack Obama edit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2010 at 07:13:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by TCY/Clindberg - edited and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe this is asking for it since the other one failed, but I think this is FP material too. He looks more presidential this time - does that help? -- 99of9 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fairly mediocre all around in lighting, color, and composition. I like the previous Presidential nom better, at least the subject matter was very interesting. Steven Walling 18:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Steven. --Aqwis (talk) 23:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good one. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid I don't get this one. I understand the significance of the moment however the composition/angle is really not that good. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Pete Souza, the official White House photographer did actually pick this way of composition on purpose? With the intent to show the act as a dynamic situation rather than a classic "official" moment? If he had wanted to give the picture a classic static appearance, he certainly would have had the means and the position to do so. If you take a look at Souza's pictures, you will notice that he gives his Obama pictures a jazzy, casual look. Certainly on purpose.

Note how this is not just a snapshot. The room itself is symmetrical (the two chandeliers, the fireplace), and probably very solemn and static. However, the photographer decided to take a step to the left to breake up the symmetry, to create tension and dynamic.

The two chandeliers (to the left and right) and the mantelpiece (in the middle) frame the two men very effectfully. This is only possible because the photographer intently chose a lateral position rather than frontal - if he had picked a frontal position, Obama would stand in front of the mantelpiece, his head half covering the painting on the wall, and the chandelier on the left would be behind the judge's head, making him look like he has an aureola.

The photographer intently picked an angle from which we can see both men in profile, with their heads surrounded by free space. Obama's smile, which the photographer thought would be more important, is seen slightly from the front. Both men look each other in the eye, creating a certain tension, which they break up with a smile.

You'll also notice that the Portrait on the wall is not just decoration of the room, but it looks like it part of the situation, like it is smiling down on this act - the photographer perhaps noticed a smile similar to Obama's, earnest but also with a hint of irony. It's the mildly ironical situation of Obama's "second oath", captured ingeniously in what seemes like a snapshot, but is in fact a rather clever composition. I doubt many photographers would have been able to take a picture like this if put in the same position.

I've looked at it longer and my respect for the photographer grew even more: the straight lines in the picture are all at an angle, which makes it dynamic and lively. The straight lines form a vanishing point towards Obama, who is the focus of the picture. The golden picture frame on the wall actually almost frames Obama's hand. The wide-angle lens creates an intimate atmosphere. The lighting is actually pretty good considering there was direct flashlight involved - neither under- nor overexposed, no disturbing dark shadows.

This is not mediocrity or accident, this is very, very clever photography. --DuckobertDag (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like it so much, I suggest you also add support. --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've only now noticed that there is an uncropped version, which is clearly better in composition. 99of9, you should leave the cropping to the original photographer, who clearly understands more of it than you do. --DuckobertDag (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate if you played the ball not the man, per the voting guidelines "criticising the author/nominator rather than the image". If you do want to discuss my edits, I was correcting other problems with the image when I made the crop, which I still believe is an improvement as it removes some subjects that were cut in half (hand/fireplace). If you prefer the original, you are welcome to put it up as an alternative - I may even support that too. 99of9 (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think that one should respect the photographer - if the picture was published this way, it should be left untinkered with. You wouldn't "improve" a painting by cropping it and tinkering with contrast and colour to make it look like you want it to look. Sorry about the personal attack though. --DuckobertDag (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually around here it's quite common for edited photographs to succeed where the original failed. Collaboration is after all the spirit of wikis. The photographer certainly has my respect, but that doesn't mean he did everything perfectly the first time. Anyway, his version is obviously still available untouched for everyone to see. I have simply made a derivative work, which he would certainly be agreeable to, given the license he released it under. --99of9 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Avala (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - prefer the uncropped original. Jonathunder (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FEMA - 30070 - Greensburg High School tornado damage in Kansas.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 06:10:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Greg Henshall, Federal Emergency Management Agency - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info An image of the destroyed Greensburg High School after an EF-5 (the highest rating possible) tornado destroyed 95% of the town of Greensburg, Kansas.
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Ugly shadow at the bottom right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barun (talk • contribs) 10:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stream Uluguru Mountains.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2010 at 17:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I would support a higher resolution --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rocks on left are not sharp, no wow there for me (& rather small) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This kind of photo should be bigger. —kallerna™ 10:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mediocre contrast and color. It's difficult to visually separate the different elements of the shot. Steven Walling 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aedes aegypti.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2010 at 01:10:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danilo P (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A bit below the current bug bar: quite small and undetailed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Alvesgaspar --Pjt56 (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support -- Great perspective! 14:20, 4 March 2010 (EST)
Oppose -- per Alvesgaspar --池田正樹 23:31,5 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Zapyon (talk) 11:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, it is tiny object, hard for good photo. But most total out-of-focus, only head is sharp, sorry --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - A36 (by) (2).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:37:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC), Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 11:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not see any encyclopaedic value. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Cathedrale Saint-Christophe (by).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is better than the other church, but I would have liked to see right to the top of the upper arch. --99of9 (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 and perspective distortion. --Elekhh (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Chapelle de Brasse (by) (1).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:52:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but I do not see anything very special. Also needs perspective correction. --Cayambe (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (10).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 09:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light on the left. --99of9 (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose equally the relative darkness in the rest of the image sadly. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (14).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 09:14:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (15).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 09:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Granges-sur-Vologne church (by).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit colourless. --99of9 (talk) 10:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Schirmeck church (by).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 11:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought putting user names in the file name was not approved on commons. This would apply to all your other nominations. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it not be approved? Commons:File naming does not mention anything against it. Diti the penguin — 15:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is supposed to be descriptive. I think that "ComputerHotline" in these file names will cause a lot of people searching for computer images to find the wrong sort of images. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how you define “a lot”, but if you try to google “computer” or search for the first 15,000 computer images on Commons (given the fact there are as of now 13,297 of them on Commons), you won’t find any reference to ComputerHotline’s photos. The file names are already descriptive enough, if he wants to add his name too, fine. Diti the penguin — 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "ComputerHotline" as the first characters in a photograph about a church is unhelpful, and it may also be misleading. It seems to me that these particular characters are not usually associated with churches and could be expected to imply something to do with computers or networks. Snowmanradio (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think asking the author to change “ComputerHotline” by “Thomas Bresson” could fix part of the problem then. Or move this at the end of the file name. Diti the penguin — 11:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Panoramic of Belfort (by).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 11:36:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought putting user names in the file name was not approved on commons. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose colourless, strange forest and I missed more sharpness --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jurgis Kairys Su-31 Góraszka 5950.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2010 at 21:39:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - uploaded and nominated by Wolf (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too far --217.10.38.139 05:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please log in --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Yann (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support perhaps someone could make it better, but I find it featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main subject too small. —kallerna™ 14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to make it clear, the intention was not to take a photo of the airplane. The "artist's" intention was to show a small, man-made vehicle against the vastness of the sky. Wolf (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Nice photo as is. Even pilot inside is good visible --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition Steven Walling 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wolf's comment - it does that. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject too small. Everyone knows how vast the sky is. --99of9 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure you know it? Wolf (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know it's vaster than this picture shows . --99of9 (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Kallerna --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others - small subject. --Karel (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose　As other --池田正樹 23:31,5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I am aware of the difficulties of taking a picture of a fast moving object out of another fast moving object. But it has been done much better by others. This pic is lacking in sharpness and lighting which is a pitty as the picture itself looks nice. May be you have another chance to try this again? Zapyon (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg your pardon, what do you mean by "another fast moving object"? Wolf (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image!--Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lone House.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2010 at 19:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mayqel - uploaded by Mayqel - nominated by Brackenheim -- Brackenheim (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brackenheim (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Danilo P (talk) 01:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a lot of work. —kallerna™ 10:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured picture. JukoFF (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was about to complain about the lacking perspective correction before I realised this is computer-generated... --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it was real at first. Basar (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Looks real, except for the perspective distortions which to me seem overdone. Why is the building so distorted, but not the trees or the tractor? --Dori - Talk 02:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral IMHO, wrong project. I don't deny this CG image is fine, yet I don't believe it to be the goal of Commons to be a repository for CG images. (Did I mention it was IMHO ?) --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Why do you want to put a limit on what excellent pictures can be? What is there to say against CG? They can be good illustrations or just fine art, too. Zapyon (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mount St Helens Summit Pano.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2010 at 19:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Gregg M. Erickson - uploaded by Farwestern - nominated by Ktr101 -- Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - a great image with lots of details, but the horizon looks curved to me. Am I the only one? Is it possible to fix it? --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking that there is a hill, but you're not the only one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, it wasn't just my eyes: Oppose for now until the horizon is fixed. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --217.10.38.139 05:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please log in --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Consider also the difficulty in obtaining the shot. Unsatisfied with the first climb in August, I went back in October looking for this shot. I never personally nominated it, though I believed it worthy, because I wanted the work to speak for itself. I guess it finally did. Thanks Kevin -- Farwestern
Support WOW! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Cayambe (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose now, as I agree with opposers regarding the warped horizon... and I hope that the stitching error can be repaired, in which case I'll be happy to support this otherwise wonderful work. --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~support~~ Amazing view, great job! --Dori - Talk 14:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Waiting for a better version. --Dori - Talk 18:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Wow! —kallerna™ 14:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Cayambe. —kallerna™ 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - sure - great image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Neutral for now I guess --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent detail. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree sadly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've seen a ton of photos of this subject, and this is a very good one. Steven Walling 23:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC). Now Oppose. The new stitch is much better. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--JMSchneid (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't think we should feature an image with a hugely warped horizon (even visible in thumbnail!) I don't think it is hills, the horizon is too far away for that, I think it's clearly a stitching/perspective problem (having had many similar problems myself). Are the original images available for re-stitching, this is obviously wonderful work, and I think it's important to get it right. --99of9 (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just had a look through the creator's gallery (some very interesting & detailed scenes, thankyou), and this warping appears to be a common problem. See for example File:Stuart Island Lighthouse.jpg for the most extreme I found. --99of9 (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fantastic view, and I would really like to support it, but the warping is too strong. -- Avenue (talk) 04:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with 99of9 and Avenue. My question: Is it possible (and fair) to change a support vote (see my vote above) into a neutral or oppose vote? --Cayambe (talk) 13:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to change your vote. As a courtesy, you may want to amend and ~~strike out~~ your original vote. -- Klaus with K (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As per 99of9 and Avenue. Fantastic view, a shame the wiggly horizon spoils it all. I very much encourage a proper stitch. Maybe discuss at Commons:Photography critiques. -- Klaus with K (talk) 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Photography critiques#Mount St Helens Pano

Support JukoFF (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other opposes. This is kind of error that can be easily fixed when one takes minimum care with stitching. Benh (talk) 06:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per 99of9. Should be restitched. --Slaunger (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New stitch edit

will shortly be provided by original photographer -- Klaus with K (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is located here. If someone could integrate it into this, that would be great. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Integrated now below. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is still a little wavy, but much less than the original. Given the difficult location and otherwise great image, I think little wavyness is acceptable. --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, much better. I see a little waviness too, and a slight CCW tilt (maybe 60 pixels). All tolerable IMO. -- Avenue (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is at this time no way to enlarge the image to the full resolution. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure, because it works for me just fine. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
High-resolution files sometimes have trouble opening if you're using Firefox. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. I would also like to see some of the background mountains labelled. --99of9 (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MattiPaavola. --Cayambe (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Horizon wavyness now acceptably small. In that mountain area one cannot expect a perfectly level horizon. Wow there as before. -- Klaus with K (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Takabeg (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IANEZZ (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My vote won't change anything and of course, the view is impressive... But there still is that non straight horizon, and I don't think this is on purpose. It is easy to fix that. Even the free softwares such as Hugin let you do so easily and quickly. Why not taking 10 seconds to carefully set horizon which, in its current state, ruins the picture ? Benh (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is crazy, the picture is broken. The horizon is curved. Maybe not as utterly screwed up as the previous version, but this is still unacceptable in light of how easy it is to get it right. If you cannot do it yourself, please seek help from contributors with plenty of pano experience. It is just sad to see wht looks like good source material go to waste in a badly done stitch. --Dschwen (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not it ain't perfect - yes it is a bloody good picture. This is FP not qi - I expect it to be very good but if the wow is there maybe not perfect. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me it's definitely good enough for FP, though it probably could be better. --Dori - Talk 18:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JMSchneid (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Mount_St_Helens_Summit_Pano_II.jpg

File:Naajaat panorama 2007-08-09 2 cropped USM downsampled.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2010 at 21:02:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original edit

Info photos by Slaunger - stitch by Noodle snacks, uploaded by Slaunger and Noodle snacks - nominated by Slaunger. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks interesting but the ice is overexposed --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit by Herby edit

Info Repair of overexposed areas by Herby.
Support --Slaunger (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 13:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice pano! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JMSchneid (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like pictures of Greenland! --Schnobby (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thankyou. --99of9 (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Kalte Heimat" Very nice --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Karel (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Herby has done great job improving the exposure. However, the ice is still overexposed partly (which cannot be fixed by any editing). Anyway, I think the rarity of this kind of quality images from Greenland villages and the aesthetics this time outweight the technical pitfalls in this image. Thanks for all the contributors for providing this interesting and beautiful photo! --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree Matti. The originals used are, when seen separately of vary inhomogenous quality and focal distance and taken almost three years ago with an ordinary compact camera. I am very grateful that one of our best stitchers, Noodle snacks has taken his time on his own intiative to download all those images on a limited bandwidth connection to Tasmania and make a very good restich and selective sharpening to fix these inhomogenieties as well as possible, and then Herbythyme comes by and does a great job trying to recover what can be recovered in the blown ice, also offering his assistance and time voluntarily. I know Herby is still considering improving it further. All this enthusiasm and cross-collaboration is one of the reasons why I like Commons so much. It is really great when competences being lacked by one user can be supplemented by others this way. And when the outcome is being received so positive, it has actually surprised me... Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Naajaat_panorama_2007-08-09_2_cropped_USM_downsampled_edit.jpg

File:Platinum-nugget.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2010 at 00:22:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alchemist-hp -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ---George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --- Takabeg (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Image:Sunrise thailand ko samui.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2010 at 16:33:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KishuArashi - uploaded by Pro2 - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured picture. JukoFF (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool image. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO just another sunrise photo. Foreground too dark. —kallerna™ 14:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot, even if it is "just another sunrise" photo. Steven Walling 23:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Callerna. --Karel (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors and rays --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tykcer inte det är en så speciell solnedgång /Ö 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chotmit003.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2010 at 13:05:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MathKnight - uploaded by MathKnight - nominated by MathKnight -- MathKnight 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MathKnight 13:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality isn't featured – had you denoised it? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't did anu photoshoping or process to the image. MathKnight 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality, composition. —kallerna™ 15:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality --　池田正樹

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:View of Mount Batok 2009.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2010 at 19:47:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Schristia - uploaded by Elekhh - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportInteresting.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, but looks bit overprocessed and the crop is far from ideal. —kallerna™ 13:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack Kallerna. Additional missing geocoordinates. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added coordinates. Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose agree about bad crop, put it in centre, rule of thirds would give better result. --Mile (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Accept critique regarding the image being overprocessed. Thanks for the review.

Elekhh (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schoppernau Panorama.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2010 at 21:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vor der mächtigen Kanisfluh ein Winterpanorama der Gemeinde Schoppernau. all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, beautiful. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good! --MattiPaavola (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sauber! --Leviathan (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Karel (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work. --Cayambe (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Dschwen (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IANEZZ (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JMSchneid (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow Friedrich, in letzter Zeit hauste aber ganz schöne Hämmer raus! --Simonizer (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

danke, ich dachte jedoch nicht an eine derartige Resonanz hier :-) --Böhringer (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aqwis (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--FoBe (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sitta canadensis CT2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2010 at 00:59:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Dferg (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --池田正樹23:36, March 2010 (UTC)
Support Steven Walling 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Zapyon (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colour scheme. --Elekhh (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vuosaaren sillat metro.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2010 at 10:47:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt CW, sorry. Correction need --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed. —kallerna™ 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not fixed, still tilt --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where? —kallerna™ 19:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look Image Notes now --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose wow, nearly the half picture is the undersite of a bridge... --Leviathan (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special to me. Schnobby (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 15:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice try. But as Leviathan writes, the underside of the bridge is too prominent. --Cephas (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version. —kallerna™ 11:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ A great picture with great composition and nice light IMO, but unfortunately strongly tilted CW. Also slightly soft at left side. (The edited alternative version looses IMO the great composition by cropping away the bridge at top. It is hard to please everyone... :-)) --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Tilt corrected also in this file. —kallerna™ 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Thanks. Fine for me now with slight regret because of the left sharpness and CA issues. --MattiPaavola (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This cutting is ok. I like the colours! Please remove the round stain on the snow near the right edge of the image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilt finally fixed, but I agree with Leviathan --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose　As other --池田正樹 23:31,5 March 2010 (UTC)
Support Very powerful composition. Elekhh (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seattle 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2010 at 22:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Seattle at dusk, from Queen anne Hill. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Support -- Dschwen (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp Steven Walling 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a joke, right? --Dschwen (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: If not please let me refer you to this file... --Dschwen (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - LOL ---Muhammad (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Kallerna's comment, it's not the whole photo. Also, I think it looks washed out and pretty boring for a cityscape. Steven Walling 17:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)r[reply]
      - Unfortunately your taste seems to be shaped by Flick. --Dschwen (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately your manners seem to be shaped by the fact you're a pompous snob. Steven Walling 03:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Now you are resorting to a purely personal attack with no connection to the topic whatsoever. Please don't do that. --Dschwen (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job Daniel! I believe you said you might put up some howto on the panorama stitching process. I wouldn't mind knowing what settings you use (aperture, focal length, ISO, etc.) too. I can't seem to figure out the right process. My edges end up being distorted and unsharp. --Dori - Talk 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support otherwise. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, those branches in foreground are really disturbing. (The unsharpness that Steven Walling probably meant can be seen in the harbour in right hand side. IMO it's not that bad, considering the lightning conditions.) —kallerna™ 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Leviathan (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the compositional bonus beyond the normal "big city pano" is the bay at the right with the "forking" of the city. --Iotatau (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see any significant technical flaws. Nice light. OK composition. Please improve the description by adding the names of the bay, the mountain and the tower. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anhinga portrait 0446.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 11:56:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 11:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 11:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful photo. Someone might be able to de-noise the background a bit. Basar (talk) 06:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit distracting background, rather dark subject... Maybe a QI, but I don't feel like I'm watching an outstanding shot that deserves FP status... Benh (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Are you joking? This is a portrait. It is quite common to take a portrait with a unsharp background to emphasise the potrayee, so to say. But what is distracting in this picture's background? -- "Rather dark subject"? This bird is BLACK. I do not understand your critique. May be you can be a little more specific and explain? Zapyon (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't complained about the background to be unsharp, but a little distracting because of the circles. And I find the picture to be too "common". When u have 400mm (+1.6 crop), it's not so hard to get thousands shots like that (I've tried, I know what I'm talking about... u follow a subject and use burst ; and I don't have 40D with 8 images / sec). FP has to be a little distinctive from the common shot. You're right about the black point. Still, I've seen some similar subjects with more details than this one. Here the most part is in the shadow... that doesn't help. Benh (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regarding the shadow part, the reason I liked this was because of the backlit white feathers, otherwise I'd agree with the assessment. --Dori - Talk 14:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't speak for Benh, but I find the large bright circle behind the head distracting, and the composition is too central for my liking. I do like the pose and detail. -- Avenue (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Dori, crop left side and right, try to darken what will left from that dot. Otherwise bird is perfect. --Mile (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Children in Raisen district, MP, India.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 06:48:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No personality rights warning when it comes to poor destitute children?
- Just forgotten, but you could have added it yourself instead of making unfriendly remarks. Now added. Yann (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Ankara (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why please? Yann (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I'm sorry. No wow there for me. I also think the photo is a stereotypical portrait of poor children. This photo is not bad technically, but as you know, featured picture is is not only a matter of technical quality. I'm sorry, but I do not like the photo.--Ankara (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good photo, but I don't feel it is technically perfect enough for FP: low contrast, white balance seems little off to me, motion blur because of long exposure time and tight crop at right. Sorry. --MattiPaavola (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the crop disturbs me too much. —kallerna™ 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Are you suggesting the picture was cropped badly, or are you talking about the composition? -- @Yann: is this a cropped picture? Show us the uncropped original, too! Zapyon (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not cropped, so I don't understand Kallerna. Yann (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment ... tight crop at right... —kallerna™ 17:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good photo, but I don't feel it is technically perfect enough for FP: low contrast--池田正樹 (User talk:池田正樹)10:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low contrast, dark background behind dark hair unfortunate. --Elekhh (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument to Flooded ships 2008 G2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 08:38:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Monument to Flooded ships in Crimean War (1854-1856), Sevastopol bay.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely a good QI, but IMO nothing special or stunning to be featured. Sorry. —kallerna™ 10:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Kallerna. --Karel (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Steven Walling 04:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Macaque India 3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 11:04:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mosmas - uploaded by Mosmas - nominated by zapyon -- Zapyon (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zapyon (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Steven Walling 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition!--Mbz1 (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. --Schnobby (talk) 07:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Oddgear (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cervus elaphus (female).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 23:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. --99of9 (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. Kango (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's a QI, but I don't like the crop (only the head, neck cutted, body missing) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture --Acarpentier 16:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mavericks Surf Contest 2010b.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 23:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jacobovs - uploaded by Jacobovs - nominated by Jacobovs -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support One more image of amazing waves -- Mbz1 (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has wow for me. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Iotatau (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avenue (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and realistic colours. --AM (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Pied-billed Grebe 0561.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 19:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 19:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 22:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:STS-128 ISS Separation 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2010 at 21:29:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info ISS after undocking of STS-128, created by NASA, uploaded and nominated by Ras67 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator -- Ras67 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compare to File:ISS March 2009.jpg. —kallerna™ 11:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not nearly as well composed as the March photo. Lighting not as nice either. -- Avenue (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the other one is better. --99of9 (talk) 11:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bamberger Reiter BW 2.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 08:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to lighting and composition. It would have to be pretty good for this kind of subject. --Dori - Talk 03:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - A36 (by) (1).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 10:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop. --MattiPaavola (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caspian Rehbinder (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting and I haven't anything against the "top crop" --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop.--Ankara (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop.--池田正樹 (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Fort de la Justice (by) (11).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 09:16:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Licht & Komposition --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the top of the arch is missing. Snowmanradio (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - KL-Natzweiler (by) (5).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2010 at 13:39:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, most of the picture seems to be slightly out of focus...I will mark a couple places with image notes. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More foreground might help. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "ComputerHotline" in the file name could be misleading. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Romanian Patriarchal Cathedral - mural.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2010 at 17:31:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It might be impossible to avoid, but the chain bisecting the image means this can't be featured IMO. --99of9 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Set nomination: Rotary snowplow in action, not featured edit

Info Let's try something new and crazy :) All by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Rotary snowplow RhB Xrotd 9213 working on the Bernina Line at Lago Bianco, Switzerland.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! Very interesting and nice quality! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but I wouldn't promote all of them. The second one isn't IMO good enough to be featured. —kallerna™ 10:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would choose the last one (4) only, as it shows the actual rotary plow. --Loadmaster (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Loadmaster --Cephas (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree that the last one on its own is great. The second last also adds very significant value because it shows the action well (and has nice colours and composition). But I don't think the other two add enough further. So I would support the set of two, but not four. --99of9 (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment IMHO the first one is important because it shows how the snow actually gets onto the track (I wish I had a closer picture of the special car that scrapes the snow off the sides...). I put the second one in not because it adds much EV, but because I think it looks nice and it fits into the set. --Kabelleger (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I personally feel this is a valid set nomination. The work of a snowplow cannot easily be shown in one image so a set is a valid approach. I do feel that a set of three or maybe two per 99of9 might be sharper and I would probably support such a set. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to support (1) collage of these four figures, or (2) the animated .GIF, where these 4 figures will appear one by one. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm with Dschwen here. If you need a collage for some article, you can easily put the pictures next to each other in whichever way you like. Animated GIF is even worse, you cannot show a single picture out of the set, cannot modify the rate at which they change (it will always be the rate I chose when putting it together), you cannot add a description to one of the pictures, and, worst of all, it only supports 255 colors, which will look horrible. --Kabelleger (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree with Kabelleger and Dschwen, GIF would be horrible, and collage is a backward step. --99of9 (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Valid set nomination, very nice pictures, and they complement each other. Pasting them together is rather pointless, that's what we have set nominations for. An animated GIF would be even worse. Do I have to spell out why? --Dschwen (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very interesting and valuable pictures. Unfortunately, I don't think the composition is as superb as with your previous train FPs. The third one is best IMO, but the machine is unfortunately hidden behind the snow stream. A picture with both the vehicle and the action visible in one shot like File:Rotating snowplow on Bergensbanen.jpeg would be great, but difficult to take these days of course. --MattiPaavola (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archilochus colubris (Male).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2010 at 03:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe a little crop from the left. Nice colors, sharp. --Mile (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 03:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Nice indeed, but the background is quite bland. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fo'shizzle. Steven Walling 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Avenue (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Elekhh (talk) 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cavalryatbalaklava2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2010 at 03:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A lithograph by Richard Simpson illustrating a battle between British and Russian cavalry during the Crimean War. (Restored by NativeForeigner

Info created by Richard Simpson - uploaded by NativeForeigner - nominated by NativeForeigner -- NativeForeigner (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Received a bit of help from Durova but was for the most part my work -- NativeForeigner (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kudos to NativeForeigner for good work. Durova (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 03:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is not this a bit too blue now? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:San Francisco with two bridges and the low fog .jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2010 at 04:16:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Muhammad (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb! Da kann niemand meckern! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ich meckere jedenfalls nicht! --Schnobby (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sehr schön! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Amazing picture. And this is the right place to promote it ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It would be even better if the view would be a bit wider. It looks a bit cut-off in the lower area. Still a great shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the challenge ;-). In April I'll try a high resolution version of this image. --Dschwen (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Daniel, I wish you good luck in April. Let's hope that the famous San Francisco Fog of our w:Indian summer would be around in April :) I love that fog, it is really a beautiful sight to behold. BTW there was a funny story associated with this image. There's a lighthouse few miles down the road from the place the image was taken from. I've heard that the light from that lighthouse in the fog is something to see, so I asked my husband to go there. I wish I did not. While driving we found ourselves in such a fog that I've never ever experienced before. We got lost, we did not know, where is the road. Few times I got out, and tried to locate the road with flashlight :) We were about to settle down for the night, but we were rescued by a bicyclist. He kindly agreed to ride slow enough :) for us to follow...--Mbz1 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Bigger resolution would be even better. --Mile (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again a very, very nice work Mila, but I think AngMo might be right with his advice. Maybe you can try it again with more foreground and a few more room in the left?! And I'm really looking forward for Daniels version. ;) Best regards Leviathan (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have another image taken from a slightly different location

Should I nominate this one as alternative? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have lived in Marin for my entire life, and that is most beautiful shot of the city I have ever seen. The spirit of the photo is amazing. AlexAH (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per AngMokio, I'd have added more room below to make it even more impressive... Benh (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ja, so ist sie schön. --Böhringer (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. --Cayambe (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, of course. --Vprisivko (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Makes me want to get a better camera and/or better skills. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Incredible atmosphere and good technical quality AFAICT. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image. The fog adds atmosphere without getting in the way. -- Avenue (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! JMSchneid (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing picture. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Enough has been said...:) --Elekhh (talk) 02:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Peretshofen, Bavaria-19Dec2009.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2010 at 12:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Allie_Caulfield - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this edit: unsigned by IP (88.14.197.89 - talk)
Oppose Messy composition. —kallerna™ 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extra, no reason for FP. --Karel (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best angle: tree covers church tower. --Elekhh (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tamiasciurus hudsonicus CT.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2010 at 00:57:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 00:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically not good enough IMO, sorry. —kallerna™ 12:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Can you please specify your critique? "not good enough" is not very specific. I think it IS good enough. Zapyon (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a nice picture! --Schnobby (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dead insect-14.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 17:27:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Downtown Miami skyline 20100305.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 05:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 05:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Iotatau (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good. But it is compressed a little too much (I see blocking in the sky). 1/3 of megapixels as size in Mb seems a good rule of thumb for me. --Dschwen (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I compress to 91% when converting to JPEG, do you go higher than that? Also, to note this is with a 40D not a 5D :) --Dori - Talk 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Personally, I never compress more than 95%, and I usually use 98% unless it is a scale down image for web use only. Yann (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The block artifacts have nothing to do with the camera model, they just tell you that you need a bit more data for a good image representation. --Dschwen (talk) 13:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO right hand side is quite boring. Those carlights are the best part of photo. —kallerna™ 13:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question looking at the geocoding of the image I am wondering if you stopped on a Highway ramp to take these pictures. Your coordinate seems a bit off, it is placed on th grass below the highway knot. Can you clarify? --Dschwen (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the coordinates more precise. It's actually a parking building, but the Google imagery is not up to date. --Dori - Talk 23:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen. BG Leviathan (talk) 18:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dellex (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:HomePlace.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 02:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FoBe (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MAX Blue Line to Gresham on Jefferson St.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 00:31:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ian Sane - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BW without good reason loses information. I don't see good reason here. --99of9 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trams are often recognized by their colours. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Didn't know B&W itself was an oppose reasoning. You do realize it identifies what train it is by the giant board that says its destination, right? Steven Walling 18:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that tram enthusiasts would like to see its colours. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a fine photograph. It's odd to see how much times have changed. As recently as the mid-eighties the consensus among serious photographers was that black and white was preferable for artistic work. Durova (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you spent any time in a darkroom developing and enlarging b&w pictures? Well, I have, and let me tell you there are worlds between that and this phony black and white. --Dschwen (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strangely I've just returned from a "monochrome" course. The genre is far from dead :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's just fine composition with curve of railroad. And black-green-white color in my monitor... :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This doesn't have much in common with classical B&W. It is so much less to just desaturate a color pic. I don't like it. Artsy-*artsy at the expense of educational value. We should not throw COM:SCOPE out of the window for the effect. --Dschwen (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oft ist aber das "wegnehmen" der Farbe ein gutes Mittel um etwas zu betonen. Hier z.b die Linienführung, die würde mit Farbe nicht so gut zur Geltung kommen --Simonizer (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Imperfect Google translation of the above: "Often taking away the color is a good way to emphasize something. Here, for instance, the lines that would come with color not so good for the scope." Steven Walling 03:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I think you're allowed to say artsy-fartsy Dschwen. ;) Steven Walling 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 10:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be fine with the b&w, but I don't like the choice of DoF, and it appears somewhat tilted to me. --Dori - Talk 03:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 21:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distortion of perspective by 400 mm telelens; in reality, tracks must not be this curvy. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh..actually I've walked down that street, and the tracks are that curvy. It's in the middle of downtown Portland, and the track follows one of the oldest streets in the city. Steven Walling 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Petardsketch2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 05:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Petardsketch.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A petard (early gunpowder bomb) from a seventeenth century manuscript of military designs, probably Italian.
Support -- Durova (talk) 05:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks. Takabeg (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like it. --Karel (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, don't find it that compelling. --Dori - Talk 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, it's interesting but doesn't grab me. -- Avenue (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carduelis pinus CT7.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 16:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good use of depth of field to minimize what could have been a distracting background. Durova (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at 400mm on a subject this big, I'm not sure it could have been otherwise :) Benh (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Very good shot! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support et je viens de voir ta gallerie, c'est impressionnant ! Benh (talk) 11:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! --Cephas (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you have any tips as to how you get so close, please share :). --Dori - Talk 18:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bird feeders in winter is surely a good spot. --Cephas (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This winter is too long, but obviously very good for bird shots! --Schnobby (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) It's hard to choose.[reply]
Support --JMSchneid (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Elekhh (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed support for Alt2. Elekhh (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 16:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 16:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is the best. Fabulous contrast and composition. --99of9 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC) It's hard to choose.[reply]
Support Definitely the best, IMO. --Avenue (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noodle snacks (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Elekhh (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Carduelis_pinus_CT7.jpg

File:FEMA - 30963 - Flag on a tree in the debris field in Kansas.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2010 at 19:42:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tim Tyson, FEMA - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, composition. —kallerna™ 13:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Callerna. --Karel (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the motive! --MichaelBueker (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silver Target in XPS Spectrometer.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2010 at 14:27:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MichaelBueker - uploaded by MichaelBueker - nominated by MichaelBueker -- MichaelBueker (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MichaelBueker (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality, nice lighting. Makes science look cool. --Dschwen (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Challenging to make such a photo throught the vacuum viewport, with existing lighting. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting scientific image. Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Véronique PAGNIER 08:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:ComputerHotline - Belfort (by) (4).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2010 at 13:42:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO would be better without HDR; composition could be better. —kallerna™ 17:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kallerna. --Dschwen (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have some difficulty orientating around the image. Alternative composition might help perhaps with a wider angle of view. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "ComputerHotline" in the file name could be misleading. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelBueker (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Central subject in shadow. Elekhh (talk) 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ipê (Avaré) REFON.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2010 at 23:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by José Reynaldo da Fonseca - uploaded by Reynaldo - nominated by Xhienne -- — Xavier, 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as the submitter. — Xavier, 23:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good composition. --Aqwis (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Like the light, composition, and details, but it seems tilted to me --Dori - Talk 02:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Better now. --Dori - Talk 02:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good but tilted. Please correct. —kallerna™ 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done I could hardly find something "straight" and clearly vertical or horizontal in this image (maybe that's what makes its beauty after all), so I took the horizon as a reference. I hope this is OK now. — Xavier, 00:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support —kallerna™ 10:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Kallerna --Pudelek (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) now I Support --Pudelek (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good lighting and composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and dramatic colours. Elekhh (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--micki ^talk 19:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought it looked dull in the thumbnail, but it's beautiful at full size. --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition, sharpness, lighting and colours. --Cayambe (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like, but I am suspicious. Hihihi---Reynaldo Avaré ^Msg 02:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours and composition. --Avenue (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wasp July 2008-1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2010 at 11:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Second try. A digger wasp (Bembix oculata) in its natural environment. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As below. I don't think a straight shot of an arbitrary insect is anything special anymore. The picture has no message or outstanding idea. It does not show any particular aspect of the insect. We have tons of pictures like that. And this one has nothing that sets it apart from the (good average) mass. --Dschwen (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Good to see that someone is finally trying (in some lateral way) to raise the FPC bar. Though I sympathize with the idea (as you know, I have proposed several times to do it by raising the number of necessary votes) I doubt that the initiative have any success. But if that is really what you are trying to do, you have my support. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I can do is give an honest opinion (well, it is sometimes difficult to balance "honesty" and trying to be nice. And I bet quite a few people here will tell you that I shifted the balance heavily to one particular side. Ask this guy for example ;-) ). I found for myself that going on a mission can only be frustrating here. So, am I trying to raise the bar? No, but I have my personal bar, as anyone else certainly does, and it already is quite high ;-) (at least for other peoples pictures! ;-P). --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry per Dschwen. It's a good document, but the composition isn't that stunning. —kallerna™ 14:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I generally don't vote except on the individual merits of a photo but Dschwen has a good point. I also find the background to be distracting. Steven Walling 19:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Smashing macros have seen better days on FPC, sorry :-) Otherwise good enc. value.  Richard  [®]  13:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Smiling Kabuli Girl.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2010 at 06:31:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by John Zada - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 06:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Steven Walling 06:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now wow and not the best quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, IMO dull background. —kallerna™ 10:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emil Zátopek museum.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2010 at 20:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, cluttered composition, unfortunate lighting... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very cluttered composition. Elekhh (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Snapshot. --Dschwen (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 00:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacana jacana -Cleveland Metroparks Zoo, Ohio, USA-8a.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 00:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ozan Kilic - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. A little more space on the sides would help, but it's still a great photo. --99of9 (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image size is 2,311 × 3,467. It is at least six times the area of a minimum sized FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but it's noisy... so it's not featured for me. And I think better a smaller resulution but then no noise. Sorry! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice image but I think I agree with kaʁstn --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JMSchneid (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good. --Karel (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Subject a bit squeezed in the picture but still good --Cephas (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Would like to see a slight denoised version (if you can sharpen why not denoise?), otherwise acceptable.  Richard  [®]  13:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Nicomekl River sunset.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2010 at 20:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The High Fin Sperm Whale - uploaded by The High Fin Sperm Whale - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NYASS^[1] ?!?! --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

↑ Not Yet Another SunSet

Oppose Sorry, nothing special. —kallerna™ 10:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one of many sunset pictures. Lots of water lots of sky in a boring 50:50 composition. No apparent educational value. Not outstanding. --Dschwen (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment tilted --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Worth watching but per Daniel  Richard  [®]  13:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 00:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tragelaphus eurycerus (Bongo).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 01:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, disturbing background. --Karel (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, particularly with the background. Steven Walling 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Unfortunately, the background is not optimal. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacific Tree Frog (Pseudacris regilla).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2010 at 04:44:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The High Fin Sperm Whale - uploaded by The High Fin Sperm Whale - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral a bit noisy, the bottom part of the animal is unsharp and the position of the frog in the picture isn't advantageous – but I think it's not so bad to give an oppose --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is fine but DOF is insufficient by f5.6. Colors/light are a bit dull.  Richard  [®]  13:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too low, unappealing flash lighting. --Dschwen (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Three Sisters Sunset.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 10:46:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support No sign of the hailstorm from a few hours earlier. -- Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks IMO somehow overprocessed. What have you done or have you done something? —kallerna™ 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very little - it is an exposure blend of two exposures with a gradient. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm gonna take your word for it NoodleSnacks. This must have bee a stunning sight. Exif timestamp is correct? I assume this is close to sunset then? --Dschwen (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is (see filename). Noodle snacks (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's close to one of those weird, tone-mapped HDRs, but good enough for my taste. --Dori - Talk 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours suspicious to me too, these are the "Blue" Mountains... :) Very good quality and composition. --Elekhh (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done  Richard  [®]  13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chambre antenne S4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 17:29:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks a little tilted maybe but anyway I don't actually see any wow or other reason why this would be featurable - what am I missing? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing outstanding about this...It's an okay picture, but no 'wow' or anything, sorry... --Oddgear (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice examplar of dark cold-war feel, very HL2. SFC9394 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but not FP caliber in quality. Steven Walling 19:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I just don't find this very appealing. It is a great picture, but it is of a vandalized wall - I don't see anything special here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unpleasant lighting, and not a good composition. A non-symetric composition would have been better I think. Elekhh (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesse very limited Véronique PAGNIER 08:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insecte-mort, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 17:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next time please use the jpg file extension in the lower case, which is preferred: see Image titles and file names. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info OK. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FoBe (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral this is a pretty conglomerate of dew drops. But I don't see a dead insect here. That makes me question the educational value of this image. --Dschwen (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Mohawkite.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 20:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent quality --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pebble. Or how large is this? The photo does not give a sense of scale. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you can read? If yes then read simple the image description! All the infos are included. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do can read. My objection is that the image does not give much of a clue of the size of this object. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then read please: dimensions: width 50mm • depth 40mm • height 28 mm. It isn't possible to add a right 2D scale in to the image of a 3D object. If you can do it then show me it please!? I did not want to take a photo with coins or other items for a comparison. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Noodle snacks (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Nanga parbat, Pakistan by gul791.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 15:17:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Atif Gulzar - uploaded by Petrusbarbygere - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shadows are really, really dark. Overall, nothing stunning. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark area lacks detail. Too little visible from the meandering river, while sky is less remarkable. Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's a pretty picture, but parts are too dark to feature. Jonathunder (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:San Marco cathedral in Venice.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2010 at 15:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PetarM - uploaded by PetarM - nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mile (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Basik07 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but for such a static object the quality isn't quite there. --Dori - Talk 03:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. Steven Walling 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see Dori --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, the lion is blurry. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 01:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--micki ^talk 18:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Véronique PAGNIER 08:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Neutral It's a great shot, I don't support only because of the little noise... --Phyrexian (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sky noise reduced. --Mile (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eristalinus October 2007-5.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2010 at 13:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Spring hasn't come yet and insects are scarce this year! Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition --Muhammad (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice --Oddgear (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, those stripped eyes!--Mbz1 (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like these eyes too. --Schnobby (talk) 08:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ The wings are a bit soft, but the eyes seal it for me. -- Avenue (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the other photo Benh links to is similar but has more wow. Sorry, I didn't see it before. -- Avenue (talk) 06:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose sorry, I don't think this is up to the high standards for insect pictures anymore. DOF is a bit low, and it doesn't really show anything outstanding. (don't worry, by now there are so many supports that it will be featured anyways ;-) ) --Dschwen (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back, Daniel -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question This reminds me times when I was more active here... This photo isn't that different, except that it's flipped down. Is it really worth featuring it ? (no no I don't hold grudge against you or anything !) - Benh (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very happy to see you back, Benh! To see this picture rejected will be a little price to pay for you to join the band again. :-)) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems my comment had negative influence on the candidate... so the price is "paid" for sure and I feel little sorry about that. I now just hope my job lets me enough spare time to spend on Commons... we'll see ! - Benh (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Behn. The other Alvesgaspar's photo of that insect is much better IMO, and deservedly featured. This one doesn't has that much wow. --Lošmi (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh, we have an FP of the same species, in a similar view, that's actually better. --Dori - Talk 02:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna™ 11:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh and others. Sorry. Comment: the 5 eyes are greatly shown.--Cayambe (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, have to agree with Benh. --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice. But the already featured version is much better.  Richard  [®]  13:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Blue Heron 0887.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 01:14:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dori - Talk 01:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done :) --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine shot --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, wonderful detail. -- Avenue (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great detail. --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good image --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pseudacris regilla Tree Frog.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 04:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The High Fin Sperm Whale - uploaded by The High Fin Sperm Whale - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nom. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy, strange colors and it's bad that the animal moved in the moment you shot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per your concerns, I've fixed up the colours a bit. I think the problem was too much saturation. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with karsten. The left eye is blurred when compared to the left leg. --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute but there is a potpourrie of things which disturb me. The angle and the distracting background as well the technical execution as example: white balance, ~~focus~~ motion blur, colors, - just to name a few.  Richard  [®]  13:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Richard. And looks like oversharpened motion blur. --Dschwen (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. Mary's Cathedral Tokyo.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2010 at 23:17:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

x300px|SHORT DESCRIPTION

Info created by Wiiii - uploaded by Wiiii - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much going on. —kallerna™ 08:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition and crop feels unbalanced for my taste  Richard  [®]  13:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the contents of the image are squeezed to the edges, bottom crop unappealing. --Dschwen (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the composition would be problematic. It is actually consistent with Japanese aesthetics IMO, even if unusual for the western eye. --Elekhh (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is admittedly completely new to me that Japanese aesthetics involves cut-off handrails and traffic lights protruding into the frame... --Dschwen (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dschwen.  Richard  [®]  22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the importance of the negative space and the typical tight framing you can find in many examples like this or this... --Elekhh (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even when sugarcoating this image I find the composition unbalanced. But hey, let's wait for other opinions.  Richard  [®]  11:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - interesting subject, but I agree the crop feels unbalanced. Jonathunder (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems that nobody here understands it. I withdraw it. Elekhh (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I upset you with my stupidity ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elekhh (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Avignon - Statue cathédrale.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 08:50:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Véronique PAGNIER - nominated by Véronique PAGNIER - Statue de Notre Dame des Doms, à Avignon, en haut du clocher - Véronique PAGNIER 08:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Véronique PAGNIER 08:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose unsharp --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kaʁstn, plus blown highlights. Valuable and informative, but no FP, i think. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not happy about the perspective. --Schnobby (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greenwich Park Vista.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2010 at 21:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pixel8 - uploaded by Pixel8 - nominated by Oddgear -- 86.20.84.197 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 86.20.84.197 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No IP votes. Please login if you're different to Oddgear the nominator... --99of9 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Oddgear (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very tight crop at bottom. --MattiPaavola (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite a few interesting structures. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The white balance appears to change in the sky above the chimneys. --99of9 (talk) 11:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not too fond of the crop and the WB issue 99of9 pointed out. --Dschwen (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit surprised... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, what was I thinking. At least I complained about the foreground crop back then as well :-). Plus that was a different project, so allow me some inconsistency! --Dschwen (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "So I like, even if I had not circumcised the fore so strongly. Nice overview about the landscape, the colors are very appealing without the encyclopedic value of the image to minimize its impact." I sure hope that was Google Translate being funny :) --Dori - Talk 01:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Now that you mention it, maybe a Penis-vandal had temporarily replaced the image when I voted.. ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --92.76.28.62 08:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ugh, sorry. I forgot to log in. --MichaelBueker (talk) 08:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, per others. —kallerna™ 14:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. --Dori - Talk 01:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't care the bottom crop, but the white balance of the extreme right of the picture is really strange... --Phyrexian (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. -- Avenue (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Phyrexian --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GinkgoLeaves.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2010 at 14:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant quality! --MichaelBueker (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Je-str (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition, detail and lighting. Well done! --Dori - Talk 23:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scanner? --Dschwen (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes --JMSchneid (talk) 18:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of little white specks at full-resolution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Girl Septermber 2008-1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2010 at 14:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a girl, in tones of blue and green Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. This is more of a QI to me. It is a well done solid shot, and certainly a pleasant end result. But it does not surprise me, it doesn't have an original idea behind it. --Dschwen (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more FP of people. I don't see any technical reasons why it would not be a FP. Yann (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Yann - there's more to the world of photography than insects and birds. --MichaelBueker (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Everyone... but that doesn't mean we should feature any portrait. That one doesn't stand out from others (Don't see any attack against the model anyone..;) )... and background is quite distracting to my taste for a portrait. Sorry Joaquim. - Benh (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very seldom I come in defense of my pictures ... and dames. In this case, I truly believe this photo is special due to the quality of the indirect lighting, the composition, the combination of colors and (of course) the beauty of the subject. Am I being partial? I don't think so. The fact that this is just the portrait of a common European girl dressed in a common way (the exotic touch is absent) shoudn't in my opinion affect the outcome. (Well, I think I'm talking too much, maybe because of the long absence) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent technical qualities. Subject is great in its simplicity. Background is not distracting IMHO. Nice job! And welcome back again, Joaquim. -- MJJR (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per MichaelBueker... --Cephas (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the detail and light, centered composition (in landscape format) and background don't quite do it for me. --Dori - Talk 02:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well made portrait, nothing wrong technically that I can see, and I like the light. But I'm sorry, the composition and pose don't make it stand out for me. -- Avenue (talk) 06:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh. —kallerna™ 11:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks normal, but an ordinary photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the associated documentation is inadequate. I think that some more details should be given; perhaps the girls age, ethnic origin, and where in the world the photograph could be added. Snowmanradio (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like any random picture from a family photobook. Not bad looking, but too common. —§ stay (sic)! 11:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schoppernau Winterpanorama, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2010 at 11:03:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty awesome. Might eventually benefit from a re-crop on the right side. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the bright sun right in the middle. Yann (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would benefit from more room at the right. --Dschwen (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I agree with Yann. --Aqwis (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's beautiful, to be sure. Sadly, the abrupt end in the middle of the road leaves me desiring more to look at. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You have risen the bar very high . —kallerna™ 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Juliancolton. Also, I find the tilt and distortion very noticeable. However, with a little bit of editing, this would make a great picture. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even if the picture isn't going to get featured, it would be nice if you could correct the tilt. --99of9 (talk) 08:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't fully convince me (check out the stitching error in the glider). --Dschwen (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diatom2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 11:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A microphotograph of a circular arrangement of diatoms.

Info created by Wipeter - uploaded by Wipeter - nominated by Twinsday -- Twinsday (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Twinsday (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2010 (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: Too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 20 March 2010 (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:Diatoms.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 11:21:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rovag - uploaded by Rovag - nominated by Twinsday -- Twinsday (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Twinsday (talk) 11:21, 20 March 2010 (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: Very poor graphical quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2010 (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:Black ice river.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2010 at 07:05:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David van der Mark - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uninteresting composition, unappealing lighting. --Dschwen (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'd have to disagree with Dschwen. I think the lighting and composition are very interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy in the bottom part, bad lighting (see second point of Dschwen) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dschwen. —kallerna™ 10:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. The latest contrail doesn't help. --Avenue (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sry, but nothing interesting. --Aktron (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —§ stay (sic)! 03:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:EllstromManufacturingHydroplane.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2010 at 14:06:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for this motive und shot I can disregard the noise --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the others, but the CW tilt should be corrected. --Pjt56 (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tilt correected--JMSchneid (talk)

Oppose Centered composition, distracting background + I would like to see more of that blashing water. —kallerna™ 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support = Support Well done! Nice photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 15:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Seal tracks on ice, from above 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2010 at 10:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jason Auch (Devil.Bunny on flickr) - edited and uploaded by Avenue - nominated by Avenue -- Avenue (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fascinating motive. --MichaelBueker (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MichaelBueker, plus great composition. --Pjt56 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why on earth is this BW? —kallerna™ 10:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kallerna, the water looks so very unnatural --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was taken under a midnight sun, about 5 minutes after the shot to the right. The water in the foreground there also has quite an inky look. -- Avenue (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare shot, looks like a piece of art, a brush drawn over the ice... --Schnobby (talk) 08:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare picture. And it is a masterpiece of nature! --Phyrexian (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare and nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support One of the more interest/original images I've seen here. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jonathunder (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would prefer color version. --Mile (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fascinating. Durova (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support trippy. —§ stay (sic)! 03:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

File:Burrow Mump, Foot of Hill.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 05:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maedin - uploaded by Maedin - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 05:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the composition and the quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 13:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose odd composition, uninteresting. --Dschwen (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition --Doucus (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urgh, why do I have to be embarrassed like this? Maedin\^talk 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not embarrassing at all. At least it shouldn't be. The image is definitely way better than the average on commons (just do a few clicks on "Random file" to reassure yourself ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there are worse pictures out there is irrelevant. I upload for the encyclopaedias and because someone, somewhere, might find the CC licensed images useful; it's embarrassing when it turns into something for others to just giggle or grimace at and criticise, in this sort of public forum, where judgements are quickly and harshly passed from photograph to photographer. Maedin\^talk 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hm, you are not easily cheered up, are you? --Dschwen (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Awww, I am, actually, :) I'm not usually so sour, just kinda sensitive about my photographs. I'm sorry for being so ungracious; I do appreciate your comment, :-) Maedin\^talk 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thank you, Patriot, but one of my worst, definitely not FP quality or FP composition or FP anything (that goes for all of mine). I wish I had seen this before 5 users felt compelled to oppose. Maedin\^talk 09:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxembourg Drapeau.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon
Support -- Jebulon I still know that K(censored) will decline, but others ? (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Sorry, Jebulon, but I believe (and always defended) that no national flags or religious symbols should be featured because there is too much beyond the mere graphical value of the image. (as far as I know none was promoted) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No problem with the subject matter here, but the composition is generally uninteresting. Not FP, but maybe QI. Steven Walling 01:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 13:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition --Doucus (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:US Navy 050903-N-5319A-007 Army National Guard members help injured New Orleans citizens into waiting buses after being stranded for three nights at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in downtown New Orleans.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2010 at 04:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Brien Aho. - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, an entire caption just in the filename... --Dschwen (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exposure is not good I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, filename etc. —kallerna™ 09:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose dark, low quality, no wow for me --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've stayed in Hyatt Regency Hotel myself. It was a nice experience, however not memorable enough to warrant a featured picture. --Dschwen (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No eye-catcher. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting. —§ stay (sic)! 11:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Apparently, this picture is not as good as I thought. --патриот8790 (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:door knocker Cordoba.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2010 at 22:04:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jebulon - uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, tilted, perspective. —kallerna™ 13:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mostly because of the tight framing.  Richard  [®]  16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, not visually catching. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Furuzamami beach Okinawa Zamami.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 10:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by hashi photo - uploaded by hashi photo - nominated by Manuelt15 -- --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^(m†¹5™) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^(m†¹5™) 10:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see a CCW tilt. --MichaelBueker (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avala (talk) 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- just not enough wow for me, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perisoreus canadensis mercier1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 01:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --MichaelBueker (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very Good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great composition and detail, but the shadow on its shoulder is too large and dark for me. --Avenue (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a shadow .. check out this. GerardM (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like a shadow to me. All those shots show a clean white shoulder band stretching all the way around from the chest to the back; this one doesn't. The shadow seems to be cast by the tree trunk; it runs linearly down through the bird's head and shoulder, but is most obvious on the shoulder. --Avenue (talk) 01:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support gorgeous GerardM (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm thinking this would look better with a crop that gets rid of the tree on the left, and the white area on the right. It does become a bit squarish though, so I'm not sure which I prefer... --Dori - Talk 23:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can make an alternate choice, but I surely wouln't like such a tight crop. It's a question of personal preference, of course. To me, the tree on the left "explain" the shadow on the bird and for that reason it should stay visible. Also, the look of the bird gives a "direction" in the picture toward the right, therefore space is needed on the right to keep our eye in the picture. Apart from all this, I always like the subject to "breathe" in the picture. --Cephas (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Good shot --84.190.138.85 14:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please log in or create an account --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —§ stay (sic)! 11:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FoBe (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bird Yyterin lietteet 9.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 19:41:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 19:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, object out of focus... --Karel (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 21 March 2010 (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: of very poor quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2010 (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'm somewhat confused here. You are the kallerna who basically opposes pretty much everything on this page (except pictures you have to fly in space for)... ...and then this?! What am I missing? --Dschwen (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering too. Maybe we are just blind and miss a very important point! ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - given the almost inevitable "no wow" votes I'd love to know where the wow is in the image of the back end of a gull? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A person will always find their own creations beautiful. That is probably why nobody but me finds my food delicious :) --Muhammad (talk) 09:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps he is joking? --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO the composition is much more interesting than the "normal" birdphoto-composition (like File:Dusky Moorhen Water Lilies.jpg or File:Pinicola enucleator m CT2.jpg) and the background is beautiful. The lack or colours is also somehow interesting IMO. I do agree about the quality, but it's not that bad. This is one of those pictures, which are more about the place (Yyterin lietteet = Yyteri's sludge which is sertified to be one of FINIBA (Finnish Important Bird Areas)). But as you don't see anything special in it, I withdraw my nomination. —kallerna™ 11:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Australia Square Sydney 2007.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 14:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Elekhh - uploaded by Elekhh - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is strong Chromatic aberration throughout the left side of the image. With that fixed, I'd support the image. --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well done, support now :) --MichaelBueker (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, should be symmetrical, CA. —kallerna™ 16:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think symmetry is necessary. With the CA fixed, I think this image can be a FP. --MichaelBueker (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Corrected CA. Thanks Patriot8790 for the nomination. --Elekhh (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great composition. The asymmetry adds to its interest, IMO. --Avenue (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Avenue. Durova (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —§ stay (sic)! 03:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cathédrale de Tours - verrière de Saint Martin 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2010 at 12:31:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Eusebius (talk) 12:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful, instrcutive and technically well done. --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please add English versions of the annotations! --MichaelBueker (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but they're harder than usual to translate, so I'll do it when I have some spare time. I have many annotations to translate, on several pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Impressive, useful, technically quasi perfect. Interesting annotations. And...he is my job's Patron Saint. Wow ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon, except for the job's Patron :-) --Cayambe (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral over two thirds of the image are just pitch black. This could be cropped. The window itself could have more detail. There have been nice high resolution church window shots on this page before. --Dschwen (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dschwen. —kallerna™ 08:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but not outstanding, and it's not first time I see similar pictures in FPC. Are we going to feature all stained glasses ? - Benh (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Excessive blackspace. --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BelleOfLouisville.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 23:14:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JMSchneid - uploaded by JMSchneid - nominated by JMSchneid -- JMSchneid (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JMSchneid (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture seems underexposed and over-post-processed (oily appearance). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --JMSchneid (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pobblebonk02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Banjo Frog, Limnodynastes dumerili, commonly known as the "Pobblebonk"

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:07, 22 March 2010 (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: Too small. --99of9 (talk) 05:45, 22 March 2010 (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:122 - Toronto - Septembre 2009.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2010 at 05:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Martin St-Amant (S23678) - nominated by Dschwen (talk)
Interactive Zoomable version: Zoomviewer
Support Fantastic mood, great resolution. Just stunning-- Dschwen (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO bit tilted. And I dislike the crop on right, with that street light. —kallerna™ 09:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Align the sides of the buildings with the side of your browser at full zoom; I can't see any tilt there. The water is apparently higher on the left because of the distance, but this is only an optical illusion. I do agree on the right side crop, I didn't saw that in the final composition (a big ship was located to the immediate right of the actual crop, all I did was to cut that ship). --S23678 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the vertical as much as the horizontals. There is a weird distortion going on. Not sure if it's a result of the stitching or what. --Dori - Talk 23:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out exactly where that is? --S23678 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty much every building. My eye expects horizontal lines for the floors. Instead it appears to be clockwise leaning, due to perspective maybe. If the building has a corner, the left side should be angling up going right whereas the right side should be more horizontal? I don't really know how to explain it, just giving my "eye feel" --Dori - Talk 05:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're talking about perspective. Well, this is real life stuff, and it has nothing to do with the camera or post-processing. A "real" distortion would have been the absence of perspective for such a scene.--S23678 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure thing!  Richard  [®]  10:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the red sky! JMSchneid (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dschwen Je-str (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great. I will go to Toronto for vacation in early june this year and this picture makes me smile when i think about this --Simonizer (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks a tad tilted to me as well, but I may be wrong. Buildings are also a bit too dark to my taste. But the whole picture looks for sure amazing, with a superb sky and looks technically flawless. - Benh (talk) 19:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Comment I was pleased to see this nomination and all your supports, thank you all. I didn't nominated this image at first because of some of the flaws I saw from post production and some artistic liberties I took. Mainly, due to fast changing light conditions, luminosity levels in the sky are different from frame to frame, and this is visible by moving the image left to right. I tired to fix the problem, but my post-processing skills are still quite limited. As well, I played with the levels, curves and WB to get this 2 tone sky to pop-up (no "Photoshop cheating", just colour enhancement), which may be considered by some to be an unacceptable distortion of reality. But, from your supports, I guess I was a bit hard on myself...! --S23678 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the perspective issues are minor unless you view at full size. --Dori - Talk 05:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really great photo! --патриот8790 (talk) 05:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —§ stay (sic)! 11:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great image. I would support if it wasn't for the issue with the streetlight/crop on the right. -- Avenue (talk) 10:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Takabeg (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Phyrexian (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just...wow --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 04:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lupinus pilosus adl1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2010 at 13:29:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by adiel_lo - uploaded by adiel_lo - nominated by adiel_lo -- Adiel lo (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adiel lo (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed, nothing too special, sorry. —kallerna™ 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bright blue above the mist of light green. Very good! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately no. Composition isn't well balanced and doesn't bring out the plant very well. Carefully pushing away disturbing stems and leafs often helps.  Richard  [®]  13:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mediocre quality, messy in the bottom half, boring in the top half. --Dschwen (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - very pretty, but I would prefer a different composition for featured (more of the plant, less of the background at the top). Jonathunder (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is a good picture, but not that good to be featured --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 04:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eichhörnchen im Herbst.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2010 at 15:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by --Dellex (talk) - uploaded by --Dellex (talk) - nominated by -- Dellex (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dellex (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm not fully convinced about the perspective. —kallerna™ 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad quality (--> grainy) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose When excluding the "cute factor" the picture is just average regarding tech. execution, composition and cue state, sorry. Those scenes look great when doing some optical superelevation, like a ground cam as example  Richard  [®]  13:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mediocre quality, bad perspective. --Dschwen (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not that bad, but the background is too distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piazza San Marco with the Basilica, by Canaletto, 1730. Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 15:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Canaletto - uploaded by Jon Harald Søby - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2010 (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: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (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:Plymouth breakwater and sea fort s2 hug.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2010 at 11:39:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Herbythyme - uploaded by Herbythyme - nominated by Herbythyme -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info A stitched image showing Plymouth breakwater and sea fort. The structure is a little under 1.5 km across. Plymouth (Devon, UK) has been an important maritime base for centuries and there is a sea fort in the middle of the breakwater. There is a sea mist beyond the breakwater and some shipping including naval vessels can be seen.
Support -- Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for FP as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uhmm well I'am not convinced. The pictures cue state which is very dull for daylight at 11:46 feels very strange. The mood and exposure seems more like late afternoon or early morning. Look at S23678's picture below where the colors and light is much more crisper even at sundown. Reworking the adjustments could help.  Richard  [®]  13:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EXIF data is an hour out so it was 10:46. I'm afraid I don't get the relevance of another image at a totally different time of day on a different continent? (I am going to assume you are not in the UK). The image had a little blue removed (it was over blue) and then was very slightly warmed looking at the history. Other than the inevitable levelling and a dustspot removal nothing else of note is in the history - clarification welcome --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing the skyline was for an exposure example. Simply said and despite the skyline I find the exposure/curves strange.  Richard  [®]  13:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that was taken in May in the afternoon. The sea is something which gives great variety fortunately. The exposure curve is untouched and linear. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual exposure metering (mostly used for panos) gives you no reference regarding the real lighting conditions. It depends what you measure. A RAW File or an grey card shot gives all informations about the exposure, channels etc. but this would go too far.  Richard  [®]  17:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Dull lighting and colours. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit dull, but not bad enough to oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noisy and per Alvesgaspar --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 13:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, why do FPs need "wow"? "Wow" is subjective and a poor unit of measurement. FPs need to be professional and high-quality, but not... "wow". –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you heard about Quality Images? —kallerna™ 14:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination - actually unrelated to anything said here but I've found some other issues with this. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Emil Hegle Svendsen Kontiolahti 2010.jpg, not featured edit

Info Emil Hegle Svendsen Kontiolahti 2010. --Peter Porai-Koshits. All by Peter Porai-Koshits - (Photoshop postproduction, no underexposed.) --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I love the atmosphere, but it's just too badly underexposed. —kallerna™ 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose underexposed (or destroyed in photoshop - doesn't matter - end result is the same). How does this further the educational value of the subject?! --Dschwen (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is this squeezed on top of the Squirrel-nomination? --Dschwen (talk) 02:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed it for you. --Dschwen (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! By the way, I am professional photographer and comments about "underexposed" very amusing! :) I am shooting sense, atmosphere, not an objects and scene. But may be its a wrong style for wiki. --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, that is exactly the point. Pictures here should be realistically useful for an educational purpose. This is not a pure photography critique website. Creativity and sexyness do not justify reduced educational value here. When I say underexposed then please take it in this context. --Dschwen (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfavourably underexposed. A masterful silhouette efx could be fine.  Richard  [®]  12:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because today is my good day ;) this picture is going to get lots of opposes, and for this atmosphere I give a small support. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too underexposed. Steven Walling 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DowntownAustinTexasMarch2010.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 05:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Paxsimius - uploaded by Paxsimius - nominated by Paxsimius -- Paxsimius (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paxsimius (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose moderate, but imo not featured quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not quite good enough. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it just blah, or would a better crop help? For instance, cropping it just left of the tallest building in the middle, and on the right just to the left of the tree branch? Paxsimius (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The quality of the stitch seems to be below par (some buildings leaning left, some right), and also it's not interesting enough. A night panorama might add more wow to it. --Dori - Talk 22:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dori. I hadn't really noticed the building tilts, but yeah, it's there. Paxsimius (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardinian Sheeps.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 10:27:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Francesco Canu - uploaded by Francesco Canu - nominated by Francesco Canu -- Cesco77 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cesco77 (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to quality and composition. --Dori - Talk 22:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. --Chrumps (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Cesco77 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tragelaphus strepsiceros -Chobe River front, Botswana-8.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 20:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Joachim Huber - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise and chromatic aberration. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Noise? Where? IMO CA is also very minor. —kallerna™ 14:13, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its horns are purple. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Snowmanradio (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carcharhinus melanopterus Luc Viatour.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2010 at 11:11:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dislike the composition, but getting the amazing detail on the head is worth having the rest of the body cut out. Steven Walling 22:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Beautiful details. --Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Steven. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much glare at upper left. -- Avenue (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sun makes sense to me, it gives a sense of direction. FP for me. --99of9 (talk) 03:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yup. —§ stay (sic)! 11:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FoBe (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing :) – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 04:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dharmaraya Swamy Temple Bangalore.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 00:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Several dust spots need to be cleaned before the assessment -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see them. Could you kindly draw the square boxes around them? --Muhammad (talk) 15:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ if dust spots were corrected I would support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- now Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleared the dust spots, and while I was there also de-noised the sky. Maedin\^talk 08:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment clearing some more --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I figured those were birds, so I left them in. But it is better without them, :) Maedin\^talk 19:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes I like that. Good detail and rather different from other offerings. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sky is a bit grey and I would have chosen another time of the day (have I had the choice) for alternate lighting, but looks very fine to me otherwise. Colorful subject - Benh (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. That streetlamp on the top is hilarious. --Elekhh (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The streetlamp is a stroke of genius :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really beautiful! --Cesco77 (talk) 10:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colours of India! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Avenue (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Porto Covo March 2010-2a.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2010 at 23:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Composition on blues, whites and loneliness. This is the place I'll probably move to when I retire (no, it isn't me yet seated on that bench). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk)
Oppose Sorry, you've nominated pictures like this before. IMO there's still not enough wow, and there's quite many distracting things in this photo. —kallerna™ 12:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Distracting from what? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elements: garbage bins, tv-antennas etc. —kallerna™ 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know I'm not the only one having a deja-vue. --Dschwen (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i had a deja-vue, too ;) here is the old candidate --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The guy onthe bench would have been a pretty strong subject with tighter framing. This is neither fish nor fowl. The composition seems unfocussed. Makes me wish to see a more complete view of the square. Plus the dark shadows tilt it to an oppose for me. --Dschwen (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is a good subject and an FP will be possible I think. This version has a major composition weakness with an uninteresting and dark tree located in the very centre as a dominant element. I think the image would gain from a right crop of ca. 1/4, just right of that little dead tree. Elekhh (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "darks" are very dark and overall the composition just isn't "composed" for me, sorry. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thunderstorms on the Brazilian Horizon.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2010 at 22:11:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the NASA Expedition 20 crew - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The photograph includes: an unstable, active atmosphere forming a large area of cumulonimbus clouds in various stages of development, the Rio Madeira and Lago Acara.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Steven Walling 23:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lens flares in the sky at the top. --99of9 (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view, but quality... --Mile (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. Glare, odd asteroid-looking thing, unclear subject without reading description. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Juliancolton --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--kuvaly|d|p| 15:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality is not the best, but subject and composition are amazing... --Phyrexian (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to flare. --Dori - Talk 22:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 04:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burrow Mump.JPG, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 11:15:04

Info On the small side (default size from a point and shoot, not downsampled), poor quality, not a good subject or a good composition for said subject, awkward perspective, rather fuzzy. Really don't think this is an example of our best work. (Original nomination)
Delist —Maedin\^talk 11:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that it's too good to be delisted. Not because I nominated it, but generally the composition, the quality and generally the subject are really good. Tell me if I'm mistaken. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reasons for delist this picture. --Phyrexian (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is nice FP for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for sure. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Интернеты!.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 18:20:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Internet service providers dialup prepaid cards, Saint Petersburg

Info created by George Shuklin (talk) - nominated by George Shuklin (talk)
Support -- George Shuklin (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No main subject, background to distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, there is no background. It all cropped. And the main subject is a big pack of prepaid cards, which ones is an single content of image. #!George Shuklin (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is a derivative work, and probably not free. I don't think De minimus covers this. Rocket000 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sankt Paulin BW 12.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 07:53:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Cesco77 (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
trotz einigen Fehler Support für die Arbeit --Böhringer (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and BW knows why...und BW weisst warum...et BW sait pourquoi...----Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. Yann (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good! --Karel (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see such a high resolution on a detailed work like this. --99of9 (talk) 09:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 07:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Felis silvestris Vadmacska.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2010 at 05:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Csonka Péter - uploaded by Andrew69. - nominated by Andrew69. -- Andrew69. (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew69. (talk) 05:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but much too small. Yann (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2010 (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: it's too small --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:08, 26 March 2010 (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:Papaver March 2010-2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2010 at 15:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info My 1000th image. I tried to upload something special. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, all sorts of blur :-) Nice colors.  Richard  [®]  16:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral it has a wow, it has nice colours, it is nice for illustration, but it hasn't a lot sharpness. IMO it isn't a FP... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially low DOF :-). Congrats on #1000. --Dschwen (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, I didn't want to spoil the party and didn't think this would get any support anyways. But I guess I'll have to Oppose now. --Dschwen (talk) 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Out of focus, sharpless. --Mile (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is short of interesting, but the depth of field is too narrow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, main object too small, low DOF, sorry. —kallerna™ 09:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Obvious and sage comments. I would expect someone to notice that the size of the object, the composition, the framing, the colours and the little dof are all purposeful and carefully arranged. Treating this picture as a common depiction of a poppy capsule is kind of limited. A bot would suffice. What about a plain "don't like it"?-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the creative hoopla should not get in the way of educational usefulness. (This is not a plain photography critique website. Check out http://photo.net ) --Dschwen (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not complete just like that - It's a pretty example of low depth of field (seriously) and it could be used in the projects. Is it convincing and outstanding enough for this purpose and hence FP ? This is a different question where I have no answer by now.  Richard  [®]  18:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah sure Mr. Devil's Advocate ;-). But I would even contest the image's value in that respect. DOF is much better illustrated with a subject that is obvious to the user. In particular the perspective has to be absolutely clear. This is not the case in this image. --Dschwen (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- ***@Dschwen: well, that would be a quite narrow and unimaginative concept of ‘educational value’, even accepting it as a criterion of inclusion for FPC (which is far from obvious). Extraordinary pictures where the element "beauty" prevails, like this one, this one or this one would be probably excluded if such restrictive concept of yours were to be applied. I can live well with straight honesty (and lack of nicety) but have some difficulty in accepting the mixture of boldness and inaccuracy. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hm. I went over both the Image guidelines and the FP criteria. And it is correct, that educational value does not appear there. However it appears in the project scope as Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. Well, you call my interpretation restrictive, I can live with that. But it still puzzles me that you thought this image would not only be useful enough to upload it, but even so very special, that it should be nominated on FPC. There is no question that with a sufficient amout of creativity you can make up an educational purpose for almost any image (if only as a negative example ;-) ). Anyhow, I think it would be a mistake to Flickrize this page. FPs should serve as a good example, and one aspect is being well within procect scope, and not just barely with a lot if liberty in interpreting the guidelines. --Dschwen (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That for sure has wow, and nice colors to me. I wouldn't fully support (see after why) but I'd like to "compensate" the mechanical "low DOF" opposes. I think the effect would have been much more convincing with a tilt shift lens, but I wonder if a macro tilt shift lens can be found out there. - Benh (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible but would break the mold especially the purse $$$ :-) T/S isn't neccesary  Richard  [®]  19:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess what link to allow to put any macro lens inside, and then we can adjust the focal plane by the folding the blue part. This would achieve the effect I'm thinking about :) How much is that toy ? - Benh (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 700 Euro .. Ouuuch!  Richard  [®]  20:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - For a plunger?! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        <nod>  Richard  [®] 
    - After a little googling, I found this :) - Benh (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--kuvaly|d|p| 15:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It's very pretty, and I think the low DOF can be put to use here to isolate the focus on the subject. A tighter crop might also help with that. However, I don't think it has enough wow for me for a featured image. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've looked at this a time or two now. In the end I agree with Jonathunder I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Renaissances houses in Zamość.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2010 at 12:26:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to recover an underexposed image here. The result is not too bad, but had you done a proper exposure to begin with you might have been able to lift the shadows a bit. For such a subject I would expect the exposure to be a bit more balanced and have the photographer do a bit of extra work by doing exposure blending for example. --Dschwen (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... in my opinion this version is pretty godd --Pudelek (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is good, but the sharpness-size-crispness (considered as a whole) is not sufficient imho for a FP. Maybe the lighting was too harsh or, as Dschwen stated, the exposure slightly off -- I'm not the one to tell. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI or VI .. yes, but FP? The information content is undisputed but for FP it looks to usual (technical and compositionalwise) for my taste. Worth watching, anyway.  Richard  [®]  16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Richard. —kallerna™ 09:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jak nie jak tak? :-)Albertus teolog (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO not special enough for FP --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crozon SK DSC 0105b.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2010 at 22:38:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simonizer (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The picture has 'wow' for me but there is something wrong with the composition. Maybe with more sea at right and/or sky on top? Let's wait and get used to it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition and lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and colors. Well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. IMO the biggest problem is the foreground. —kallerna™ 09:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-- Definitely I don't like the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I don't really like composition, forderground and the hard shadows, but apart from that it's a very good shot --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition, some odd shadows that stand out. Steven Walling 01:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried a few different crops that avoid the distracting shadows and some of the foreground. The one I like best is to the right. I think the composition is a bit better here, although some of the nice colours are lost. I still don't feel it should be an FP, but perhaps others will disagree. -- Avenue (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark. – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruitbowlwithmelons.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 00:09:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crystal dish with melons (1999), a hyperrealistic painting by Mauro David (1949–2007)

Info painted by Mauro David - uploaded by Mauro David - nominated by Xhienne — Xavier, 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it had been a mere photograph, I wouldn't have paid much attention to it. But when I read it was actually a painting, I couldn't help but let my jaw drop — Xavier, 00:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found David Mauro in the wikipedia. I am missing there a painted self-portrait of David Mauro. Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this is not the same person. The painter here is Mauro David (Mauro being the forename), an Italian painter that has passed away. — Xavier, 01:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And he uploaded it here!? Nice. Rocket000 (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since he died a few weeks before the upload, I guess it is rather a relative who did it. But putting this image under CC-by is indeed nice. — Xavier, 23:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, there's maybe some hope that we may receive more of his work. Rocket000 (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why not. Looks like a hell of a paint-job to me ;-). Good illustration for Hyper-realism. --Dschwen (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, there was no illustration for Hyperrealism. Fixed and I also created Category:Hyperrealist paintings. Surprisingly, this is apparently the first picture we have on this topic. — Xavier, 20:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agreed. --99of9 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haha, I did not even notice it was a painting at first. Interesting story btw. //Tanzania (talk) 20:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 04:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featurable I think --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's nice to have a recent painting available under Creative Commons, and this is a great example of artistic work. Jonathunder (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 07:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Maple sap collecting at Bowdoin Park, New York.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 17:35:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by User:Juliancolton –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this one for some reason. It's educational (the best image we have on the subject IMO), has no major technical flaws that I can see, and is composed well. Fingers crossed! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bof. No wow for me. Not a bad picture, just not a FP... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bof? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See wikt:bof#French. --Avenue (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Maurilbert. More a VP than an FP, IMO. -- Avenue (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many little things I don't like here. 1) format: portrait would have been more appropriate 2) DOF to high, makes the image look cluttered and does not direct attention to the main subject 3) main subject too small and unclear from that angle 4) tree cropped unnecessarily just above the bottom. All in all a good picture but far from excellent for me. --Dschwen (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a good, but imo not a featured picture. And I also missed a encyclopedical meaning --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic meaning is the process of collecting maple sap for the syrup we eat on our pancakes, which I feel this demonstrates well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural differences. People in Germany don't eat pancakes ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - It's certainly a fine quality educational photo, but a little lacking in wow for me to see as featured. I'd prefer a crop which included the base of the subject tree and less of the space on the right. Jonathunder (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not wowed by this picture. It's not bad but you can find trees like that in a lot of places.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great Wave off Kanagawa2.jpg, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 07:48:05

Info The top of this is damaged, almost every other version of this I've ever seen has the top in an orange-salmon colour. Due to extreme fading evidently unique to this particular copy, that is nearly completely lost, only visible with close inspection. It's simply bad practice to portray a highly damaged copy of a mass-produced artwork as amongst the best on Commons. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Russkie (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist After investigating this issue, I have to agree. The sky in this version appears extremely faded from the original and should not represent the best on Commons. Can we obtain and nominate a high quality version with the original colors? -- JalalV (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per others. —kallerna™ 10:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GerardM (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes its one of the copy of mass-produced artwork. But its one of the historical copies. (Purchase; H. Irving Olds; 1938.) Takabeg (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Takabeg --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Socgen Agence Centrale 01.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 06:11:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benh LIEU SONG - uploaded by Benh LIEU SONG - nominated by me -- Orsay Lover (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Orsay Lover (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Well I for sure feel grateful to you as u recently nominated a few pictures of mine :) I'm not sure I would have nominated this one myself though.. Nothing so "wow" and shows only small part of the ceiling (the very most beautiful part of the building, which I couldn't take entirely with the limited time I had). - Benh (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, per Benh. —kallerna™ 13:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not so bad as to give an oppose, but a bit on the dull side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Vprisivko (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition doesn't seem optimal, same for the quality (the top is pretty soft, was this on a tripod?). --Dori - Talk 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken with a tripod, and it's a three exposures blending. Softness is probably due to the lens and to the focal length. It's a Canon 10-22 and the picture was taken at 10mm, where the lens is soft on the borders. - Benh (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Festung kufstein sk.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 14:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support another time, another place, another try ;-) -- Simonizer (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice place, well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Doucus (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition. --Elekhh (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support frisch --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice photo, but the left part have problems (look at the left side of the cliff). --Ankara (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry on left hand side, also some distracting poles. —kallerna™ 10:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I'm not a huge fan of the composition on this one. I'd have placed the castle (or whatever it is) slightly more to the top right corner (rule of thirds ?) - Benh (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would have been a different image. This one shows the mountain dominate the landscape (and occupy 2/3 of the image). --Elekhh (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with you as the mountain blends a bit too much with the sky, so we can't talk about mountain dominating the landscape being the main subject in my opinion. Also there's a bit of room above that mountain to move upright the castle a bit. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this composition with dominating mountain is good. - Tupungato (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to quality on left hand side. Was the right side cropped? Perhaps a different focal length would have produced better results (might have needed a stitch though). --Dori - Talk 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and the quality issues (blurry left side - unimportant, minor sky artifacting) considering the image resolution are minor. -- Tupungato (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality problems at the left side --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose- From the master of composition, this one seems a bit below the usual high standards. What I don't like is the mountain serving as background of the building. I'm not very found of the cropped buildings in the foregorund either. Finally, the image quality is not exthe best. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:20090524 Buildings along Chicago River line the south border of the Near North Side and Streeterville and the north border of Chicago Loop, Lakeshore East and Illinois Center.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2010 at 21:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created on Flickr by user mindfrieze- uploaded by TonyTheTiger - nominated by Ktr101 -- Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator. -- Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion is too great. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think distortion doen't make this picture not good-looking. --Vprisivko (talk) 21:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to distortions and some artifacts in the sky (don't know if it's the result of the stitch or cloning). --Dori - Talk 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, excellent quality, superior resolution. -- Tupungato (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Trivial centered composition, image tilted clockwise. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arctiidae caterpillar.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 00:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 06:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice caterpillar --Schnobby (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dustspot and something distracting white on up left. Could you clone them out? It could also be bigger. IMO it would be FP if the flowers were fully grown and the background bokeh should be better. —kallerna™ 10:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would crop. --Mile (talk) 12:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good work. But there is a dust stain at the top left -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not so thrilled by this shot. I don't like the lighting nor the background. Benh (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and sharp. -- Elekhh (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ack kallerna, should be fixed. --Dori - Talk 22:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LadyofHats (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bicheno Seascape 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:31:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! Jacopo Werther (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose doesn't show the reality. A too long shutter speed --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's just 2 seconds, which doesn't make it look unreal. —kallerna™ 14:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think in real there was no fog but water. And that doesn't show the photo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To me it looks like water. The effect where water looks like fog needs longer exposure, check for instance these photos: File:Clifton Beach 5.jpg, File:Maria Island Seascape 3.jpg, and File:Fortesque Bay Sunrise.jpg. —kallerna™ 15:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --kuvaly|d|p| 14:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful --Simonizer (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support is a very beautiful composition. --Dellex (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A bit confusing but still very appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it's several exposures blending, and that it shows in same parts of the rocks (some exposures must have had water, and some not)... but in the end, it's a big wow for me. I for sure feel inspired by this. - Benh (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great. --Mile (talk) 22:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit small and noisy, but good atmosphere. --Dori - Talk 22:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish it was bigger. —kallerna™ 14:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 07:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LadyofHats (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calliphora hilli.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Durova (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small, but acceptable --Cesco77 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Oppose too small, below 2MP. --Dori - Talk 22:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. It's not like we are so short of insect portraits that we need to bend the guidelines. --99of9 (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. —kallerna™ 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support even if small - LadyofHats (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small but very illustrative. Nice work. --Mile (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Eucalyptus coccifera Silhouettes 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:29:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small, bad lightning --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I quite like the image really however the combination of overexposure in the sun and darkness in the trees means this is not an FP for me I'm afraid. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, exposure and colors --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Halde Rheinpreußen, Grubenlampe, III retouched.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2010 at 18:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Carschten
Support as creator --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, bad crop, nothing too special. Sorry. —kallerna™ 19:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean with centered composition? I choose this crop because you see the hole mining lamp and you can think where it was biult (on a hill and with industry around). Nothing special: it's a 28 meters high monument where you have a large view (see point crop) so I think there could be a wow. I tried to show it on the photo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment With the crop I meant the crop of the car. —kallerna™ 11:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - better? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Yep. But IMO still not good enough to be FP. Needs something extra (maybe better lightning, better time of year, better weather or something). Now it just doesn't stand out of other photos. —kallerna™ 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        at Germen Wikipedia we talked at the moment about that I should let the power stations make Buuuuuum!!! at next time for a better background. Sounds it better? But more serious: lighting is good, whatever time of year, and trough my nonexistent glasses I see a wonderful weather. What want you more? The only thing I can do is going to the Halde in summer and make a night portrait --> File:Halde Rheinpreußen, Grubenlampe, Nacht, II.jpg. But for a day shot I do not know what I can correctetd... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't want to get into some silly discussions on "wow" and stuff but... It is a stunning piece of architecture and I'm glad I've seen it now. However I think you could try for a different time of day (early/late). I think you could avoid getting the car park in. I'd be tempted to try a little more distance and a little closer (if you are stitching it won't be a big problem). No idea if that helps but it is intended too --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- could you tell me why? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not bad enough to give an oppose vote, but it isn't magnificent either. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Okay. Could you tell me what I could make better in a next time? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, to be honest, it is the subject here that bugs me. It's just a picture of a metal tower, not really useful for any educational value. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to vote on this one but I'm not sure which way :) For now I would say that it is an interesting object (I dislike the wow word - much misunderstood) but I'm not sure that means that a photo of it is featurable. I'll get back to this one. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question copyright ? ----Jebulon (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's cool. Rocket000 (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for answering. Lucky Germans...--Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange comments here, it's a photo of exceptional quality with an interesting subject. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support :-) --Oceancetaceen (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Memorino (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Maybe a clear QI (though the image is not vary sharp) but not enough magic to be a FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hard even for QI, bad crop, framing. --Mile (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ireas ^{talk•de•en} 14:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having thought about it per Alvesgaspar I'm afraid --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 95.91.67.22 A great picture of the modern Ruhr. -- 95.91.67.22 16:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC) lost my coockie -- Memmingen (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would remove some sky on the very top but that doesnt justify opposing. What I like: gives good impression on proportions through people and car, colours. --Senfsaat (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Lukas talk 16:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mrilabs (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture of a remarkably subject --Philipp Wetzlar (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. The picture is good, but this one is better, because there is the better crop to assist the height of the building and would get my vote, if you nominate that instead of this. -- Ra'ike T C 17:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pic! --Timk70 (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
support, although also I'd prefer the cropped version which Ra'ike mentions. But also this given image is featureable. —DerHexer (Talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks really good! XenonX3 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Physignathus lesueurii howittii.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:32:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice details --Cesco77 (talk) 12:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to composition (distracting elements in the foreground). --Dori - Talk 22:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, if only those leaves weren't there. per Dori. --99of9 (talk) 11:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Leaves doesn't bother me. I don't think they distract in this case. --Lošmi (talk) 12:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Dori. —kallerna™ 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dori. --Avenue (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LadyofHats (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strepera fuliginosa 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:30:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great image from the shoulders up, but unsharp below/left, and is missing half the tail. (I see another photo of this bird by NS is an FP on en wiki.) --Avenue (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no need that the whole bird is sharp. The eyes must be sharp and they are --Simonizer (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High detailed, the tail isn't a problem because the part is out of focus --Cesco77 (talk) 10:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nearly has the full length of the bird, but the end of the tail is missing. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 10:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Due to composition and shallow DOF. --Dori - Talk 01:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LadyofHats (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely. A wider DOF would have ruined this image and created a very distracting background. --Calibas (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Water droplet blue bg05.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 04:10:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, too small. --99of9 (talk) 05:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kwj2772 (msg) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite educational and seems large enough to see what's going on — no details are lost in the small-ish resolution. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are no strong mitigating reasons for this small size. --Dschwen (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dschwen. There are other images which show a similar phenomenon but are higher res --Muhammad (talk) 11:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose size is too small, and the quality isn't the best either. --Dori - Talk 22:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be done much better. —kallerna™ 14:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Forget size, nice image! --Karel (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -size LadyofHats (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falco cherrug cherrug (J. E. Gray, 1834).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2010 at 00:21:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately the quality isn't quite there. Should have probably gone with ISO 400 (or even more), and a larger aperture. Was this in the wild? You seemed to be pretty close to it. --Dori - Talk 23:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image might be sharper; the beak and the eye are a little blurry. I also don't like the blown highlights on the head. Composition is also sort of tight. -- Tupungato (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -as Tupungato -LadyofHats (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Phyllium bioculatum (George Robert Gray 1832).jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2010 at 23:42:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a Walking leave. It is exemplary for Mimicry and Camouflage. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop. —kallerna™ 14:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral good work but I have to agree with Kallerna --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I dislike the harsh flash lighting --Muhammad (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor framing, uninteresting composition, flat lighting, regular quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it has been said: crop too tight, lighting unappealing, cluttered overall appearance. --Dschwen (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ack above. --Dori - Talk 02:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unappealing lighting. Steven Walling 18:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Not Yet Another SunSet

[1]