Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2011

File:Cypraea tigris 01.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 05:37:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Movement blur and reflected light on all of the shells.--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cowries are incredibly naturally glossy and it's not motion blur, the spots actually look like that, some smudgy, some very distinct. For contrast look really close to the shell on your bottom right, you should see some very distinct-looking lines with that sharp eye of yours. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ?? Movement blur? Dear Snaevar, have you ever seen an original specimen or have you compared with other photos of this species? This are the original colour spots! In addition, the specimens have a high glance surface like a mirror, it is impossible to make photos withoout reflections. Theses photos were made in daylight (in the shadow) without any additional lightning! --Llez (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have one of these specimens and I understand the difficulty, but the reflections are really distracting. I'd suggest an umbrella with the softest of light possible. theMONO 20:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think, some reflections give a better impression of the special surface as to try to avoid any reflections at any rate (see also Alchemists photos of metals, e.g the recently featured Zirconium crystal bar). In addition, there are some differences in the glance of the specimens (due to age, conservation state etc.). Concerning umbrella: I made these photos in the shadow, as already said. Wheter you use an umbrella for producing shadow or other things, doesn't matter. Why an umbrella should reduce reflections, whereas other shadow-producing things don't? I tried different lightnings, this is very soft ligtning, the only situation without reflections was nearly complete darkness, impossible to make photos. --Llez (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for own high qualities. Regarding the nominator's explanations, they sound obvious to me : "Movement blur" is here simply impossible for one who knows how are technically taken these pictures. The gloss is natural and show exactly how the shell is. Reflections are not distracting, but necessary in this case, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flow-Layout composition. Simply not that what i would to expect an featured picture. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 16:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To know this, it is very hard to beat. At least, draw a picture ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How would you arrrange the pictures? I'm waiting for your proposal. You are free to overwork this picture and to load up a version in another arrangement to show what you mean. I' very interested and I would be glad to learn more about good arrangements --Llez (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I feel so sorry for the almost suffocated poor things... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - But I like the arrangement though I had given more space around the elements. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dear Alvesgaspar, meanwhile the poor thing has more space to breathe. Better now? --Llez (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Yes, but not special enough to get my support vote. A tough subject due to the high reflective surface. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Good quality, no movement blur, lovely subject. My main concern is with the reflections; not that there are some (in fact they help show how glossy the surface is), but that they seem distractingly complex (at least in the two views on the left). --Avenue (talk) 03:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. Steven Walling 21:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support My issue is that I don't think the black looks good with these shells, and they could've maybe been spaced out more (though they might've seems bigger..). The grey, smudged spots do seem blurred comparatively and could be more contrast. Maybe red or a lite green would've been better? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I always try several backgrounds and I look, which is the best (in my opinion). Perhaps you remember my last pictures, there was always a dicussion. When the backgound was grey, some wanted it greenish or black, when it was brown, some wanted it yellowish or black, now it is black, some want it... It is very difficult (or impossible?) to affect the taste of all. --Llez (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Black (or white) are obviously the only possible choices for such a shiny shell. You'd expect background reflection on the shell and with a colored BG it would spoil the image, while a fake colored BG would not show the reflection rendering an impossible artificial combination. The black background here is spot on. W.S. 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Um, red is just as much a color as black ;-) and anyway the reflections are on the top not the sides so it would not I think look fake. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Movement blur would be a bit ridiculous in such a fixed setup, wouldn't it? But still I don't like the compo, the reflections, and the too sharp masking here and there. Stick to the black background however (or even white would do) as the fancy colored ones detract from the subject.W.S. 11:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers, and "they are just shells" (nothing which stands from photographic point of view) - Benh (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T 11:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thistle April 2010-4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2011 at 19:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Milk-Thistle from last year's spring. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but an overexposed flower and pedicel, distracting background (similar to my image: ). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please look again. No blown whites in the histogram and subject comes out nicely from the background in full size. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 10:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the thing in the middle in an centered image --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is the framing which better suits this subject. The rule of the thirds only partially applies to this case. Please image the "thing" closer to one of the margins. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Not bad... but not perfect in my oppinion --BastienM 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opanci-ante josifovski.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 23:23:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ante Josifovski - uploaded by Bjankuloski06en - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski 23:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, pretty harsh flash light on the shoes and the crop is quite tight. --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T 11:26, 30 April 2011 (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 the snapshot-style with harsh flash for a still object in studio conditions. Sting (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2011 (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:Schloss Ochsenburg.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 16:45:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by AleXXw -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 16:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't seem to be the best framing/angle with those wires in the lower right corner, the bottom crop of the wall, and the tree obscuring the left edge of the building. --ELEKHH^T 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh.--Snaevar (talk) 19:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 19:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC) Your right, I was there today and should find some better angle. Thanks for your hints![reply]

File:Farmer, Nicaragua.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 01:36:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Neil Palmer (CIAT) - uploaded by Steven Walling - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 01:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I uploaded this because I think it's an engaging portrait of an important subject: a full 29% of the 2.3 million people in Nicaragua work in agriculture. There are some blown parts of the clouds, but I think the subject matter, perspective, and overall composition make up for this. -- Steven Walling 01:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In general the composition is ok (maybe a bit too centered for me). But besides the blown clouds, the left side of the farmers face is nearly too dark and the photo is tilted. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose The portrait is great, but the photo is indeed a bit tilted. If it would be fixed, I would support. Tomer T 11:26, 30 April 2011 (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: most part of the clouds is burned, it is tilted and there is no mitigating reason to counter these problems. Sting (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2011 (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 Steven Walling 23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-04-24-ouv-g-8.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 18:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline 18:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It isn't beautiful, but is special for the lines which go to the dorr -- Angel (talk) 10:37 29 aprilie 2011
Oppose Interesting dilapidated space, but weak composition, unclear what's happening whit those gratifies on the sides, or where is the rust / mould thing starting or ending. File name is also less than suggestive. --ELEKHH^T 01:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong with the picture, but I am opposing due to the description and file name. Lightpainting is when a camera has a long exposure and lights are used to create patterns. Graffiti, however is the word for the markings on the walls. About the name of the picture, it does not imply at all what the picture demonstrates.--Snaevar (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Lightpainting is, also, when you paint a great place with a light during your camera is in "B" mode. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Educational Value? -- Thomas888b (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-7.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 18:06:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate shadow, too shallow DOF. Not even QI IMO. W.S. 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S.--Snaevar (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narcisa 0012.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 12:09:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Narcissus, one of my favourite flowers, a symbole of spring; created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Angel
Support -- Martinas Angel (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC) Angel[reply]
Oppose Centered trivial composition, and no wow - Benh (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much sharpness and bad compostion.--Snaevar (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject and quality too low --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Squalius cephalus Prague Vltava 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 19:20:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info European chub on exhibition Subaqueous Vltava, Prague 2011, Czech Republic

created , uploaded and nominated by Karelj

Support -- Karelj (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the quality here is really poor. It was taken with a pretty good camera (as good as Canons get :P) but I assume thus was taken through glass or plexiglass, explaining the smudges and blurry spots. Good try though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To make it short: Crop, background, sharpness. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject and quality too low --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too blurry and a bad composition.--Snaevar (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral everyone else opposed so no need for me to pile on with another. I like the subjects in this (except the cut piece of tail in the upper right), that is what an aquarium looks like so I don't oppose for background, but as others the quality could be higher. A different composition might be nicer though I think you did it like this so as not to get a bigger, more noticeable piece of that other fish. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Women giving birth IMG 1112-black.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 06:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Women giving birth, terra cotta statuette from Southern America. On display at the Gallo-Roman Museum of Lyon, Musée des Confluences exhibition. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do like very much the subject, the object, and the picture. Needs maybe more explanations in the file description page (date ? location ?)--Jebulon (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition, missing background, simply no "wow". -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request I disagree that the composition is boring and I know this would probably get a lot of opposes for having a museum shelf or casing around it, but the edges are a bit sharp. Think they could be blurred? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arhiv na RM - Staro Skopje - Centar.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 20:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Historical view of the central area of Skopje. Uploaded by Модернист - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Resolution is too small (only 0,59 Megapixels).--Snaevar (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is below size requirements.

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.

W.S. 22:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candles in ortodox church.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 09:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov| - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is good, but I would prefer a composition in which the focused lights in the foreground are not directly in front of the bright light circles in the background (=presumably other out of focus candles). bamse (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing exceptional, neither in the subject or in treatment.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality and composition. Close to FPX. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (since that template seems to have been fixed) Oh, no-no-no. I like the subject, I love how the candles look, I love the contrast in this of the candlelight against the darkness. It's all beautiful, dramatic and has a sacred, spiritual mood. My only problem is the slight noise. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Please note that the concepts of 'Weak and 'Strong' Support or Oppose are not part of our voting system (see rules above). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, yeah, it's always black and white or neutral to avoid vote count squabbles, I know. We've been through that a dozen times. It's just symbolic of my issues with the pic ok? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't put hidden meanings where they don't exist. It it this way since the beginnning and I was not even involved. Last time the subject was discussed was long ago and I remember the symbols for strong support (a heart) and strong oppose (a red cross) being erased. But we could change that, of course. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy and a tight crop on the right witch gives a bad composition.--Snaevar (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leopard frog in green surrounding.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 08:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by liz west - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- Raghith (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully camouflaged ; darkness and light are very much visible in the photograph -- Raghith (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too difficult to see the specimen. The background is distracting; I suggest a tighter crop. theMONO 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I find in this image ; the "Camouflaging effect of Leopard Frog" .Thank You for your comment.-- Raghith (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Better picture but bad crop......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 05:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm , I thought it will help to show camouflaging and also the frog in same picture . -- Raghith (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also , if I wanted to show the "Species Leopard Frog" , I would put him in a white background and take a snap.But thats not what I meant . -- Raghith (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Black" Color on the left side of the picture attract the view, than the primary subject...black color is not going to add anything to the effect as stated in the pic.....Captain......Tälk tö me.. 04:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice example of mimicry --Slfi (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rather silly to oppose an image meant to show camouflage because the subject is hard to see. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice, relevant to subject --Kiran Gopi (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not about camouflage, but about size (of the frog) and crop. There is too much unused space in this image. W.S. 11:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for the distracting big dark shadow on the left side. --Avenue (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with above about the crop and the shadow (the photographer's shadow, perhaps?). Jonathunder 22:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info alternative version made by Ximonic. I'm giving it a try with another version. Crop is now a little different and I also fixed some lighting by using layers in PS. --Ximonic (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as I think the picture doesn't disturb myself anymore. --Ximonic (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Perfect--...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 07:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good Image- Ajaykuyiloor (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good image. I also made an alternative as File:Leopard frog in green surrounding (de-shadowed).jpg but I think this one is better. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monumento a Miguel de Cervantes.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 14:49:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, it has rather dull lighting and is slightly out of focus. theMONO 18:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- As a way to annul the FPX template, which should be restricted to extreme cases. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Kadellar (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I wouldn't have FPX'd, but I definitely don't like the framing. It seems that too much or too few has been included. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Maurilbert. Not to be FPXed, but The framing and the light are not good. French captions and links added.--Jebulon (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, lacking sharpness and the picture should be higher, showing the whole monument.--Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think it's overexposed and sharpness could be arguable. The goal of this picture is showing the two main objects of the monument: the writer and his most famous characters. Kadellar (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt edit

Info suggested crop

That's what i understood, too. Then, i suggest to get rid of everything not relevant : the tree on the left, the capitals of the columns, the building in the background, the other statues on both sides. This would lead to a much tighter crop, like the suggested one on the right. BTW, i also attempted to reduce the harshness of the contrast. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice crop. However, I wanted to show a little bit more of the monument. Perhaps that's coming back against me, as the main objects are "smaller" in the whole image. Does anyone support the new cropped version?? Kadellar (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like better the cropped version. Yann (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:炫彩津门103奉化桥白色灯光.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 18:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kele_jb1984 at Flickr - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Yaohua2k7 -- Yaohua2k7 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yaohua2k7 (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally nice photo, but too small, there are lighting problem, and again: uninternational name - I don't have an idea what the picture title means, and there is no description in the file's page. Tomer T (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, oversaturated. (I don't mind the name) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:45, 1 May 2011 (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 needs a resoultion of minimum 2 MP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:58, 1 May 2011 (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:Busycon contrarium 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 06:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This shell produced no a single reflection within the past 2 Million years. Therefore I hope it will get a better acceptance!

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For the same reason as stated below. Simply no wow. It's educational, no question about it. But it does not make a good picture you want to have in a frame. Some way of creative arrangement would be needed. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just asked you to propose a better arrangement! I'm still waiting... --Llez (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment How about an arrangement around a cube/prism, that illustrates from which side the images where taken? This would give much more opportunities to arrange the images in a creative and illustrative way. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment The information, from which side the images are taken, are given in the description, please read there. Could you please show me an example of arrangement of shells (or other things) in a cube, I don't understand exactly what you mean. --Llez (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Give me 1 or 2 days, then i should have enough time to create an example for this or the other image. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Three days are over, I'm waiting... --Llez (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Four days, I'm waiting... --Llez (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Five days, I'm still waiting... --Llez 15:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Six days... --Llez 15:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        One week! Obviously you are not able to present a better arrangement. Why then "Kontra" because of arrangement??? --Llez (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear educational value, nice composition if not spectacular. Steven Walling 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Niabot - Benh (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Benh, if you vote per Niabot, you can certainly propose a better arrangement or explain, what he means. I'm still waiting... --Llez (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not per Niabot. --Alchemist-hp 21:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per myself --Ximonic (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Niabot. W.S. 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear W.S., if you vote per Niabot, you can certainly propose a better arrangement. Otherwise I don't understand your vote. --Llez (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Oncorhynchus nerka.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 13:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Timothy Knepp - uploaded by Neutrality - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Courcelles (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm willing to support this excellent drawing, but: The geographic origin of the animal should be added to the file description (this is a very important info). --Cayambe (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Slfi (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic illustration. =) Steven Walling 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the text in the image should be removed. See annotations. Jovian Eye _talk 00:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. First, if you check out the usage example in English Wikipedia, you'll see that the text isn't really visible, so it's not having a detrimental effect on reuse on the projects. Second, this a drawing. Just like a painting, it is normal and acceptable for educational reuse for there to be a signature and such on the image. Steven Walling 00:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The name of the fish doesnt really need to be in the image. I think the signature can be retained. But when you look more closely at the signature you'll see a copyright symbol. I strongly feel this should be removed. --Jovian Eye _talk 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In Paddlefish Polyodon spathula.jpg, the signature is still here. The name of the fish, it's true that it's not useful. You can remove it, if you think this retail antagonizes its selection.--Citron (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, I disagree with Jovianeye. This is original drawing, so the same rule applies here as on paintings. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jupiter's eye. Niabot and other artists don't sign there work neither. W.S. 11:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Artwork with a signature in it? Unacceptable! DELIST IT ALL! -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Now the crop is weird.--Citron (talk) 09:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 06:45:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This image was shortly presented as an alternative in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg, but had to be withdrawn due to the two-nom-rule. Created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but Quartl has produced much better macros than this. I find the background much too distracting. I think a shorter DOF would have done this image good. Maybe if the background is given a large Gaussian blur, it would be OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this picture -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's OK, but nothing more. Not screaming FP as some of the other insect pictures we have in our collection. W.S. 11:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the High Fin Sperm Whale --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carrion crow 20090612.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 19:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aomorikuma（あおもりくま） - uploaded by Aomorikuma - nominated by Kersti Nebelsiek -- Kersti (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kersti (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and overexposed. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too bright. Tomer T (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tomer T --Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and the belly of the bird has some noise.--Snaevar (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2011 (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: overexposure and too much noise

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.

--Berthold Werner (talk) 08:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liberty arrabe.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 13:55:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Almog - uploaded by Almog - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T 17:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting object, but it's hazy on the bottom? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:炫彩津门97武德殿.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 18:07:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kele_jb1984 at Flickr - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Yaohua2k7 -- Yaohua2k7 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yaohua2k7 (talk) 18:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, movement issues, not focused, uninternational name. Tomer T (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, bad crop at the top -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is insufficient

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.

--Jebulon (talk) 09:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sundeck MS Romantika 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 12:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- V-wolf (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice atmospheric picture but... There seems to be chromatic aberrations at both sides of the picture. It could be fixed but, I think, the overexposed areas in the sky, on the chimney and on the water would be more difficult to fix. --Ximonic (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed (different time of day would be better), lacking sharpness and chromatic aberration at the funnel.--Snaevar (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky is over exposed --Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

V-wolf (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cistus creticus at Nesher, Park Nesher, Wadi Katia.jpg[reply]

File:Windmill harbour Rhodes.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 15:37:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info an old (14th century, restored) windmill on the harbour of Rhodes, Greece, by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jebulon (talk) 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid this image has several problems. First of all, why is the top so dark? Unless it is in the morning of evening (which it is not), that should be the brightest part. The sky, especially near the top, is noisy, and the spokes of the windmill are overexposed. The composition is really nice, but the quality is not. What I don't understand is how a Sony A550 at ISO 200 could produce this much noise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I beg to disagree. The highest point in a blue sky is almost always darker/bluer. Just google sky pictures to notice that. The physical explanation is that when you look at the horizon, you see a larger thickness of atmosphere, whereas when looking directly vertically above you, you see the "black" background of the universe through the thinest thickness of atmosphere. When such an effect is desired, it can be emphasized with a polarizing filter. I don't have an idea whether such a device has been used there. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've never noticed what you claim and I've been looking at the sky much of my life. Also, the Sun must've been behind the photographer to their left and about 45 or degrees above the horizon judging from the shadows. Unless polarizing was done as you say I have an inkling this might be accidental vignetting caused by the camera or the lens. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As one can see, I'm not a specialist of technics, and I often use wrong settings, but when I read some peremptory assertions, I think I'm not alone in this case... I confirm the use of a polarizing filter, the effect was my choice, and furthermore I think this picture is not sooooo noisy, even in the (dark ?) sky.--Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sails on the windmill lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review. White is white, especially in Greece, and no details are lost... If the sails are unsharp, then the wooden parts of the wings must be too, but they are sharp, in my opinion...--Jebulon (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination because I was wrong and uploaded a wrong file. My mistake, and my apologize to the reviewers, they were right. Sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Khajuraho Dulhadeo 2010.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 20:17:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- sfu 20:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
question -- Why are there shoes outside? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Probably because it's a temple? Steven Walling 05:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nice straight forward composition. I give my support when the white balance gets tweaked a bit, right now the colour of the sky is imho not optimal. I can upload such a version, if you want. --AngMoKio (座谈) 09:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you meant somthing like this? --sfu (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded my version on top of your wb-version. What do you think? --AngMoKio (座谈) 11:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is a little closer to true. The stones used to build these temples are quite redish. --sfu (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Ximonic (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--MrPanyGoff 20:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 11:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Image -- Raghith (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Indeed a good image, but the tree hanging in on the right side is slightly disturbing. I would prefer to be cloned out --ELEKHH^T 10:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would not takes long until the first commend on this picture File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht-2010-08-09.jpg would accuse this as unenzyplopedic and faked reality. but I have no problem to nominate the alternative version. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I agree with ELEKHH. Tomer T (talk) 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pripyat - Bumper cars.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 17:24:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Abandoned bumper cars at a theme park in Pripyat, Ukraine, which was evacuated after the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Haunting, topical, well-shot.
Info created by Justin Stahlman - uploaded by User:High Contrast - nominated by Mr.98 -- Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mr.98 (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Slfi (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and the roof (or what is left of it) has some chromatic aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not feature-worthy to me. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question would you please explain why ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question would you please explain why ?--Jebulon (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The subject is particularly interesting, the defects are secondary in this case --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The subject is interesting I suppose in historical context, also as sort of a then-and-now-ish thing. It is what it is, but it's really not a fun picture/scenery to look at. I wonder if these abandoned ruins would've seem more interesting at twilight... =\ -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting urban decay image after the nuclear incident. Someone had the time to scavange! --Tomascastelazo 00:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Tomer T 11:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposenot good for a featured one--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a picture that has a story to tell. Nephron T|C 05:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torre-Mozza Toscana.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2011 at 14:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Digitalsignal - uploaded by Digitalsignal - nominated by Digitalsignal -- Digitalsignal (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Digitalsignal (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Over enhanced, but nice shot. Could we tone down the vibrancy and contrast a little? Not completely sure of the educational value...would it fit in some other articles? theMONO 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info No such vote as "Weak support" in FPC -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Thanks for your suggestion, I have turned down a little vibrance and contrast. About educational value, this is one of the best preserved coastal guard towers (XVI century) in Tuscany (Italy), it has its own page on Italian Wikipedia. Digitalsignal 19:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 21:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question First, what are the orange things? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info They are supports for beach umbrellas, you can see one of them in the foreground. Digitalsignal 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that and yet they're so weird-looking I still had to ask. Very interesting pic and composition to me, so Support. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support technically not perfect but composition is very good, interesting view --Mbdortmund 10:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Thanks for your support, but which weak points do you see technically (exposure, dof, composition, distortions, color rendition..)? Thanks for your answer/Danke für deine Antwort Digitalsignal 10:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sunshade and the sky above are a little noisy, same on the top roof of the tower and there is a little distortion over the whole picture what is OK with 14 mm lens. Still it is a very good photograph due to your really nice composition. --Mbdortmund 12:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thanks for your suggestion, I have re-developed the RAW file by means of a different software, so I have got better noise reduction (without introducing loss of details) and better lens distortion correction. Vielen Dank! Digitalsignal 13:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tomer T 14:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good composition, noise much improved. Is the white spot in the sky between the umbrella and the tower due to a stuck pixel or something real (e.g. a plane)? --Avenue (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks for your appreciation. The white spot is a white bird in direct sunlight. Accurate inspection on the original RAW file shows no presence of any artifact. Digitalsignal 19:04, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all these umbrellas disturb the major object of this image that is the "torre". Ggia (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks for your critic, it gives me the opportunity to clarify that this picture portraits not just the building (torre) but also its present-day context (as stated in the caption, too). The contrast between its ancient origins and current use/location is intentionally underlined. Digitalsignal 19:08, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you already has seen in FPC.. I don't oppose because the image is a little noisy or because the user don't have the latest technology camera etc.. neither I make comments like "no wow for me" etc. Aesthetically all this composition doesn't seem nice (Formalism). If I was there I was trying to make a close photograph of the "torre" which has most encyclopedic value in this composition. Ggia (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Thanks again for your reply, I appreciate your openness. I just can confirm what already explained: I wanted to render the "old" building in its "new" environment (a Blue Flag beach). I could have made the umbrella smaller, but I would get an unbalanced picture. Excluding the umbrella and supports would give me a huge tower smothering the surrondings. Digitalsignal 11:05, 01 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

image:Adolfocordova.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2011 at 03:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fbport - uploaded by Fbport - nominated by Fbport -- Fbport (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fbport (talk) 03:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like B&W photos, but not the crop here: too short below and right. Yann (talk) 16:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 17:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image:Osterbrunnen Niederalbertsdorf.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 20:33:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Je-str (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, despite the fact that the creator has already darkened the photo.--Snaevar (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (yes, that's a whole vote I know) I like it, but it's the people kind of loitering and spectating that are a bit in the way to me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 22.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner 09:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner 09:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice composition. --AngMoKio (座谈) 14:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 00:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and edifying. Steven Walling 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everything is in the right place, even the sun. --ELEKHH^T 01:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice Composition of items! Support --Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan 08:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen 08:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 13:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per AngMoKio. Compo is mitigating the lack of sharpness here and there (cross on roof e.g.). W.S. 14:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per W.S. --Avenue (talk) 14:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SNCF TGV Duplex Viaduc de Cize - Bolozon.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2011 at 12:51:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info A TGV Duplex trainset crossing the Ain river near Cize. This viaduct is part of the Haut-Bugey line, which was reopened in December 2010 for TGV services between Geneva and Paris.
Abstain as author -- Kabelleger (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Twin duplex. --Mile (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel something like a "wow", as some says... Very good !!--Jebulon (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and colors. -- King of Hearts (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and the electric pole to the far left along with the third house from the far left, nearest to the bridge has some chromatic aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just uploaded a new version with less CA (colors/crop/brightness may also differ slightly). Regarding sharpness: This is the 1:1 resolution from the camera plus parts of the picture are stretched because of the perspective correction. I don't think you'll ever get a perfectly sharp result under these circumstances (or at least not with gear that I can afford...). Of course I could have scaled it down to make it look better at 1:1, but that would have been a bit pointless. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon! --Jovian Eye _talk 00:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As always: a good train picture combined with a stunning landscape... -- MJJR (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marvelous. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super cool! Wow, and great balance of color!-- Jeromy-Yu Maximilian Chan (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work again! --ELEKHH^T 13:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Lovely but hazy in the bg. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no lack or sharpness or chromatic aberration. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 20:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No CA in the new version. Sharpness just OK, but lots of WOW. W.S. 11:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture! The very right moment. Blattkaktus (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't want to be grinch but I guess that the community miss to look exactly at the technical side of this picture. Sure: this is great picture with a very nice view over the bridge and the train and I would it support strongly if the noise is not so conspicuously. But with this noise and the muddy impression I am not sure it this picture can even get a QI. Because this picture was shoot with ISO 200 I guess the lens has not much luminous intensity or is otherwise simply bad. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, if we criticise the technical quality here (which is in my opinion for a landscape wide-angle shot quite good), it will encourage people to reduce their 12mpx images to 3mpx images before uploading them. --AngMoKio (座谈) 10:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to reduce a 12 MP picture to 3 MP when the parameters are chosen well. We have other examples of great landscape images and with those one this picture has to compare. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you show me such a landscape photo? I think that we all (me included) are pretty much spoiled by the often stunning stitched panorama pictures, which mostly consist of several resolution-reduced pictures. I rarely saw a non-stitched wide-angle landscape shot with a stunning sharpness. Do you think that the whole photo here is quality-wise questionable or just parts of it? --AngMoKio (座谈) 11:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - e.g. this one File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg is much better in technical view, I have chosen also an image of a train, a non-stitched panorama and even the same photographer. The whole image of this candidate has for me a muddy impresion, not only some parts at the edge. In my view this light/landscape-situation has to be take with a much lower exposure time than 1/640s so that it become a bit underexposed to be brighten later by digital image editing. So there would be a chance to conservate a bit more of the structure of the bridge and the train itself. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg has been scaled down (I don't remember to what extent; I can upload a 1:1 version if you want). No surprise it is much sharper. @structure of the bridge: The bridge is not overexposed (I think), so there are no details lost - I don't understand what would be gained by a lower exposure and making it brighter afterwards. But I'm not sure, maybe this image is generally a bit too bright? --Kabelleger (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ISO 100 won't cut it here. Something like 1/640 s exposure is necessary to keep the moving (!) train sharp, and I don't want to go below F6.3 or so because the image quality gets worse at larger apertures. --Kabelleger (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Kabelleger, can you upload the full resolution of File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg as new file temporarily. I have always been intrigued by the sharpness and would like to know what lens you have used. Jovian Eye _talk 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do (in a few hours when I'm back at home). When I uploaded that picture, I was lazy and took the scaled down version from my web site, since I never intended to nominate it for FP... Lens was the very same 17-55 F2.8 IS (no that's not the kit ;) ) and 50D as this picture was taken with. --Kabelleger (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go: File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija hires.jpg Note that I think the smaller version is not only scaled down, but also sharpened a bit. --Kabelleger (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'll jump in the discussion with the following comments:
- This picture has everything to be a FP, and it seems quite obvious given the tremendous support it already has.
  - (per my neutral above I disagree -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Looking at the EXIF data, the picture was taken at 17mm, which is already quite wide-angled. I don't know with which lens it was taken, but if it was not something like Canon's 10-22mm, the lens used here is probably at its shortest focal length and will thus exhibit technical imperfections, specially at the corners. The lens was correctly stopped down to f/6.3 to a) increase DoF and b) improve quality at the corners. These are limitations of the equipment itself, and the picture should not be penalized for this. Otherwise, ALL wide-angle photography taken with a FF (which is even more problematic at the corners) would never be able to make FP, which would be ridiculous.
- Color saturation and contrast look very natural to me.
- Looking at the histogram, I don't see any overexposure to be concerned about. In fact, there are only 5 pixels at the 255 level. --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Equipment: Canon 50D + EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS (no, this is not the kit lens) --Kabelleger (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Georgez (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A nice contrast between the old viaduct and the modern train. MartinD 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Butorides virescens 01.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:40:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A green heron stalking his meal. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Just look at the legs of the bird and the tree branch. You will see what I mean.--Snaevar (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reloaded file, the over-exposure was probably the result of having corrected levels. Leggs are now withing dynamic range. It also corrected CA. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Interesting crop, but not sharp enough and suffering from CA on the legs. W.S. 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CA corrected, but there will always be CA in just about every digital photograph. Many times it may not even be CA. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overexposed on the legs and a bit noisy, but I love the crop. Gives you feeling the bird is watching for the perfect moment to strike its unfortunate prey... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it is not only a feeling, but the truth !! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tombeau de Louis XII et d’Anne de Bretagne, Basilique St.-Denis.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 10:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Roi Boshi - uploaded by Roi Boshi - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T 10:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T 10:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Slightly soft, softly noisy. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp in the forground, noisy in the background. --Snaevar (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--BastienM (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC) agree with Snaever[reply]
Oppose Per others. + tilt and bad framing and unfortunate crops: I miss the whole monument, which is extraordinary indeed. --Jebulon (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- It's not quite perfect, but it's not terrible. I don't find it very unsharp and do like the composition with the exception of some problems already mentioned, namely the tilt (easily fixed in GIMP) and the right part. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dama dama 02.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 11:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by 4028mdk09 - uploaded by 4028mdk09 - nominated by Micione -- Micione (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Micione (talk) 11:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Well... random crop, dark subject, blow sky, somewhat noisy. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting background and bad compostion.--Snaevar (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:52, 4 May 2011 (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 the issues mentionned above, + probable tilt. Far below from FP minimum standards.--Jebulon (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2011 (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:Compass rose Cantino.svg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 21:28:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Replica of the major wind-rose of the Cantino planisphere (1502). To celebrate my fifth anniversary in Commons. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request -- Please someone help in cropping the background. This was done in CorelDraw and I was not able to do it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hope you're happy with the crop. Happy Wiki-birthday! --ELEKHH^T 10:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, Elekhh! Why am I so clumsy with svg? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm beginner too, merely using Inkscape for easy edits. --ELEKHH^T 10:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Should the directions be labelled? Or should there be a version with them labeled? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is supposed to be a faithfull reprodution of the original (see "other versions" in the file). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support NIce work. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, nice work -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only a minor flaw, as the line in the cross at the top is supposed to angle downwards from left to right. Otherwise, really good.--Snaevar (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours and balanced composition -- Angel (talk} 16:45 28 April 2011
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Il campanile del Duomo di San Leo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 May 2011 at 11:07:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RimOrso - uploaded by RimOrso - nominated by RimOrso -- RimOrso (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RimOrso (talk) 11:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor quality, tilt, composition, ... - Benh (talk)
Oppose Grainy image and tilted tower.--Snaevar (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Benh --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, poor quality: grainy and tilted. --ELEKHH^T 01:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the diference of colour between the left part of the tower and the right part. -- Angel (talk) 19:32 29 aprilie 2011
Oppose The grain and colours are somewhat interesting... but the tilt bothers me. Nephron T|C 05:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plough or plow.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 06:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info People plowing with cows; created, uploaded and nominated by Angel
Support It is my last chance to have a featured image so i am pro -- Angel
- Why your last chance? Yes, you could indeed become a photo pro but, as with most valuable things in life, it will take time and lots of work. In the meantime, please stay with us (you will learn a lot here) and start saving money for a better camera. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I understand Angel correctly, "pro" refers to a support vote, not to becoming professional. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say "last chance" i refer that I can't put a lot of image. Or I can ? -- Angel (talk)
  - You can nominate up to two at a time. When they are closed, you can nominate two more. But most photographers don't have anywhere near that many images of extraordinary value anyway. So concentrate on uploading lots of valuable photos, and only nominate the very best of the best for featured picture. --99of9 (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can you please add to photo summary, where the photo was made. Thanks. --AngMoKio (座谈) 13:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, can you fix that? --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral almost oppose. Firstly it's "plow" ;-) Next my real issue with this is the angle taken. I did like the image more in full scale than thumbnail but a different angle, like maybe a few degrees more to the left toward the side of the cattle and cropped differently to include more pasture around them would've made for a better composition, I think. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info alternative version made by Carschten. But I think that the light was too harsh at the day and that the quality is just not good enough; nonetheless I upload a better exposed version by way of comparison. I abstain though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per above. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- Raghith (talk) 04:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100207 Thermes Loutra Xanthi 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 06:22:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 06:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why don't you FPX it? with D700 sensor and 50mm Nikon f/1.2 lens is the result that I can get. Ggia (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharpness isn't bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar. Possibly you should have used a tripod and/or a smaller f than f16 in view of the diffraction limit. bamse 08:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parabuteo unicinctus (Temminck 1824).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2011 at 17:49:37 (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) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Eagle is somewhat blurry, giving an unclear boundary between the background and the eagle itself.--Snaevar (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The background is too similar in color to the bird and IMO that's what really makes it not stand out. Otherwise pretty good. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice H. Krisp (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but not great quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe I would have crop the unsharp part of the shoulder left, until the neck...--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually like that detail. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Never oppose -- aghith 05:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo at full resolution -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pisaura mirabilis 03 (MK).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 09:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nursery web spider Pisaura mirabilis - c/u/n by -- mathias K 09:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 09:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support sowas möchte ich auch so fotografieren können... :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- Angel (talk)
Support A clear and accurate picture of the species. Thank you ! =) --Ximonic (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Klasse! --AngMoKio (座谈) 19:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 16:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good  Richard  [®]  08:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Llez (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support...and twenty ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cochlearius cochlearius stages.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 15:05:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think collages reduce the usability of images; what if somebody wanted to use just one or two of the three? I would much prefer to support all three images as a set. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question is it possible to nominate a set of images a FPC? Ggia (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes it is, it's all spelled out in the guidelines right here on the FPC page. --99of9 (talk) 09:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question My question was not about the set.. if the images should be present as seperate images or inside a collage as this image here.. Ggia (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Resolution: each image can be reproduced at 300 dpi in 8x10 format, which is letter size, plenty of resolution if someone breaks it up. Image set: Collages are common in FPC, and this particular one is presented as a set (or collage) because all three represent the development stages of this species, the eggs, the nest, the chick and the adult in its natural habitat. A lot can be learned from all three images.

I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like it, but it's the photo quality that made me iffy. Plus some leaves in front of the eggs. I like this better than the vertical version. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 06:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croc conclave.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 12:37:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good action shot, but I have mixed feelings about the composition (it's jumbled sort of, but it's an action shot so maybe it's ok?) DOF in front's a bit low. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it a bit confused... sorry --Llorenzi 06:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very impressive, considering this is taken in the wild with only 200mm lens, but agree with Llorenzi that composition-wise it is confusing, mostly the back of the fourth crock makes it too busy for me. --ELEKHH^T 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The communication between the two crocodiles with the open mouth is very interesting -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do protest against the anti-clerical name of the file !! Are there Cardinals electing a new Pope ? . The apparently confusing compo adds to the mood IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Cephas (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its different from posed images -- aghith 18:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Foundation nail IMG 0073-black.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 14:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Foundation nail dedicated by Gudea to Ningirsu for the building of his temple, the E-ninnu:
"For Ningirsu, the powerful hero of Enlil, his king, Gudea, prince of Lagash, accomplished what had to be; his temple of E-innu, the shining thunder-bird, he built and restaured."
2120 BCE.
Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting historical shot. Steven Walling 05:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 00:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kozuch 14:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit dark IMO. Easily fixed though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare and interesting. Good shot furthermore.--Jebulon (talk) 14:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting object --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Mia Petitbois IMG 2141.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 09:27:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mia Petitbois at the Salon du Livre 2011 in Geneva. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 09:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. Tomer T (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TawaramotoRiceField.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 03:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kansaikiwi - uploaded by Kansaikiwi - nominated by Kansaikiwi -- Kansaikiwi (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kansaikiwi (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC) Account too new --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Most of the image is badly out of focus and no clear subject. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Firstly, the title and the choice of focus show what the subject is and this is a true support because I find this image interesting. And the people look like ants lol -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Did you really look the image at full size? And you're not surprised by the fact only the center of the body is in focus while the head is completely blurred knowing the whole body is in the same focus plane, as well as the fact the bottom of the image is again less blurred? This is not a « choice of focus » but was photoshoped! Pathetic. Sting (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah it's pretty clear this has been altered digitally. But I'm not so sure how one could photograph this type of scenery in an interesting way; It's not an object that could be isolated and masked. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem for me to use a blur mask but in this case it has been made so badly that this photograph lost any value it may had and is unpleasant to look at. Sting (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose --lol. Good idea to try highlight the two farmers using a blur mask, but unfortunately not the minimum precaution has been taken during the process. Sting (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Defiantly deserving the FPX status. No further explanation needed, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have no explanation? Then elaborate. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurred, not in zoom --Kiran Gopi (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per FPX. W.S. 01:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke9.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 09:13:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw, remake of my picture File:Dreilaenderbruecke 002.jpg which already was nominated this year -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Although prefer the 2007 version which is warmer, less symmetric, better illustration of human scale and does not have the latest high-rise on the left overlapping with the cables. In any case your sustained effort to illustrate this bridge is much appreciated. --ELEKHH^T 01:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T 11:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please could you explain why ? It is not a mandatory, but in case of "oppose" votes, it is very appreciated and useful for others. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is technically good, but I don't find it attractive or interesting. Tomer T (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - but this one File:BMW 840 Ci Sport front.jpg seems to be very attractive and interesting to you. very curious --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't see the contradiction. Tomer T (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T. - Benh (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not per Tomer and Benh, personal aversion for a theme should not be the reason for opposing, but real facts --Llez (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good colors and perspective. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer T. W.S. 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laridae Larus in Saint-Malo (France).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems unsharp to me at full resolution. --Jebulon (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unidentified en plus. W.S. 01:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llorenzi (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:3Ring release animation.gif, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:43:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by User:acodered -- ☭Acodered 03:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered 03:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice animation. Nephron T|C 05:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think is very good. -- {Angel talk) 8:39 29 April 2011
Comment Maybe the first image of the composition has to stay some ms more...--Llorenzi 06:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (looking at every frame) First of all, at frame nr. 28 the parachute riser and the grommet on it lengthens instead of going upwards like it should do. Secondly, there is not really anything that supports the yellow cable, so it should drop all the way out of the picture.--Snaevar 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could this be made a bit slower? I find it hard to follow. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 15:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done corrected, 2x slower ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Slower, definitely... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like the black border of the rings.--Claus (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small for me (200x400). Otherwise I like it, and I certainly appreciate animations that teach me things. --99of9 (talk) 01:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done 1.5x upsized (300x600 px) The image almost hit 12.5 MPx limit, it's the maximum size for animations at Commons. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love watching this play over and over again - very nice animation! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 06:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It sure is small, but much too interesting :D Well done anyway. --Ximonic (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question At the beginning of the animation, I don't understand how the yellow spaghetti is attached to the blue thing. If there is a hole, it is not visible... This is a bit confusing to me and therefore I cannot support--Jebulon (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for supports and advices. 2x slower, 1.5x upsized, first and last frame stays for 1 sec, removed black border on the rings, yellow teflon cable turned left, animation at frame 28 corrected, loop slightly rotated. ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Junco hyemalis hyemalis CT2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 23:17:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is the female, this is the male.
Support -- Cephas (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think background is a tad distracting, but it's very nice otherwise - Benh (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Adorable and IMO somehow the angle we see of the bird justifies the lead room and makes it almost unnoticeable, maybe because the eye is drawn to the bird's head. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very beautiful -- Angel (talk) 9:57 3 May 2011
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite nice. :) Steven Walling 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tail is not sharp. I'm sure an anonymous picture should have been more discussed for this reason...--Jebulon (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been pondering the same as Jebulon. The blurred tail side is the only thing the has bothered me in this picture. Otherwise, the picture is really nice. --Ximonic (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Jebulon.--Snaevar (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes the tail is lost, but the background looks like it would have been very distracting had it been stopped down further. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laguna Llanganuco 29042011.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 20:40:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dtarazona - uploaded by Dtarazona - nominated by Dtarazona -- Dtarazona (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dtarazona (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please fill out the information when nominating. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but a bit noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 05:07:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Nephron -- Nephron T|C 05:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I realize this picture differs from the usual type here... but I believe it is technically good and composed well enough for a FP. It compares well to other images on the internet of LSIL. The FP category does not contain many images of human disease. Nephron T|C 20:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IMO a lot of detail and, well, it just looks nice in full scale. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportFeatured quality, high educational value--Umnik (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 06:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pegasus Lequesne Palais Garnier.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 03:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eugène Lequesne c. 1800s, shot and uploaded by Marie-Lan Nguyen - nominated by One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomer T 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund 12:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition: poor crop of the tail and the pillar. Another perspective would be better, compare e.g. [1] --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kaʁstn, re. the crop. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Average (and tight) crop. W.S. 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the crop.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- Raghith (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Werkstatt eines Schiffszimmerers im Altonaer Museum IMG 5128 edit.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 18:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, edited and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 18:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral nearly oppose. Jumbled, less-than mildly interesting scenery and harsh lighting, though these aren't the photographers fault and all objects and scenery deserves a chance here I guess (though I guess the consensus is generally against sunsets so that's the one exception). I wonder if the lighting can be helped digitally. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info you may want to notice the retouched picture tag on the image page. in addition this scenery is an indoor shot of a ship's carpenter's workshop. the whole construction reminded me of a shack missing a wall so people could look into it. sadly they put a rather harsh spotlight on the location, instead of a more smooth light solution. the digital altering already performed contained increasing visibility of the shadows and decreasing the effects of that spotlight. i tried to create an hdri but was not satisfied with the results of tonemapping for this particular scenery. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the reflections on the window (at least some of them could easily be removed) --Llez (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ 148.241.190.82 19:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't forget to log in to vote. No anonymous votes are allowed. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThelmadatter (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose harsh lighting, some noise, wide-angle distortions, poor crop at bottom. Not featured to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kaʁstn --Llorenzi (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but not really FP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 17:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Winter baby 10-months-old.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2011 at 17:24:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 00:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T 11:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund 13:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nádhera --Slfi 14:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very positive ^) --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry but I see nothing featurable here, starting with the poor lighting and framing (babies are all beautiful to me though). Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont want to offend you, but I cant really see better lighting or framing in your FP portrait for instance... Cheers, Kozuch (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't worry, you aren't offending me at all! It looks like the picture was taken in 'contre-jour' (against the light) making the face somber. The ugly highlights are probably caused by a flash. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alves. babies are all beautiful but there is nothing special in this image. ■ MMXX ^talk 08:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I don't like the crop. --Citron (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty baby for sure, QI for sure, but nothing extraordinary nor rare nor special enough to my taste--Jebulon (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Sorry baby!--Claus (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything has been said.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The light looks very strange to me... --BastienM (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vlg shop.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 08:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ilveon - uploaded by Ilveon - nominated by Ilveon -- Ilveon (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Ilveon (talk) 08:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50 edits in Commons' account -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2011 (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: Unnatural perspective due to fisheye lens, noise, poor technical image quality (blown out parts, strange filter in post-processing?) --bamse (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2011 (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:Hauhechel-Bläuling, Polyommatus icarus Paarung 1.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 13:00:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare shot --Schnobby (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy to be the tenth.--Jebulon (talk) 16:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only the 11th, geeh.  Richard  [®]  17:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Let's celebrate love and color! It could be excellent if it weren't for the unfocused flower in the foreground. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --F. Lamiot (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roller Chain Render (with numbers).png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 09:42:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and educational -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl 18:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --User:BastienM --BastienM 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice--Slfi 21:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Clean and clear instructional material. Steven Walling 01:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support gerne auch hier --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 08:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice and educational. ■ MMXX ^talk 13:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Exactly the kind of valuable illustration that makes Commons great. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An appealing diagram. I don't know much about roller chains, but the en wiki roller chain article says they can be "bushingless", with a tube stamped onto the inner plate instead of a separate bushing. This diagram confuses me, because the inner plate on the left has a bushing tube attached (suggesting this chain is bushingless), but the one on the right does not (suggesting the opposite). Is the diagram trying to show one type, the other, or some hybrid? It would be useful if the image description explained this. --Avenue (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.  Richard  [®]  08:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose SVG please!--Claus (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tobacco Hornworm 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 06:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dschwen - uploaded by Dschwen - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- 99of9 (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks dangerous --Schnobby (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good image -- Raghith (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ! --BastienM (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colours. --ELEKHH^T 01:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Is it edible? Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Breeding Indian Pond Heron.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 20:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Manjithkaini - uploaded by Manjithkaini - nominated by Praveenp -- Praveen:talk 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Praveen:talk 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of details on the lower feathers. --Mbdortmund 10:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very noisy and nothing exactly in focus. W.S. 14:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S.--Snaevar (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose W.S. said it all. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just spent 2 days in a swamp photographig wildlife. Birds are very hard to photograph, for they don´t like humans encroaching on them. This photograph is a good photograph in general terms, and while it lacks sharpness at 100%, when viewd at smaller size, which is how it will be reproduced anyway, it is definitely acceptable. To expect things to be razor sharp all the time is not necessrily neither good policy nor good photography. Just as enlarging film negatives eventually produce grain and degraded quality, so do digital images. It is all about reproduction size and viewing distance. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- aghith 08:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Claudius Lavergne - Saint Louis - Senlis.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 May 2011 at 20:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by User:BastienM -- BastienM 20:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great artistic choice of composition, though because of the nature of stained glass a bit hard to gauge how sharp it is. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FABULOUS! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot -- Raghith (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic job! --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Of course stained glass itself is really nice, but I don't like the dark statue (?) in front. we have better FPs of stained glass. ■ MMXX ^talk 22:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Havne udsigt fra dokken.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 08:34:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Villy Fink Isaksen - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen 08:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen 08:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Tomer T 11:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deceptively soft at full size. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry, but this image is really a QI? A lot of dust spots and strange color lines in the sky, the image is soft (no wonder with f/22) and it's tilted. I've to say, it's a nice motive, composition and lighting. I made an alternative version at File:Havne udsigt fra dokken-CN.jpg, and I think it's better. Maybe you will nominate it as an alternative, but I'm not sure if it could be featured... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others, plus dust spot visible even on thumbnail...--Jebulon (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative edit

Info alternative version made by Carschten.
Comment - from time to time I have problem with dust on the cmos sensor. --Villy Fink Isaksen 16:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen 16:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Still a bit off, but acceptable.--Snaevar (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good framing, nice light, and the clouds add something extra. --ELEKHH^T 01:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support -- aghith 17:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Havne udsigt fra dokken-CN.jpg

File:Pyrrhosoma nymphula qtl4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:13:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An immature female Large Red Damselfly. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Raghith (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, except that the ends of the legs are out of focus. Still, it's hard to get a lot of DOF into an image like this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice--Claus (talk) 05:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AngMoKio (座谈) 11:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the end of the tail is out of focus, but that is a minor issue.--Snaevar (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice critter and photo. A pity that dof is not a bit wider (was it really needed the high shutter speed?) and the creature doesn't have more space above to breathe... Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure --Schnobby (talk) 08:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No way you can say "no" to this image. Great job! --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. --SteGrifo27 (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Bergwolf (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Knotweed 1r.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 10:50:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Japanese knotweed is widely considered an invasive species or weed. It is listed by the World Conservation Union as one of the world's 100 worst invasive species. Created by flickr user liz west - uploaded and nominated by raghith -- aghith 10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Japanese knotweed ; (Species: Fallopia japonica) is a large, herbaceous perennial plant, native to eastern Asia in Japan, China and Korea. -- aghith 10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition (may be the flowers out of focus or overexposed) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flowers strongly overexposed, no wow picture.--Citron (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. W.S. 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flowers overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jithindop (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- aghith 17:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BMW 840 Ci Sport front.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 23:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TheCarSpy - uploaded by Peter.shaman - nominated by Peter.shaman -- Peter.shaman (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Peter.shaman (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice picture, nice blue car, small resolution (< 2 MP), no wow, why should this be a featured picture? --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

formerly FPX: ~~{{FPX~~|the size is insufficient}} --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC) - cancelled because there's a support vote apart from that of the nominator. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Wladyslaw --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose below minimum size requirement; good angle to see the car but bad relationship to the background. --ELEKHH^T 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muskellunge USFWS.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 09:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Knepp, Timothy - uploaded by High on a tree - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, clean, and pretty educational illustration. Steven Walling 07:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dirt along the top contour should be removed -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--H. Krisp (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 08:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sempervivum x funckii, RBGE 2010, 2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 14:33:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lokal_Profil - uploaded by Lokal_Profil - nominated by Lokal_Profil -- Lokal _Profil 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lokal _Profil 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Tomer T 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A bit overexposed, but the picture is really good none the less, so I am not going to stay in it´s way.--Snaevar (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The background is too ditrubing--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support -- aghith 18:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spinning Dancer.gif, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 15:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Spinning Dancer is a kinetic, bistable optical illusion.

Info created by Nobuyuki Kayahara - uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - nominated by Jovianeye -- Jovian Eye _talk 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Please read The Spinning Dancer. It can take a while before she starts spinning in the opposite directon. --Jovian Eye _talk 15:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jovian Eye _talk 15:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose makes me dizzy Tomer T 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a valid reason? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes me dizzy -> I don't like it. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is not a valid reason to oppose to at FPC. --Jovian Eye _talk 03:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support after reading the article. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - neat. For anyone else who hadn't seen this before, read the article. Very interesting effect. Jonathunder (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous nom. W.S. 22:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't care that it lost last time and it logically might make some people dizzy. Doesn't stop it being an interesting effect. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Yikrazuul (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically flawless, very high encyclopedic value, done in an aesthetically pleasing way (compared to other optical illusions). Great visualization of an optical effect in an artistic way. Looks like the perfect FP for an encyclopedia to me. --Nikopol (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unphysiological movement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's the purpose of the animation to be "physiological" - Benh (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Left foot does not rise on the vertical axis --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great case of illusion... Significantly to be a FP! --Llorenzi (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic (how can one jump with keeping foot/leg in this position? and if it does not show the movement, what's the purpose?) --Coyau (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The purpose is the optical illusion not a movement. Take a look at The Spinning Dancer. --Lošmi (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The occasional reflection of the upraised foot works against the illusion for me (i.e. it gives exactly the sort of depth cue that indicates one direction of rotation). The image is also quite small, even for an animation, . --Avenue (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The animation might not work for everyone in an instant because it is an optical illusion. Reading The Spinning Dancer can help in one experiencing this effect. Additionally, this animation is sufficiently large. Commons has animated FP's which are much smaller like File:Frontal lobe animation.gif, File:Radial engine.gif and File:Zipper animated.gif. --Jovian Eye _talk 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point wasn't about how easy or difficult it might be for me personally to see the illusion. It was that the illusion (which according to the article relies on the absence of depth cues) would be stronger without the depth cue given by the reflection of the raised foot. Since I think the animation could easily be significantly improved, I don't see this version as an FP. --Avenue (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great animation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support After reading the article I was to oppose because I did'nt see anything special as optical illusion, but... It works now! it works! A miracle ! The young lady is really going ccw, now !--Jebulon (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, the true wow of this animation is felt when one experiences the optical illusion! --Jovian Eye _talk 23:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Still life fleamarket amk.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 09:46:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (座谈) 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Still life with angel on a flea market in Stuttgart.
Support -- AngMoKio (座谈) 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I believe the white balance could be touched-up. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only because the picture and the description state that the featured item is the angel.--Snaevar (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No exceptional items, value encyclpodique too limited. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Archaeodontosaurus. Tomer T (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 08:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know that I'll be the probable responsible of the promotion of this picture, and I'm truely sorry for that, but I like the idea, the mood, and the pictures, which really speaks to me... Maybe I'm an artist, who knows ?...--Jebulon (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tibellus sp qtl4.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 21:09:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A Running Crab Spider captures a Large Red Damselfly. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overexposed? Do you mean sunlit? --The High

Fin Sperm Whale 04:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As long as others understand what I am talking about then it does not matter how what words I choose to express what I think.--Snaevar (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I reduced the brightness a bit. --Quartl (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would no 3 from the series be the better candidate? --Quartl (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 08:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support the background is a bit disturbing and the sunlight is also very harsh, but the overall quality for such an "action-shot" is pretty good. Overall a good capture! --mathias K 09:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Background could be easily blurred a bit more, but it is very good, interesting and eye catching. --Jebulon (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)FP in my opinion.[reply]
Support WOW and useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice catch ! Wish it was sharper where the spider eats the fly. - Benh (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice H. Krisp (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quite good but it is a shame that the zone of the "chelicerae" (the mouth parts injecting the venom) is not sharper. Benh, the spider isn't eating the fly, at least yet. Later on she will inject digestive fluids into the prey and suck the resulting liquified tissues. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trifolium pratenseRed cloverLamiotF5580.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 18:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lamiot - uploaded by Lamiot - nominated by Lamiot -- F. Lamiot (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- F. Lamiot (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks great in thumb, but too little DOF in full size. W.S. 04:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Stamens lacking focus resulting in a small DOF.--Snaevar (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venus Anadyomene IMG 0568-black.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 17:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Torso of a Venus Anadyomene. c. 1st century BCE or 1st century CE. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama 17:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed from the left waistline to the left leg. A few noise spots: two in the neckline, a few on both breasts, a few around the umbilical cord and a few on the left leg.--Snaevar (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support much better. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support illustrative. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Senior ladies German Champion in Figure Skating 2010 Sarah Hecken Coach Peter Sczypa in Mannheim Deutsche Meisterschaften im Eiskunstlauf SAP Arena.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 May 2011 at 23:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Skatingfan - uploaded by 09.12.2010 - nominated by Skatingfan -- Skatingfan (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Skatingfan (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Less than 50 edits in Commons' account. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kitschissimo, even in the smile !!--Jebulon (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Completely unworkable image name: more than 120 letters!... -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this photo --Tomer T (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose you don't want to read why --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ■ MMXX ^talk 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Kitschy indeed. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Four Evangelists in Mont Saint-Michel.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 09:06:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 09:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 09:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is your third active nomination. Voting on two of your nominations ends on 11 may, 2011.--Snaevar (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
FPD removed, due to one withdrawn image from Llorenzi.--Snaevar (talk) 10:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Perspective correction please. --99of9 (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I don't know how to do it... --Llorenzi (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, perspective. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I've tried something, but despite the holiness of the subject, I'm not able to do miracles...--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective is fixable, sharpness is not. --Avenue (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Llorenzi (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Budapešť, večerní Lánchíd (řetězový most).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 17:34:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry; it isn't clear what is the image's subject; uninternational name Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I wonder if it can pass here. Might have at chance in QI for DOF. I like the lighting and how the low DOF to one side passively draws attention to the foreground feature, the lights and toward the back whether it was accidental or not. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not clear, blurred --Kiran Gopi (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blur is does he want? The encyclopedic value is not evident. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. The blurriness isn't really a problem since it is the column that the coat of arms is engraved into that is the main subject but not the whole bridge.--Snaevar (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not clear. -- Angel (talk) 16:26 3 May 2011
Support -- aghith 08:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paragliding high above Queenstown.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 May 2011 at 16:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me. -- Avenue (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but the foreground is underexposed and the clouds seem overexposed (they could just be really bright white, I'm not sure). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it is too dark in foreground, especially at left.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon and no wow here for me --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC), above all: for illustrating paragliding there is not enough paragliding (too small), for illustrating Queenstown not enough of the town to see, the combination is neither fish nor fowl --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it doesn't show much detail about Queenstown or paragliding. My aim was more to convey an aspect of how people experience the grandeur of the landscape there. But I respect your opinion. --Avenue (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've uploaded a new version, with softened highlights and lifted shadows, which might address some of the concerns expressed. --Avenue (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 08:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think it's just too dark. --Ximonic (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Avenue's comment. --Lošmi (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lynx in forest.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 09:55:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is a medium-sized cat native to European and Siberian forests, where it is one of the predators. Created by flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith 09:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is in IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. -- aghith 09:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice animal. Angel (talk) 15:32 9 May 2011
Oppose A valued image but not good enough for FP. also a bit noisy. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Noise isn't that bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too obvious zoo picture with a bad crop. Even if the legs are hidden by vegetation, the image should include that part where the hidden paws would have been visible when not hidden (IYKWIM). W.S. 19:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nicely captured... but the entire animal should be visible in a zoo image.--Cayambe (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy background and lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with W.S. and Cayambe. --Slaunger (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination -- aghith 10:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UA Flight 175 hits WTC south tower 9-11 edit.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 05:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Flickr user TheMachineStops - uploaded by UpstateNYer - edited by UpstateNYer - nominated by King of Hearts. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is the only picture we have of the immediate impact of the United 175. The low resolution is mitigated by the uniqueness of the event.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try FP at English wikipedia. W.S. 01:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Well, September 11th affected the entire world. It still is. The image does have major EV. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ valuable but not excellent --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've struck the duplicate vote. --99of9 (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If it fits the limits by FP nominations then I support. Well in 2001 there were no 15 mpix digital cameras and this attack was nothink like "I take 15 shots of this frog and I can choose the best then". --Aktron (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Aktron Tomer T (talk) 03:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the size is insufficient, below 1 MP --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read FPX carefully, it is only to be used when there are no support votes other than the nominator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In addition, the guidlines mention that "rules can be broken", and Aktron specified above some reasonable arguments of why the formal guidlines don't fit this case. Also, note that you have already made a vote about the discussed picture above. Tomer T (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) That the resolution is under 1 MP I realized after my vote (2) I am surprised that the rules here are so easygoing. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable but not up to current standards. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, and deserves some leeway as a historical action shot. But its shortfalls on size and composition are still too severe to be an FP IMO. --Avenue (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All my thoughs have already been mentioned above. --Ximonic (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Floare de piersic 012.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 18:18:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Peach flower; created, uploaded and nominated by Angel (talk) 21:19 7 May 2011
Support -- Angel (talk) 21:19 7 May 2011
Oppose It is a nice photo of a beautiful flower, but not up to the quite high standards expected for a featured picture. But I think it is cool to see a 13 year old nominate own contributions here. The centralized composition is not so interesting and there is quite some chromatic abberation seen at the edge of the petals. For a plant picture I would recommend adding the latin name of the plant as well, and consider geocoding it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can take photograph in a way that could only be called poetic. It is up to the viewer to engage them or not as they wish.-- aghith 17:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA too much. Poor lighting. Caption too poor.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose chromatic aberration on the top part of the image on the edges on the leaves of the flower. Try to stabilize your camera next time.--Snaevar (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Angel (talk) 17:45 10 May 2011

File:Junco hyemalis hyemalis CT1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 23:16:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info This is the male, this is the female.
Support -- Cephas (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the branch in the background is too distracting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportI prefer a (not so) distracting branch than an unsharp tail...--Jebulon (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice -- Raghith (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --H. Krisp (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice bird. Strong white vertical spoils it for me, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor background composition: per others --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. W.S. 12:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, background branch. --Avenue (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Like this: . excellent :) Angel (talk) 23:31 May 2011
Oppose The branch of background --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun sets on Ohrid Lake.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:23:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nice but nothing special. Trivial. Sting (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. All sunsets are inherently beautiful. In order to be an FP, it needs to have really nice clouds or something in the foreground (e.g. silhouette if backlit, or a notable structure in "golden hour" light if frontlit). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special in this image... --BastienM (talk) 06:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estremoz April 2011-3.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 19:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Minimalism again. The tower and roof of a little church in Estremoz, Portugal, in a rainy day. All by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ The compostion misses the church, which is the main subject. Tomer T (talk) 05:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire church very obviously is not the subject of this, just the top of the tower and roof are. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You (and the others below) convinced me. Support Tomer T (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support More of the tower (or even the church itself) could have been captured from another angle or position of the camera, but however this is a minimalism picture and that does not make it any worse than any other picture, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the church is not the main subject of the composition, and I find this one deserving the FP label (colors, light, sky, shot, etc...).--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low EV (the main subject is cropped), aesthetically this "minimalistic" does not convince me.. with all the clouds, texture etc I cannot say that this image is minimalistic rather that it is a formalistic image. Also several images has been rejected in FPC because of the cropping of the main subject. Also it is quite centered composition that it is not nice also aesthetically. Sorry.. Ggia (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes Nice -- Raghith (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose art for arts sake relevance for Gods sake ... GerardM (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC) This picture tells no story, it does not illustrate anything.[reply]
Support per Jebulon. W.S. 23:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can't see the educational value in this case. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose wow... composition (no wow; what's the subject? a lot of an unsharp roof, a little bit of a church tower; mural at the bottom right), quality (main motive is blurry and has lots of artifacts), EV (is there any EV at all?), file page (very little description with no information about what we can see; no geocode; no EXIF data; poor categorization). Very far away from FP standards... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose missing the main object. roofs i have seen enough. alofok * 19:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness, lacking dof, lacking bokeh, uninspring composition, no ev, misleadingly deleted metadata, deficient metadata - you did better, get back to your roots. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Just a minor remark to your review: the concept of bokeh does not apply here. Anyway we need more of these exhaustive, accurate and objective criticisms, focused on the flaws of the image rather than on the merits of the creator. Please carry on with the good work. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little educational value. --Спас Колев (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheena Vala Uyarthiyathu.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ezhuttukari - uploaded by Ezhuttukari - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Looks like a printed photograph that has been discoloured by the sun, although there might be other reasons for that.--Snaevar (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThelmadatter (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ajaykuyiloor (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition, framing and crop. --Sreejith K (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose curios colors --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sepia-only reduces the educational value of the image, and I don't see enough compelling me to overlook this. --99of9 (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ■ MMXX ^talk 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors. W.S. 04:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CA.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colors too.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rajesh Odayanchal (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tinucherian (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree that the color composition was bit irritating. But it gives the clear structure of Chinese Net. Informative Vaishak Kallore | വൈശാഖ്‌ കല്ലൂര്‍ (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose „CA, too many over- and underexposed parts (wood, sky), strange colors“ --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fort de La Latte.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice composition but insufficient technical quality (sharpness, noisy even with small resolution) --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness. This is one of the pictures I would like to see in a higher resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info --I've uploaded above it a new version, trying to correct the horizon, lightning, sharpness and dust spots. Sting (talk) 17:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 08:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, general lack of quality. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiril Lazarov 07.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 16:17:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kuebi - uploaded by Kuebi - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a little noisy, but quality is sufficient to me. Tomer T (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good facial expression and the subject is well isolated from the background... but the bottom crop spoils it. The ball, the left arm and the right hand, which are important here, are only partly shown. --Cayambe (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The handball player looks unsharp (precisely the edges of his face and the shirt) and unfortunate crop at the bottom.--Snaevar (talk) 09:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Raghith (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeBecause of the issues mentioned above. Global quality insufficient for FP, in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Narcissus reality and painting.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 15:08:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A transposition on paper of narcissus. created, uploaded and nominated by Angel.
Support It's one of my paintings and i want to see if the image is good.
Oppose I don't see how this comparison/collage adds any encyclopedic value to the actual flower's picture. In addition, it's too small and the flower on the left seems distorted. Tomer T (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is far bellow the 2MPx requirements, the bad crop, low quality and apparent distortion of the left photograph. Sting (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the illustration of the difference between a photographic reality and a painted reality is exciting. GerardM (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer others above.--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small picture - 0.83 Mp only, but at least 2 Mp request. Bad crop and distorted proportion photo (compare with uploaded before photo). Idea and painting is nice, but this candidate has no chance. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ???? and per Sting. W.S. 01:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Photograph: See my previous vote on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Narcisa 0012.JPG. Painting: The stamens look flat, shadows should be added to increase depth.--Snaevar (talk) 09:18, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Narcissus reality and painting montage-CN.jpg --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better than first. Thank you kaʁstn -- Angel 19:10 3 May 2011
Question for both: Why did you paint a white flower yellow? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because yellow is my favourite colour. You mustn't paint the reality. Colours mean sentiments. Angel (talk) 19:39 4 May 2011
I withdraw my nomination I put another picture Angel (talk) 17:27 9 May 2011

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Nymphenburg in München.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 15:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately not so sharp as could be, the ratio of the diagonals are not that harmonic in my eyes, moreover. the building on the right is sadly truncated --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking sharpness, bad composition (should include the whole building).--Snaevar (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wladyslaw and Snaevar. --ELEKHH^T 01:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lörrach-St. Peter - Nordostansicht-2010-08-09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 09:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice -- Raghith (talk) 01:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somewhat overexposed and lacking sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 11:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No issue, really, but no wow either. - Benh (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As in KEB. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wehranlage Grosshesselohe XL.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 01:01:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Richard Bartz - - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice Raghith (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Sharpening over-processed, leaving a bright fringe along the top of the trees on the half-right of the image. This specific area should be corrected first. Sting (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sting is correct, sharpening has been overdone. Still a pretty nice photo though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Yeah, a nice photo but a bit boring imo. Going against my own rules, we expect some magic from Richard. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, it provides a very nice overview of the area, well framed, interesting. (And we should apply same standards to all :)--ELEKHH^T 07:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bergwolf (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Georgez (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood, composition and lighting, but per Sting. I don't think it's oversharpened, but I think sky was processed separately (I tried this several times, so I know how it ends up) - Benh (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pixelpeeperism.  Richard  [®]  20:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carefulreviewism. Why not trying to address the issue instead of counter criticising ? - Benh (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Cuba Bus 2.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 11:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hastdutoene - uploaded by Hastdutoene - nominated by Hastdutoene -- Hastdutoene (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hastdutoene (talk) 11:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too small, noisy, no wow. Tomer T (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need culturally relevant pictures. We already have far too many bug and flower pictures.Thelmadatter (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is below the size requirements.W.S. 19:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the FPX because there is already support from a non-nominator. --99of9 (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it was added after my FPX!. W.S. 21:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Low technical quality, no supporting details in caption. However, I will say it's an interesting image! —Ynhockey (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition and somewhat unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per above. I don't understand the point of Thelmadatter. We do need culturally relevant pictures in Commons, as well as bug and flower pictures. But FPC has nothing to do with it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neve Sha'anan - bus boarding platforms to Tel Aviv Central Bus Station.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 15:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Roi Boshi - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nominated again after stitchting errors were fixed. Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose contre-jour, poor crop at bottom --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unrealistic and useless curve of the building, I don't "understand" this picture, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not an unrealistic curve. It's the actual structure of the building. Tomer T (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 17:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Surely not nice. Sometimes the uglyness of the subject transmits interesting aesthetical and/or social messages, but I see nothing of that sort here. As for the distortion of the building, I agree with Jebulon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I think it could be a quality image, but the distortion of the building and the crop just don't convince me enough for FP support. --Ximonic (talk) 22:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject and composition do not seem FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the picture was geolocated, one could locate the building on a satellite view and that would settle the case of "is the building really curved or is it distorted". Unfortunately, I didn't manage to locate this building nearby the Bus Station... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added geotag. I hope it can help. Tomer T (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The backlight is too obvious. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it can pass. I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, good quality! --Christoph Michels (talk) 08:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:20110419 Church of Redeemer Collage Ani Turkey.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 May 2011 at 00:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 00:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I made a collage of two images (different view) for higher EV when it is used in wikipedia. This image is from Ani. Ggia (talk) 00:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Is the angle of the building on my right correct? Inb4 "it's different than I'm used to and I'm not creative so {{oppose}}" -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 01:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when you mean angle, what do you mean? both images are shot using 50mm lens. Ggia (talk) 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean that the image of the building on the right seems tilted slightly to the side more than the one on the left. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok. I will check it. thanks for the note. Ggia (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad collage. I don't like big black borders and it's disturbing because the hozions are on different heights, so imo it's more disturbing. Imo it would be better in two single images, in an article you can use e.g. Template:Double image or make two thumbs. I understand you idea with two images in a candidature of one subject, I think it's a good idea. Maybe a featured picture set nomination is better. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I like the borders, I like the clean division they make. Anyone with mspaint and an ounce of computer know-how could throw two pictures together but here it suggests to me that an effort was really made to ensure than everything is even and proportionate. I think it looks professional, it reminds me of a postcard. Also when looking at one picture the eye is definitely not confused or disturbed by a sudden seam in the sky. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question can I nominate as FPC two images using the template that you mentioned? I didn't know about that. If it is ok to upload two different version and nominate them I could do it. Ggia (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportNice image -- Raghith (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info new version uploaded with less black borders and fixing the little tilt of the horizon. Ggia (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative version edit

Church of Redeemer, Ani, Turkey.

Info the same two images using double image template. Is it possible to nominate at FPC images in this way, avoiding making a collage of them? Ggia (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To me the pictures are all right. Also really interesting, much because of the good quality. --Ximonic (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support either one, both are good. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose – I thought about it a long time. Now I oppose again, sorry. Lighting is very good, quality is good, too. The idea is also superb with makes high EV. My problem is the composition: the framing is too tight to me. And I'm really sorry that I have to oppose here :( --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think with the current system it would be possible to nominate a set, IMO try to nominate both of them separately and maybe upload a slightly wider crop if available. ■ MMXX ^talk 20:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, set nominations are allowed. They're even discussed in detail in the rules directly above (at FPC). --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support set Oh! I just see the rules! ■ MMXX ^talk 17:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scheibenschlagen in Zams.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 12:04:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Josef Saurwein - uploaded by Josef Saurwein - nominated by ProloSozz -- ProloSozz (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ProloSozz (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Ugly posterized ground. Sting (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this image... --Llorenzi (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabanid July 2010-2b.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 10:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tabanid fly (Haematopota pseudolusitanica) in a mountaneous area of Portugal. The females are voraceous blood-suckers, attacking large mammals, including men. Notice the scissor-like mouth parts, used to cut the skin and draw blood. Second try, after some image improvement (here). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk)
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's only half the battle. I like the illumination, but I'am not pleased by the quality (dof, crispness, composition) compared to the very small image size.  Richard  [®] 
Neutral OK quality, but not fantastic quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I am spoiled, but I have to agree with Richard. The eyes have an intriguing coloration though - they look scary. --Slaunger (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are spoiled, especially by that newbie who voted after me! Instead of playing the role of bad guy he should come back and try to show how to do better. But maybe he can't do it any more ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the legend has lost his touch :p --Muhammad (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - :-) have a little patience  Richard  [®]  15:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What a shame, he seemed so talented when he was younger! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blurry back end. Also, but not as a reason for the oppose vote, I would like a larger resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Museo sobre prehistoria.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 19:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolutiuon is well below 2Mpixels. --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2011 (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:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-14.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 18:58:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Image -- Raghith (talk) 05:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting, bad background.--Claus (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the background is bad. The insect could be drinking (that's how they do it, through moist earth) so it might be showing the creatures natural behavior. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad lightning.--Snaevar (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeper Snaevar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-04-25-lepidoptera-hunawihr-11.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 18:57:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -Raghith (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Chaotic composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That brown pot in the background kills it. --ELEKHH^T 07:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Confusion between subject and background --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sundial 2r.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:06:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A sundial is a device that measures time by the position of the Sun. Created by flickr user liz west - uploaded and nominated by raghith -- aghith (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This sundial ,located at "The Healing Garden" which is an organization in Harvard, Massachusetts, that provides a variety of services to families touched by cancer. -- aghith (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 06:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Normally I would object to the shadow, but seeing how that is the whole point of a sundial ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nice but nothing special, no wow for a FPC. Sting (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeToo tight crop at bottom.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- To tight crop, unfortunate background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jithindop (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --Avenue (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination -- aghith 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaja (Corvus monedula).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 17:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jackdaw (Corvus monedula) in a nowadays natural habitat. Created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- V-wolf (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- Raghith (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only concern is the background; it is rather distracting from the main subject. Can it be blurred more? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if I accept that this is now its natural habitat, the background is a clear aesthetic distraction here: too many things coincide and clash right near the bird's head. --99of9 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Unfortunate tight framing and background. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Don Edwards Refuge April 2011 panorama.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:12:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info A four-segment panorama of La Riviere Marsh in Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge on a beautiful day.
Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image -- Raghith (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Some dust spots in the sky (not the airplane or the birds). Sting (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dust spots removed. (I uploaded directly over the old file since there's no point in comparing which one is superior.) If any more remain, please annotate, because I can't find any more. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Technically so-so (a bit dark, washed out and soft) but the subject and composition lacks excitment. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice pano, but I don't see the FP component of this image. On a side note, the image is generally soft. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lünersee Saulakopf.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 21:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by alex.vonbun - uploaded by alex.vonbun - nominated by alex.vonbun -- alex.vonbun (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- alex.vonbun (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drittelregel: etwas oben vom Himmel sollte noch abgeschnitten werden. So wirkt die Komposition unausgewogen. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not as good as File:Lünersee vom Saulakopf 1.JPG which is already featured. --ELEKHH^T 01:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not as good as the current FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is there any official rule saying that a current FP candidate has to be better than an already promoted image of the same subject? I agree that the aforementioned image is better than this candidate, but this one looks FP to me too. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Featured picture candidates are images that the community will vote on, to determine whether or not they will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons." (my emphasis). It depends on how you interpret this: if the other image is the finest for this subject, than this one is not the finest IMO. It is also a question if is worth highlighting two (or more) very similar images of the same subject or not. --ELEKHH^T 10:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition not perfect, too dark + ack. Elekhh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerosol spray top luxrender (with numbers).png, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 09:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Valuable image -- Raghith (talk) 09:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Flow-Layout composition. Simply not that what i would to expect an featured picture. I'd prefer an arrangement in a cube. --Llez (talk) 10:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At least call it a GroupLayout instead of Flow-Layout ;-) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As it is not possible to me to present a better arrangement within an appropriate time, I change to * Support and hope, that other voters will do the same in similar circumstances ;-) --Llez (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Haha! All hail the golden rule of cube! The picture is clear and has a good quality. --Ximonic (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  17:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Schnobby (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But could be better with a multilingual caption.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Oberaargletscher from Oberaar, 2010 07.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 16:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Oberaargletscher (glacier), Bern, Switzerland in 2010 July -- Ximonic (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ --Very nice and dramatic mood, ~~but the manual color balance is off, much too yellow~~. I propose here an edited version which reveals also a photograph richer in colors for the rocks. Sting (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A good point and also the edited picture is quite good, but... For real, the color in the moment wasn't so blueish. Actually the sunlight made the glacier and snow more like a little light brownish because of the cloud layers and the angle of light through humid air. Other fact is that the light in the landscape was a little brighter, so on purpose I took the photograph with somewhat darker exposure (to give it the mood). In any case, I won't oppose the edited version either if people took it easier with that one. --Ximonic (talk) 17:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edit, though still a little too warm for my taste. Sting (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support for this new version of May, 5. Sting (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- It could be an excellent photo with a little more of light, color and contrast. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm... I tried some changes with the light. Might it be better or worse? One can revert if it was better before. --Ximonic (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ oversharpened, too brownish imo --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hehe. Well, i started to make it all over again from the original file. It's a little (or quite a) different from the previous version. If you people think, it has only gotten worse, please revert. Otherwise, let's try this way. --Ximonic (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Hmm , it feels some what different -- aghith 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Bergwolf (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support new version. --Avenue (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. But first version has better colors -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be honest, I agree with you about the colors. But it looks like the majority would sleep better if the colors were these. It may be quite important =) --Ximonic (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please, add translation to annotations. "Oberaargletscher" - "Oberaar Glacier", etc. -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Traduction dans quelle langue ? En français ? Oberaargletscher and Oberaarsee are related to names of categories in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done – sort of, atleast. I didn't quickly find the other names for the lake so I just add (lake). And so I add the English translation for the glacier itself. --Ximonic (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poeke Kasteel R02.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2011 at 19:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice image, but I find a perspective showing more of the surrounding landscape would be more impressive (1, 2). --ELEKHH^T 01:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Raghith (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness, so the artwork on the house can be seen a bit better.--Snaevar (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lack of sharpness? I dont see any problems with sharpness over here. --Jovian Eye _talk 13:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --A bit soft too imo. May gain from a little sharpening, made with precaution to avoid fringing. Sting (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jovian Eye _talk 01:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support who photopraphs with a DSLR should know that there's nothing too soft. Nice light, quality and composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Strumyk w dolinie Tatrzanskiej.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 10:52:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kate Gibek - uploaded by Kate Gibek - nominated by Kate Gibek -- KatePmr (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- KatePmr (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ??--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support the image , but size does matter -- aghith 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hazy. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose As for me it is nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the sun light in the background... --Llorenzi (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sundial in Dinand.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 09:15:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is your third active nomination. Voting on two of your nominations ends on 11 may 2011.--Snaevar (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]
FPD removed due to a withdrawn image from Llorenzi.--Snaevar (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Funivia rifugio Torino - P.ta Helbronner (2).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 10:06:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Stefano Massa - uploaded by Stefano Massa - nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy and unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose... and some CA. Probable FPX I'm afraid.--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support -- aghith 17:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Poor image quality. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image quality, noisy sky. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CarnivalHuejotzingo2011early.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 16:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Thelmadatter - nominated and...
... Supported by PETER WEIS TALK 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW great Tomer T (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nice snapshot but not special enough for FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great picture depicting real life culture. I love it. GerardM (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufficient quality not mitigated by topic. W.S. 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unfortunately well below FP quality: framing is poor (look at the sky, the lower left corner, or random right edge). --ELEKHH^T 23:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and bad compostion.--Snaevar (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you provide more information on the description? What are zapadores, why are they special, why do they symbolize Mexican culture? The picture is OK but has no meaning to me because of the lack of background information. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

here you go on Sappers in general. dunno what they exact meaning is in the context of that festival. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info I wrote about the Huejotzingo Carnival here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huejotzingo#Carnival Thelmadatter (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Weil am Rhein - Dreiländerbrücke10.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 09:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support there are some lighting problems, but they are insignficant imo considering the overall quality. Tomer T (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  15:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Topp. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the process. The way in which it holds together opposites: light and dark. -- aghith 17:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know it is probably unavoidable, but the left part is very very noisy... Is it improvable ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that this picture is very noisy. It was shoot with ISO 100 and the size was reduced. But I will look if I could optimize it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the noise there is not significant. But I have tried to reduced it. Better? --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for improvements. FP, anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tornato 11.09.05 003.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 18:30:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Bäck to de.wikipedia - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as an FP. It's grainy and unclear, but of course given the conditions this is practically unavoidable. The image has significant educational value, illustrating an amazingly well-formed waterspout unobscured by rain. For that reason, I would rather see this as a valued picture, since it's probably the best shot of a waterspout we have. That said, the composition is unsatisfactory, at least for an FP. The horizon is highlighted oddly, and awkwardly intersects the top of the boat. Also, the wake of the boat funnels the eye's attention toward the vessel, detracting from the waterspout itself. As an aside, the title should be made less cryptic, but that's an easy fix. Overall, not a bad nom, but just not the right venue for this particular file. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Wise comments from Juliancolton, and all in all I trust him enough that I think I'll take his suggestion and retry this at valued pictures if I can get valued image criteria 5 sorted out (which may be very problematic). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is impressive picture. I'd like to support it. Pity that you withdraw nomination. --Lošmi (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell you what, since it seems that at least you would support (meaning others might too), after I attempt VI, I'll bring it back here and notify you when I re-nominate it. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bowling Balls Beach 2 edit.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 03:48:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mila Zinkova - uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Mono -- theMONO 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- theMONO 03:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 09:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The original of this file is already featured, see File:Bowling Balls Beach 2.jpg!! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Can´t see any reason to support an edited version of an allready featured image.--Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination theMONO 00:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana iguana in la manzanilla.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 02:33:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taken in its natural habitat. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support adipoLi -- aghith 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the cutted of tail and the disturbing foregound spoils it imo... But a nice photograph for such a difficult motive and maybe a QI. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts of the body are covered... --Llorenzi (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ kaʁstn & Llorenzi: I find your oppose votes rather "curious". This image is about the iguana and its habitat. Iguanas live in mangroves, and mangroves are very thick vegetation, that provide cover and camouflage for many species [[2]]. To make out the iguanas in this case, and distinguish them from their environment is the objective, easily done by taking advantage of shallow dof of telephoto lenses, however, finding the iguanas is another thing. They hide! So to say that either the foreground is disturbing is odd, for the foreground is part of the natural scene, you will have plants before, alongside and behind the subject. In the case, it gives the image depth. To say that parts of the body are covered, well, of course! Some parts will always be! If I wanted a picture of an uncovered iguana, a studio shot would be called for, but alas! No habitat! This link will take you to the mangrove where this iguana lives… find it! [[3]]. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too bright, poor composition. Tomer T (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor composition? It's a lizard that climbed a tree! :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Too bright? hardly, look at the histogram, your monitor may be off. Poor composition? Would you care to elaborate? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) It's funny you got the notion the problem is in my monitor. If it was the problem, I'd have to oppose every other picture as well for being too bright, wouldn't I? 2) The compostion issues were elaborated before, and you even cared to provied a long explanation to contradict these comments. I think FP should be something special. I don't find this one illustrative enough, because of the cut off and covered parts, and I don't find it impressive enough, as for the distracting motives. It' a great picture otherwise (can be QI and maybe even VI imo), but not enough for FP imo. Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1) Brightness: well, download the image into photoshop or any program that will give you a histogram. Data is data, and data wise, it is not a bright image. Zone-system wise, the gray scale is nicely distributed. This is a quantitative issue. 2) Composition wise, if you don´t like it, you don´t like it, with that, I am ok. And thanks for your review! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your clarification concerning the brightness. Tomer T (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Natural colours, sharp (especially the head), captured within the natural environment. I know how difficult it is to frame these 'long' reptiles. --Cayambe (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose only because of the messy composition - Benh (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 11:38:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by nguyenqcdt - uploaded by Dalat - nominated by fig--Fig (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Fig (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is much too small, has watermark, the building is completely deformed and is HDR-style far too over-processed. Sting (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2011 (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:Spider on the flower.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 20:27:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kate Gibek - uploaded by Kate Gibek - nominated by Kate Gibek -- KatePmr (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- KatePmr (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I see another picture, but I don't see a spider, nor a flower. W.S. 23:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2011 (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: poor quality --Tomer T (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2011 (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:Bainingsfiredancer.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 07:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Taro Taylor - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHH^T 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ELEKHH^T 07:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No way other than support, nice image -- aghith 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fire strongly overexposed, not very nice shadow from flash. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Niabot, looks like plastic fire. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very cool effect. "Overexposed fire"? Really? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A very good example, that fire doesn't need to be overexposed: File:Fire breathing 2 Luc Viatour.jpg -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess the histogram is just a liar then. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A histogram often lies. Just because it's not suitable to show all defects inside images. It's a very strong simplification that misses some important facts. Try to create a plot with a vectorscope or a waveform diagram. Both are able to tell you the story of an image in a much better way. But in this case even the histogram shows the issue. You will find a strong peak on the right. The result of clipping higher values, creating many #ffffff. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...The histogram also showed clipping in the image you claim is superior to this one also, and it should. Half of what fire is is light, it doesn't make sense to claim that a fire in a picture is overexposed more than it would make sense to say the Sun is too hot or water is too wet - it's seems to me just to be an excuse for an oppose. Anyway, you can look at the image and clearly see that many different temperature regions in the fire are shown. If it was really overexposed I might expect to see the entire thing as a ball of yellowish white. A different filter might've masked some of the brightness of the light though and I wonder if perhaps you're seeing white because of the auto white balance. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        The color value #ffffff is pure white. How should it be something else? Even the sun can be filmed without overexposure. That is not an argument. Did i also mention the harsh flashlight shadows? Oh, yes i did. That are two good reason to oppose. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special, not good for FP. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crocodylus acutus in La Manzanilla.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 20:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully ugly beasts. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In an ideal world I think the light and colours could have been more vivid, but I find it strongly mitigating that this photo is taken in the wild. Surely, one of your best croc photos. I like the simple composition. I enjoyed following the teeth in full resolution and how they nicely fit together. I also enjoyed noticing the small damages to some of the teeth and other imperfections from use in a harsh world. Well done! I would recommend geocoding it, adds value. --Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slaunger, thanks for your support and comments. Regarding colors, there were not many. There were two light conditions, the background was the mangrove and the top branches made it a dark area. The crocs go into the water as soon as they feel the boat approach (you can see one in the dark background, and I got this one just outside the tree cover, hence the dark background, for exposure was done for the near croc, we are talking about 3 stops difference. Otherwise the greens would have come out nicely. On the other hand, the crocs are basically b&w! So in short, two light conditions and a naturally occuring scene without colors. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas, thanks for the explanation of the circumstances. I understand. --Slaunger (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cephas (talk) 21:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Especially compelling composition. Steven Walling 23:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be a bit crisper, but it is one of your best yet. W.S. 00:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- aghith 05:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good.  Richard  [®]  13:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautifully ugly beasts. :-) --mathias K 15:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, but ugly. But nice.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 17:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely one of your best croc photos. --Lošmi (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one is good. --ELEKHH^T 12:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive. --Avenue (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laeliocattleya Gold Digger 'Butter Cup'.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 00:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laeliocattleya Gold Digger

Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image -- aghith 05:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp (specially the flower on the left) and the very dark background kills the FP potential of this image IMO. I see you stopped down the lens to f/11, but still the DoF is not enough for the subject. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Murdockcrc.--Snaevar (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mittenwalder Höhenweg.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 20:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bergwolf - uploaded by Bergwolf - nominated by Bergwolf -- Bergwolf (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator-- Bergwolf (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compo doesn't cut it for me: a 'little' rocky hill obscuring the mountainous landscape. Moreover not sharp. W.S. 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Add source information to the image page, please.--Snaevar (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, and the composition isn't fantastic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mono Lake from Mount Dana.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 16:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hike395 - uploaded by Hike395 - nominated by Ain92 -- Ain92 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope that slight blur and hardly noticeable vignetting is are not a problem. The lake is notable because of arsenic extremophile bacterias en:GFAJ-1. Ain92 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its fine. -- aghith 17:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a fine photo but not good enough for FP. Atmospheric conditions were not the best making the piture hazy and undetailed. I don't like the too symmetrical composition either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Bergwolf (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The hazy atmosphere makes the picture look boring. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Haze and cut off lake. bamse (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of aerial perspective.--Snaevar (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the biggest reason to oppose is the crop of the lake. If only the lake had more space both on its left and right side I would probably support. --Ximonic (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parc de Versailles, Bassin de Flore, Jean-Baptiste Tuby (1672-79) 07.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 22:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Coyau -- Coyau (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coyau (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- aghith 05:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lady, nice background --Schnobby (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tight composition does not seem FP to me. Otherwise great picture, good background and sharp. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA little tight composition, but very good image. --BastienM (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good for FP. ■ MMXX ^talk 20:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Harsh ligting and poor framing. I don't like the background either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the risk of sounding repetitive, I agree completely with Alvesgaspar here. --Avenue (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sincerely I don't like the non-symmetric prospective...--Llorenzi (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The stain on the statue's left eye disturbs me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality. --Thesupermat (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition is okay for me ~Pyb 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good composition, good light ! Trizek ^{here or on fr:wp} 13:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good quality. Manuel Menal (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support. too bad there's bird sh*t in her eye tho. DarkoNeko 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although I would have preferred a more symmetric prospective. The droppings on the eye aren't a problem. [[User:Elfix] 16:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Split - Harbormaster's office and boats.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 18:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 04:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Snaevar--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Striped bass FWS 1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 May 2011 at 13:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Knepp, Timothy - uploaded by Neil916 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rare -- aghith 17:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should be cropped and signature removed. W.S. 17:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--Citron (talk) 08:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. W.S. 11:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, cut 1/4 the image off just to spite the artist, real sensible. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 03:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The question is: who is the artist? I can't find informations regarding the artist.  Richard  [®]  16:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice ! --BastienM (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an ”artist” myself I just can't resist to support this! Nicely done --Ximonic (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Dedizione religiosa.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 May 2011 at 21:48:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chtamina - uploaded by Chtamina - nominated by Micione -- Micione (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Micione (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting elements (flowers and a hand) and a bad compostion (the whole statue of Jesus on the cross is more useful).--Snaevar (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment But the hand is the subject (with feet), not a distracting element. Flowers covering, adorning, but not distracting. Is technically excellent and imho very artistic. Good crop, too. --Micione (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice-- aghith 05:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quite far from being technically excellent. Messy composition, random framing, poor lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. --Murdockcrc (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. Tomer T (talk) 09:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the subject in this? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The caress (or kiss; however affection, devotion) - I think. --Micione (talk) 10:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - little illustrative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Meteora.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 14:38:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Angel
Support View from Meteora -- Angel
Oppose The sky is blown and it is too hazy, not to mention posterized and noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Largely blown sky. --Cayambe (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, haze. --Slaunger (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness along with some flaws discovered trough the histogram, Overexposed and lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its natural, I like it. -- aghith 05:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per other --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad framing (bottom). --ELEKHH^T 12:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Angel (talk) 15:55 14 May 2011

File:Belfort-Pano-1.jpg, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 12:20:10

Info Created, uploaded and nominated for FP by ComputerHotline (Original nomination)

The image contains several stitching errors (see annotations on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belfort-Pano-1.jpg), some of them obvious, which spoil the general quality of this panorama and make that imo it doesn't deserve the label until these problems are corrected. I previously contacted the author asking him to make the corrections but he answered he couldn't. I'm also surprised that in the nomination votes nobody noticed those errors.

Delist -- Sting (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I really, really like this pic and would immediately vote for it, but the stitching problems (errors, curved horizon) are arguing against my positive vote. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I afraid I have to agree. Stitching problems are always quite an issue for a FP... --Ximonic (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. W.S. 23:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beilstein BW 0.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 12:06:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view, but for a panorama lacking sharpness, partial CA --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, along with some chromatic aberration. The bottom left corner is in focus, though.--Snaevar (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry, but the focus error around the middle part of the picture is unfortunate. A little if not so disturbing things are those ... ”things” on the left and right lower corners which could be cropped out. The view itself is quite awesome! --Ximonic (talk) 11:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very, very nice, but it really needs a restitch --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gadmental, 2010 July 2.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 15:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Yet another panoramic landscape. This time of a valley called Gadmental in the vicinity of Sustenpass, Bern, Switzerland, taken in 2010 July. The weather brought by lowered air pressure gives its own interesting impression. Still, I would be happy when I saw a similar panorama of the same place with a sunny weather. Created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic -- Ximonic (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great contrast between the clouds and the landscape.--Snaevar (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well taken Ximonic. -- aghith 16:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well taken indeed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good as thumb, but details are lacking in full size (especially in the front), possibly due to overprocessing. W.S. 11:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, it did not happen from the processing though. It was because of the lack of light right there (compared to the somewhat bright albeit cloudy sky). And because the photos of the panorama were exposed keeping an eye on to not to overexpose the sky, the foreground obviously got darker, and has now somewhat less information than the actual bright parts (This is not a HDR picture!). Later the lightness has been fixed a little. I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done about it, even if it doesn't disturb me that much. --Ximonic (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful view. -- Azeri (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libellula quadrimaculata qtl2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 20:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Top view of a Four-spotted Chaser. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hmm, Nice -- aghith 05:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great at full resolution. --Cayambe (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad to support also as FPC --Llez (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty good! --mathias K 15:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well focused. W.S. 18:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, love the wings. --Avenue (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tiger beetle Lophyra sp..jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 11:07:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Back legs are out of focus, still support -- 59.90.80.83 11:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC). Please log in too vote. W.S. 11:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many blurry areas --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 16:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --F. Lamiot (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. I know how hard it is to take a good photograph of this animal.  Richard  [®]  16:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly dislike the GFDL-1.2 only license, which makes image reuse very unpractical. Decreases the practical value of an otherwise excellent photo. What a shame. --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many non-focus areas (e.g. the back legs, and the "tail")--Llorenzi (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF is shallow, but I guess it's unavoidable (I've tried little macro photo... ) - Benh (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work with a nice composition. I like the blurry background, DOF is little small but imo enough! --mathias K 18:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of focus on all of subject. (Normally wouldn't bother me, but the bar for bug photos is pretty high.) Steven Walling 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Belfry monastery Panormitis.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 May 2011 at 23:40:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the painted belfry of the orthodox monastery (18th century) dedicated to the archangel Michaël in Panormitis, on the Dodecanese island of Symi, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Needs a perspective distortion correction. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done before uploading, more would deform the subject. Please notice that the photographer was not in front of the tower bell.--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice Jebulon. -- aghith 05:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice overall quality, interesting subject, but I think the light is too dull/flat, and I do not like the white cloud background. They give an odd color mixture in the photo in my opinion. I am not too convinced about the composition either - here we are again - it does not really catch my eye as a feature-worthy photo. --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Building is not covered completly --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Could you please explain what do you mean exactly ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness. Also, it´s questionable if the top part of the tower has some jpg artifacts.--Snaevar (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrus hrušeň 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 21:14:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too many parts blurred. Bad lighting, bad framing.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry leaves.--Snaevar (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luchsfliege Thereva sp 01 (MK).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 18:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by -- mathias K 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a female Thereva sp. -- mathias K 18:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent macro. Like in the one below, I'm curious about the lighting and exposure solution. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The early bird gets the worm :-) Look at the dew. I dare say he went there with rubber boots at 06.00 o'clock in the morning (blue hour), tripod, remote trigger, mirror lockup, focus rail ... just to name a few.  Richard  [®]  00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What should I say? The guy knows what he's talking about! ;-) Everything's right, except the focus rail, sadly I don't have one yet! EXIF: f/9 at ISO400 and 1/15 sec --mathias K 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Barely Support Good quality & illumination. Background -> imo there is to much space for rent :-) Comp.Angle -> backward tilt mostly looks awkward. Regards  Richard  [®]  00:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good Mathias . -- aghith 04:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've uploaded a new version with a little colour correction. Please check if you (still) like it. Regards mathias K 08:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although maybe too noisy. I tiny amount of softening would help it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm really, really sorry, but the ID of this fly was wrong! It is a fly from the Therevidae family. Known as stiletto flies. The only thing I was right with was the sex. I've allready ask for a renaming. Please be sorry for this fault of mine, it won't happen again. I promise! Regards mathias K 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carschten. --mathias K 17:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Azeri (talk) 14:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Crown of King Ferdinand I de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen,Carol I and King Mihai.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 09:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Angel -- Angel (talk
Support The original crown of Carol I of Romania. The next kings who wore it are Ferdinand I de Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen and Michael of Romania. The crown was created in 1881 and it is made of steel. Now, the crown is in the National Museum of Romanian History. -- Angel (talk

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: low quality: too dark at places, too bright at places, grainy all over Tomer T (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2011 (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:Ncolae Grigorescu (1860).JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 12:53:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Angel (talk)
Support Nicolae Grigorescu - one of the most famous painters of Romania - at age 22. -- Angel (talk)
Oppose not a very good scan. Tomer T (talk) 13:26, 14 May 2011 (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 a very low quality scan Tomer T (talk) 09:48, 15 May 2011 (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:Nymphaea from Balchik Palace 2.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 14:48:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploded and nominated by Angel -- ANgel (talk)
Support Nymphaea from Balchik Palace. -- Angel (talk)
Support Its nice Angel. -- aghith 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the harsh lighting. - Benh (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- ANgel (talk) 12:34 15 May 2011

Image:Canadair (27).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 14:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 14:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not good for FP. ■ MMXX ^talk 17:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any specific reason it's not good for FP? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - nothing special in this image, quality is not good too... not an FP at all! ■ MMXX ^talk 18:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fire and plain should have occupied a much larger fraction of the photo for this to catch the eye. This one has point-and-shoot character. The topic in itself is interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and underexposed. Unfortunately the picture looks a bit like a snapshot.--Snaevar (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to made it a bit better: File:Canadair (27)-CN.JPG. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tintoretto - La Resurrezione.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 15:04:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by M0tty - uploaded by M0tty - nominated by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M0tty (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose low quality. Tomer T (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2011 (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 low quality Tomer T (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Why low quality ? This picture is in high resolution and the colors are realist. I dont understand. --M0tty (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The colors were messed up in the scan; Too many blurry and unclear areas. Tomer T (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asperitas inquinata penidae 01.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 06:55:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 07:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 08:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The mouth of the shell lacks sharpness, as seen both on the picture in the top line-up to the right and the bottom line-up to the right.--Snaevar (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you mean the border of the mouth, I think it is sharp, or do you mean the the inner side? Inside the mouth the outer colours shine through and you have the impression of unsharpness, but it is the reality, which is depicted (this often occurs in thin shells). As the shell outside the mouth is sharp at the same level, it can't be unsharpness in the inner side. Sorry, that nature not always shows clear, sharp lines. --Llez (talk) 05:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Snaevar. W.S. 06:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Canadair (18).JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 12:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 12:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumified head IMG 0515.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 22:00:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mumified male head. The face is partially covered with gold or electrum. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Eyecatching, good light, colors, composition and overall quality. --Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great Tomer T (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was to nominate it...--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) Too dark, 2) crop is too tight on the right. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightened now, and the crop on the right is still a wee bit tight, but still good enough for me to Support. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. -- aghith 07:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ with current crop, easily fixable though. --Avenue (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support much better now. --Avenue (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral too dark, but easy to fix --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Right and left side of the mummified head lack sharpness. --Snaevar (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  13:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Left side is badly cropped (cut out) and it is to dark. (dark in dark) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good job on the improvements. Azeri (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Pink salmon FWS.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 20:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Timothy Knepp - uploaded by Viridiflavus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportSupport Citron. -- aghith 11:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice painting. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and illustrative. --Ximonic (talk) 13:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great illustration. Steven Walling 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very interesting illustration. Azeri (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Robinhunicke 240x160 August2009.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 May 2011 at 19:58:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlie Chu - uploaded by Chrisbelldesign - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX ^talk 19:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 19:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A pretty good portrait of a notable female game designer/producer. Refreshing topic. I like the expression on her face, which is caught in a good moment. Good light. A tad too soft for my taste, and I think a portrait format may have been more adequate (but I am not sure) — the crop of the hair seems a little awkward. --Slaunger (talk) 21:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice bokeh, good dof, composition is okay, expression is outstanding. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support depite of the tight crop. Tomer T (talk) 22:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maybe a bit too extreme for my taste (the shallow dof and framing) but a very attractive portrait anyway. We need good photos of people as FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Sorry, I don't understand why exactly...--Jebulon (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why we need more FP of people? Because there are too few imo. I remember discussing this subject here some time ago and the idea was that the assessments are much harsher on people photos than on the other themes. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for answering. Maybe you're right about much harsher assessments, but I'm not convinced by the need of more people pictures...--Jebulon (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with Alvesgaspar. --Avenue (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically impressive, slightly unconventional. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad background because of an akin hair color and it's disturbing in general, very noisy, too short DOF, head poorly cut off at top (--> limited EV), ... I'm surprised about so many supports --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questionable crop at the top but the resolution and technicality compensates fully for it, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am not sure if this image needs some white balancing or these colors are natural.. but the portrait is nice aesthetically. Ggia (talk) 18:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop. W.S. 18:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice face, but crop. Przykuta → [edit] 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Vagon metro Neva obkatka v depo (4).JPG, not featured edit

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karel - uploaded by Karel - nominated by Karel --Karel (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Some parts unsharp --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a good composition Tomer T (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, lacking sharpness and bad crop to the left and right.--Snaevar (talk) 20:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop on both sides, really busy and distracting foreground / background, strange glowing essence (or maybe it's just unsharpness) and clockwise tilt. Sorry. --Ximonic (talk) 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ritzelpaket 01 KMJ.jpg, delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 19:08:46 (UTC)

Info very small, harsh flashing light, pixelated transitions between object and background, very tight crop. (Original nomination)
Delist --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Agreed - especially concerning the size and somewhat the tight crop, although a tightly cropped version on white background can be of value when embedded online in, e.g., a wikipedia article. --Slaunger (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist too small --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I don't see any mitigating reason for the too small size. (Picture of 2006, maybe ?)--Jebulon (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Very small file size. --Cayambe (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Indeed very small. --Jovian Eye _talk 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and I dare to guess, no one is going to wonder why. --Ximonic (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hakaniemen metroasema 2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 12:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 12:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 12:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice image, but it really needs a train. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Surely not, in my opinion. Very good job, I think.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Von.grzanka (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in Kallerna's style --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good but not quite excellent. Could use some tweaking with sharpness and exposure, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, light and sharpness don't convince me. --Christoph Michels (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, ugly pavement in the front could have been avoided. --ELEKHH^T 12:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much ugly foreground. --Avenue (talk) 02:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Rosa rosa-rossa.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 13:40:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded and nominated by Stefano Massa -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 13:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SteGrifo27 (tell me) 13:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parts too blurry and too narrow framing. Caption nonexistent. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing extraordinary nor eye-catching, and far from perfection technically (DoF, tight crop...)--Jebulon (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jebulon --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clearly I don´t see the flaws that above oppose votes mention.--Snaevar (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is your third active nomination.--Snaevar (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zonotrichia albicollis CT1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 19:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours and adorable bird. It'd like to paint it. Angel (talk) 23:11 8 May 2011
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressed -- aghith 06:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Would also be a good VIC --Llez (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad composition (branch in background), I'm also not sure if the eye is focussed --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kiran Gopi (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Ximonic (talk) 10:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look below... --Ximonic (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support You might have cloned away the front branch, but still good enough (quality, wow) for FP. W.S. 14:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Avenue (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Done Per some others the branch was a little disturbing. I removed the poor evil from the picture, I hope no one is going to attack me for this. If the nominator disagrees, please revert! :DD Okay, I'm going to support it now. Cheers! --Ximonic (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RoyalPalaceGarden Sofia 4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 10:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice . -- aghith 10:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not interesting, bad framing. ■ MMXX ^talk 16:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting foreground elements obstructing view to subject. --Slaunger (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support quality a bit weak but interesting and useful subject --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 12:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Slaunger. --Llorenzi (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Falco naumanni back.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 11:02:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Common Kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) is a bird of prey species belonging to the kestrel group of the falcon family Falconidae. created by Flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Lesser Kestrel (Falco naumanni) is a small falcon. -- aghith 11:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice resolution, but the focuspoint is at the wrong place (should be on the eyes) and the centered composition is also a little boring... --mathias K 16:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop... ■ MMXX ^talk 08:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mathias K.--Snaevar (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question There is another picture of Common kestrel featured. Can both pictures be featured? ~ ☭Acodered (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I think the rule just say that two variants of the same photo cannot be featured. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, the DOF is too short, making the head blurry. Also, composition is not ideal - it needs to follow the rule of thirds; give it less space behind and and more in front. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I withdraw my nomination -- aghith 06:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Römerberg Frankfurt abends.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 May 2011 at 21:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Wolf im Wald 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf im Wald 21:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well done. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Photography is an art . As art forms, each is a product of the artist's imagination and taste . I support. -- aghith 06:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 07:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ein sehr, sehr ordentliches Bild. Schärfe ist gut, kein nennenswertes Rauschen. Licht, na ja, blaue Stunde natürlich perfekt abgepasst. Aber dennoch vielleicht etwas spät, einige überbelichtete/aufgefressene Stellen und vor allem an den Dächern unterbelichtete Bereiche sind vorhanden. Der Himmel hat natürlich auch was, mit seiner deutlichen Bewegungsunschärfe, dennoch ist es ein bisschen viel obenherum, da würde ich persönlich etwas abschneiden. Ganz gerade stehen die Gebäude auch nicht, da sind noch minimale stürzende Linien vorhanden. Größtenteils beruht mein Contra jedoch auf den Geistern. Ja, ich weiß, du kannst da nur unwesentlich etwas dafür und an für sich stören mich diese Ghosts fast nie; in diesem Bild sind sie ziemlich extrem und auch ziemlich störend sowie verwirrend, sorry. Aber ich bin mir sicher, dass dieses Bild hier auch trotz meines Contras exzellent wird... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Was ist above geschrieben is very interessant, because it is a very careful review. Aber ich bin nicht sicher that everybody is able to verstehen. Vielleicht something in english could help other reviewers, Vielen Dank in advance... !--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wie kaʁstn. Especially the too prominent ghosts disturb the image. W.S. 19:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The review by kaʁstn is exemplary: detailed, balanced and correct - but perhaps a little bit too severe though. For me, only the two persons in front of the fountain are really disturbing: they are spoiling the image. Nevertheless, for the general quality I'd like to support this FP candidate. -- MJJR (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Je trouve ce ciel de très mauvais goût. -- Jamain (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed. Steven Walling 23:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very difficult for a photographer. But the result was an unnatural side. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the sky and mood. Most of the time, ghosts will be an issue on busy places like this - Benh (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh! --mathias K 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 12:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nicolas17 (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Its very artistic. Azeri (talk) 14:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Benh. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedagogical College of Da Lat 12.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 11:35:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diane Selwyn - uploaded by Dalat - nominated by fig--Fig (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Fig (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much light, particularly on the tower, on the same side as the rest of the building and oh, bad crop on the left aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several problems: Needs perspective correction, the texture on the roof and walls look odd - as if excessive noise reduction or smoothing has been done to reduce noise after trying to postcorrect a too low exposure (it appears to be confirmed by the file upload history)? On top of that I do not find the photo particularly eye-catching. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Noisy sky, over-processed building, the deformations look to me coming from the lens 9or from post-processing). Plus boring picture. Sting (talk) 22:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eclairs2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 11:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas Bresson - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it Tomer. -- aghith 17:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magnificent lightning display.-- Theda (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition and WB. W.S. 18:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor WB.--Snaevar (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brugge Pottenmakersstraat R02.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 May 2011 at 19:34:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 05:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice example of onroerend erfgoed. I added some information to the image. I hope to see a lot of these good images at Wiki Loves Monuments! Multichill (talk) 19:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support W.S. 18:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow effect... --Llorenzi (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slavia-litex-13-5-2011.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 19:42:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moment of the football match Slavia Sofia - Litex Lovech Bulgaria, ended 0-1.

Info created by Biser Todorov - uploaded by Biser Todorov - nominated by Biser Todorov -- Biser Todorov (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Biser Todorov (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It is a good action shot caught in a good moment. There is some color noise and a little motion blur, but I think that is acceptable and OK for this kind of shot. I like how the tattoos on both players are seen. However, I do not think landscape is the right format for what is going on here — should have been portrait in my opinion. In landscape, there is a lot of space "wasted" and as a consequence the composition gets centered, which I do not like in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Per Slaunger, plus chromatic noise in the background and colour balance completely off. Sting (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T (talk) 09:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Movement blur and somewhat overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Esquadrilha da fumaça em evolucao 2007.JPG edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 04:34:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Borowskki
Comment To nominate an image you just use the textarea found in the rules.-- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. Tomer T (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the original image has been upscaled beyond reason, leading to a very very low picture quality. Sting (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2011 (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:GrannyNearTheRiver'10.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 13:00:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

x300px|This is high quality image, as well as it has been captured by low performance camera (Nikon COOLPIX S210 - tourist camera). Picture has a good composition and very good sharpness.

Info created by Alex Lukić - uploaded by Alex Lukić - nominated by Alex Lukić Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aleksa Lukic (talk) 13:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for submitting your holiday snapshots. Unfortunately, such a picture has no chance to be promoted as a Featured Picture, for a variety of reasons : subject too dark, blown sky, strong chromatic aberration leading to purple or blue fringing, tilted horizon, bad crop (too tight at the top and bottom)... Sorry if that sounds harsh. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:14, 18 May 2011 (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: For the reasons Maurilbert stated. In addition, no ev... Tomer T (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2011 (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:Luchsfliege Thereva sp 02 (MK).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 18:40:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by -- mathias K 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support a male Thereva sp. -- mathias K 18:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment white balance needs a fixing (too green) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
no WB, the green channel was too saturated. But anyway, thank you. --mathias K 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent macro! I'm curious about the exposure choice and light source... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice illumination & good stacking. For my taste the background is a tad to distracting. Keep up the good work. Regards  Richard  [®]  00:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've corrected the colours a little by desaturating the green chanel a bit. Please check the new version. --mathias K 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Alves: The picture is a result of 7 singelshots taken with f/8 at ISO100 and 1/2sec exposure time for every single picture. The lighting was, as always at my macros, just available light. Greetings mathias K 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sudden blurriness in the left foreground seems unpleasant. This afflicts the the end of one leg, too. Most of the fly itself is very nice, though. --Avenue (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I'm really, really sorry, but the ID of this fly was wrong! It is a fly from the Therevidae family. Known as stiletto flies. The only thing I was right with was the sex. I've allready ask for a renaming. Please be sorry for this fault of mine, it won't happen again. I promise! Regards mathias K 13:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carschten. --mathias K 17:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ~So good it gives me the creeps. Azeri (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VLT Cerro Paranal Total Lunar Eclipse 21 December 2010.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 18:21:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yuri Beletsky - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info view from Cerro Paranal during the total lunar eclipse of 21 December 2010.
Support as nominator Originalwana (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC) Per Elekhh and Niabot. Steven Walling 22:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good -- aghith 04:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 08:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This version already featured --ELEKHH^T 12:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't need to feature two images from the same motive, showing the same. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not the same as 360-degree Panorama of the Southern Sky. It was taken on a different date (over a year later) during a lunar eclipse. It is also of a different part of the sky, from a different perspective. However it is from the same location in Chile. Originalwana (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anyway they look very similar...--Llorenzi (talk) 15:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Niabot. --Karelj (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eurasian Spoonbill.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 May 2011 at 14:50:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was to support, but I've seen some (minor)issues visible at high resolution, all correctible. Please see annotations. Not far from FP, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have upload a new version. Merops (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice --Lošmi (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good -- aghith 04:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sharp -- Theda (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Cephas (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, but in this case I would have preferred not have it uploaded on top of a different image. --ELEKHH^T 12:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the first image is nice too and deserve to be shown. --Cephas (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 18:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The result looks OK, but there are some weird things going on in the histogram. What noise reduction did you use (if any)? I would have liked to see the whole reflection as well. And also per ELEKHH^T. W.S. 11:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose focus not on the eye, water reflection poorly cutted off --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. I wish reflection was complete. ■ MMXX ^talk 14:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't need reflection, I don't need kitsh ;) Good photo of the object. Przykuta → [edit] 16:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Crop will be better for the composition IMHO. Przykuta → [edit] 16:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer crop suggested by Przykuta though. --Avenue (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gorilla gorilla gorilla on a rock.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 09:10:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This picture was taken at Rotterdam Zoo in Rotterdam(Netherlands) . The western lowland gorilla is the smallest subspecies of gorilla. created by Flickr user Tim Sträter - uploaded and nominated by Raghith -- aghith 09:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture was taken at Rotterdam Zoo in Rotterdam(Netherlands) . -- aghith 09:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing spectacular about an animal in an unnatural environment in a Rotterdam zoo (should be indicated on the description anyway). 23:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)W.S.
- Done Description change -- aghith 08:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Its a nice pictures but I like the first version more. Azeri (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Raghith 08:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2K12 KUB radiolocator.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 12:09:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Chmee2 (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --SteGrifo27 (tell me) 12:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject (the tank) has movement blur at the front and back.--Snaevar (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar. Tomer T (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tank is blurred --Kiran Gopi (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braunauer Eisenbahnbrücke.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 18:22:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Richard Bartz - uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's from Richard Bartz, but that's pretty much all here for me. - Benh (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Picture cut in half, should follow rule of thirds in this one. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 05:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Centered composition, no wow. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose good photographic quality, but the subject which is not exceptional --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good sharpness and exposure, but the perspective and compostion are not upto standards IMO. I would like to see both ends of the bridge on this pic.--Snaevar (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 14:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plioplatecarpus 01.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 18:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice Tomer T (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but no "wow effect". -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC) PS: Please use dithering for such gradients. Otherwise you will have banding with 24 bit colors. Dithering can easily be achieved with a spread filter (GIMP) or something similar in PS or other software, if applied to the background.[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 09:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- "Wow." Clever composition choice. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but I agree that the colour banding is a problem. --Avenue (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWow effect.--Jebulon (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now wow?! Are we looking at the same thing? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Has wow enough, but poor lighting/quality of the fossil. Also banding is debilitating the image. W.S. 14:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Very interesting picture but technically poor (lighting, background). Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My vote won't change anything, but the subject is very dark on the head, and the background is "posterized" (banding issue mentioned). Nothing that can't be fixed I think. - Benh (talk) 17:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Maersk Elba.JPG, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:21:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did notice that we have very few FPs of big ships (and two of those are wrecks...), so I uploaded this picture, taken today. I don't think it's perfect (there is a very slight loss of sharpness towards the stern of the ship), but after comparing it with other maritime FPs I believe it lives up to our standards. If I omitted something, please, do let me know. Additional information: this is the biggest vessel ever to have entered the Baltic Sea. Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good -- aghith 09:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. Very informative, especially for an extremely landlocked person such as myself. Could use a geocode. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment At your service. Wolf (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit tight crop but featurable IMO --Ximonic (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Am I the only one then who sees the slight CC tilt, the CA and the fuzziness (especially at the right side)? Also the crop is too tight. A static object like this should be better. W.S. 14:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have to admit I can't see much CA. I agree about the rest though. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mainly for the tight crop, but also the slight tilt and unsharpness. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the image fot tilt. It's about 0,1 degrees, but clockwise, not counterclockwise as Wetenschatje suggests. And as for the tight crop - it is not tight, it is just too tight as for the Commons bias in this respect. There is for example a style of cropping called the aircraft spotters' crop (see here, website in Polish, but you will surely recognize the word spotterski). According to this school the crop of this picture would be... to loose. Wolf (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed I meant clockwise, not CC. W.S. 19:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is tight! I guess it makes sense if all you care about is the plane, and not any context. --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As above it is of course not just the tilt (which, BTW I measured at .78°), but the combination of tilt, crop, blurriness and indeed a slight CA. W.S. 15:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's exactly my point: what additional information would be conceived by making a wider crop? Wolf (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Space. Crop should ideally be proportionate to the size of the main object (which is fairly large here). And even with a non moving vessel (or car or plane or train or anything movable), space ahead should ideally be larger than space behind. W.S. 15:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pheucticus ludovicianus CT.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 23:27:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 04:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose color noise, eye definitely not in focus, head a bit blurry, blown out white. This one is obvious not featured, sorry --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. W.S. 23:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ringelnatter, Natrix natrix mit Teichmolch 3.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 May 2011 at 21:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Eine Ringelnatter (Natrix natrix) verspeist einen Teichmolch (Triturus vulgaris).
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Umnik (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting subject, but part of the picture is out of focus --Llorenzi (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting. -- aghith 09:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose subject not in focus. ■ MMXX ^talk 09:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much light. The main subject is the salamander, so the lack of focus on the snake is a minor reason, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate crop/DOF. W.S. 23:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Variante edit

Comment This is better. -- aghith 09:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this one. The part which was out of focus is not so much a problem anymore in my opinion. The subject catches my eye better in this crop. --Ximonic (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting picture. Azeri (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- An interesting and possibly valuable picture, though no explanation is provided on what is going on. But not good enough, especially on the technical side (lighting, framing, focus), to reach FP level. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absolutely agree with Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Avenue (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:USA 10638 Bryce Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 03:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Luca Galuzzi (Lucag) - uploaded by Luca Galuzzi (Lucag) - nominated by Mono -- theMONO 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- theMONO 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- aghith 09:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wonderful! --Ximonic (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please add the geolocation of it? Thanks --Llorenzi (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous color. Steven Walling 22:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor wb, quality and sky --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a Luca Galuzzi™ all right, but per kaʁstn. W.S. 22:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best of Luca Galuzzi. Poor lighting as well IMO. - Benh (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poor lighting how? Seems most others like it. theMONO 00:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess 'most others' weren't around when Luca presented his finest... W.S. 06:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was W.S. ? --Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit flat IMO. I don't know how it was processed because it believe I see drop shadow, but on the other hand, areas lit, and areas in the shadow appear even, hence my comment on lighting. Anyways, Luca did good job, but he has better than that in his gallery (most of them featured a long tile ago) ). Also, most other = not me. Don't be ashamed not to think like most. - Benh (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great combination of colors and high quality, not to mention the beauty. Azeri (talk) 21:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per kaʁstn and Benh, especially the sky. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious CA on the left part of the image. Downsampled too? --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Newtons cradle animation.ogv, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 11:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info See description page for further explainations.
Support -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one is better. I don't see a reason for two animations that describe the exact same thing, to be featured. (In addition, this animation stuck my computer twice) Tomer T (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The FP picture that Tomer T mentioned is better than this one IMO, as the shadow of the frame is seen better and the book it stands on does help to make it look visually better.--Snaevar (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Impossible. As energy is lost, each oscillation should be a bit smaller than the previous until the system comes to rest. In this animation all oscillations are equal. A perfect Perpetuum mobile! --Llez (talk) 06:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it illustrates a simplified model, which is good. Having dissipation in this movie would unnecessarily complicate things and after all, quoting wikipedia: "Newton's cradle ... is a device that demonstrates conservation of momentum and energy", which this movie does. Not sure about the quality of the animation, and I would also like to see animations with 2, 3 or 4 balls moving at any time. Especially the case of 3 and 4 balls could be interesting as it is a bit surprising at first and could make the watcher want to learn more about it. bamse (talk) 06:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taj-Mahal-Mosquee-Cooper.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 12:25:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Laurent COOPER - uploaded by Laurent COOPER - nominated by Laurent COOPER -- Swirly (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Swirly (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- aghith 16:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor white balance, underexposed and shadow areas are noisy.--Snaevar (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture is too grainy for me even if I like the composition. --Ximonic (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ximonic. Seems like oversharpened effect, but I can't tell for sure... --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great composition, earthy colors, misty feel about it, but I think that "mistiness" is more a strange softness of the temple, like it's ever so slightly out of focus. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Veiled head woman Rhodes.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 07:01:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jebulon - nominated by Raghith -- aghith 07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Veiled head for insertion in a female statue. The nose, the back of the head and a section near the right ear were affixed. Marble. 2nd century BCE. Archaeological museum of Rhodes, Greece. -- aghith 07:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special (from photographic point of view), and poor quality. - Benh (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring composition. Tomer T (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to the nominator, which I am not...--Jebulon (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:18th Aggressor Squadron - F-16C 86-0351.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 03:29:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by bwmoll3 - nominated by bwmoll3 -- Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too small. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 09:26, 19 May 2011 (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: noisy and too small. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:05, 19 May 2011 (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.

Maybe try it on EN? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hawthorn Building2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 20:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jack.OSull - uploaded by Jack.OSull - nominated by Jack.OSull -- Jack.OSull (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Jack.OSull (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not enough edits on Commons account to vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only 0,78 Megapixels in resolution which is too small given the minium resolution for FPC pictures of 2 Megapixels.--Snaevar (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition isn't great, there's too much sky, could use perspective control, if at least a little, doesn't have any wow factor. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:29, 21 May 2011 (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: does not meet the 2 Mpixel size guideline and has point and shoot composition. --Slaunger (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2011 (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:Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) in flight, from above.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 14:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by - Avenue (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Indeed. Wow background.--Jebulon (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 14:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The no-eyeness bothers indeed. Tomer T (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose omg... ~~too~~ small ~~(didn't even pass the 2 MP minimum size requirement)~~, poor white balance, centered composition, poor details (e.g. at some feathers; does this poor bird has eyes?), soft, ... Yeah, it's a nice image, but really not featured --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Concerning the size requirement, it is 2030730 pixels, which implies it does not fall below the recommended minimum resolution. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment you're right, sorry. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No problem, I actually tend to agree with your overall conclusion, although I have not completely made up my mind.... --Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes Nice. -- aghith 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Carschten. bamse (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kaʁstn. W.S. 22:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as kaʁstn. --Llorenzi (talk) 10:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness, poor white balance and finally the missing eyes that Carschten mentioned.--Snaevar (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Kiran Gopi (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small, very soft, and I don't like the fact that it's taken from behind. - Benh (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe the bird likes it that way ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- As above. I deslike the "caged" animal too. Where is its eye, by the way? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The eye isn't really visible from this angle, but it lies in the darker area at the base of its beak. --Avenue (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I expected it to be visible in the black part in the base of the beak, but such part doesn't appear in the photo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The head is tilted so that the dark part is not at all prominent, but I can see it. The eyes do not protrude, so it's not surprising to me that they're not visible here. Compare e.g. File:Australasian Gannet greeting mate.jpg, where out of seven birds, it is difficult to see the eyes of three or four of them (although admittedly one is hiding its eye behind another bird). --Avenue (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Cool! "Small?" No, it is 2MP and, uh, looks like the thing's got enough space to breath to me. ;-) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}})
Support It has wow. --Lošmi (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin Kongresshalle BW 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 09:48:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not like the somewhat hard shadow due to the photo being taken at 2.30 pm. How about doing such a shot later in the evening, or will other shadows interfere? I like how the contrails, which are there by coincidence help frame the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a short business trip to Berlin and I used the time too get some pictures. So I don't know if there are better times to get photographs of the Kongresshalle. I looked for the best view at the given time. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Thanks for the honest reply. For me an FP of buildings has a lot to do with timing to get the right light, and I do not think that is achieved here - it is too harsh. The good thing about buildings is that they tend to stay there for some time, which gives lots of possibilities to get near-optimal shots. --Slaunger (talk) 18:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose For the shadows. Can be a QI but not a FP imo. Tomer T (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support classical architectural lines --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Curved wrench.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 21:11:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo of a boring subject. ;-) Steven Walling 22:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good -- aghith 05:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF to low, lightning bad: the shadows are to dark. Sorry for me not a FP. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree to Alchemist-hp, not good enough for a studio shot --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting approach, but I agree: bad lighting, too shallow DOF, noisy --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support DOF could have been better. But I really like the unusual subject, the no nonsense composition, which is very eye-catching. The light helps illustrating the structure of the surface of the tool. I do not mind the somewhat noisy background, which have been noticed by other reviewers as well. In this case — for me — it adds a feeling of texture and roughness to the photo, well fitting for a worn tool. For me this photo transforms an everyday object, which I would normally see as "boring" into something very interesting. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Slaunger. A picture of a worn tool, out of context, gets somewhat surreal and eerie. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very nice and bit abstract picture in my opinion. very nice composition, lighting, colour ... - Benh (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per Steven Walling -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- not per Steven Walling, also surely nothing women will sympathize with. Best greetings from the Gendergap mailing list. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is your reason for opposing supposed to be a joke, a point, or an oppose just to distance yourself from another user? --Slaunger (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm also a little disappointed by the DOF, but aesthetically it's excellent, and I love the lighting. --99of9 (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise on the background, and especially very limited interest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's noise, I think that's just what the surfacetop looks like. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dowel-animation.ogv, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 08:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by censorship anticipating user Niabot -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Die Bohrung ist zu groß, so ein Plastedübel wird erheblich stärker verformt. Auch die Wirkung des Verdrehschutzes wird nicht ganz deutlich. Ansonsten sehr anschaulich gemacht. -- smial (talk) 09:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC) Schade, wesentliche Mängel nicht beseitigt, deshalb jetzt kontra. -- smial (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ☭Acodered (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 10:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: what else? W.S. 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In my opinion it seems not complete... --Llorenzi (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multi purpose dowel

Comment There are many kinds of wall plugs, but I think that for most kinds (at least the ones i use at home :-)) there is an additional point in the fixture - that as you continue turning the screw the plug is contracting forming a bulge, which further helps fix it in the wall. I think the animation could be improved by adding that aspect of the process. --Slaunger (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are speaking of a different type of dowel and therefore should be made another animation, as it works different. -- smial (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, yes. But in that case I really think the animation should show more clearly that a tight fit in the hole is typically needed for this kind of wall plug, as otherwise it will simply not mount properly as noted by Sting and Prolineserver below. It is a very illustrative and instructive photo montage of the multipurpose plug you have there by the way, smial. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And also I cannot see when the plug is expanding due to the entrance of the screw...--Llorenzi (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –Very well made and fluid but some points are disturbing me: the end of the hole doesn't have an ogive shape but is conic, secondly and for the efficiency of the mounting, the dowel should enter the hole slightly by force while we see that there's space between both, so when the screw enters the dewclaws (is it the correct term?) are deformed. Here we see they enter in contact with the wall but we don't feel the force applied. Sting (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas 12:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Slaunger on this one.--Snaevar (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and good illustration of this tool. Which software was used to create it? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I used Blender for this animation (modelling, animation and rendering). For still images i used Blender for modelling and YafaRay or LuxRender for rendering. (LuxRender is best, but to slow for animations with no/low budget) -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 23:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice illustration. Tomer T (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, certainly a very illustrative animation. However, everybody who ever tried to tighten a screw into a dowel with a too big hole know that the dowel will just turn. In the animation the only part touching the wall are the two side anchors. However, those will only have enough force to hold the dowel at around 0:13 in the animation, but the dowel will start turning already at around 0:11s. The hole usually has the best size if one barely manages to push the dowel into the hole with the fingers. Try it out :) --Prolineserver (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportGood animation, fluid and accurate. Azeri (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice animation, but I think a tighter fit in the hole is needed to make it more realistic. I would be happy to support if such an adjustment is made. --Slaunger (talk) 15:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not realistic enough. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I usually try to refrain my contributions to natural and urban landscapes, but this animation looks fantastic! --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deformation much stronger in reality --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Haflinger Hengstfohlen 1.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 18:35:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Haflinger Hengstfohlen all by -- Böhringer (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose To much objects on the second plan. Przykuta → [edit] 16:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but the other horse's behind is a bit too distracting ... -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed. The butt seems to be positioned by following the golden rule of thirds. Nice horse in front of it though. --Ximonic (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm affected by the butt as well. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 18:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Henry Clay Lafosse2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 May 2011 at 18:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lafosse - uploaded by Jujutacular - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 06:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hadn't looked at FPC in a while and a nice surprise! Jujutacular ^talk 20:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special portrait, dirt, too yellow-brownish and contrastless for my taste --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per kaʁstn Disk/Cat -- Georgez (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ON - Algonquin Provincial Park - Blüte.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 08:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah Nice -- aghith 08:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop & no wow factors--Citron (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in spite of the crop. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sadhu at Muktinath.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 12:43:40 (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) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is a legal problem. Can't see the permission from the depicted person itself to be photographed and published. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've paid him 10 rupees for this photo! :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope you have still the paycheck. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not because of legal issues, but because of quality issues. Tomer T (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed --Snaevar (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Have to agree, the lighting isn't up to par. Too bright and too dark. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:České Budějovice (Budweis) - footbridge over railway tracks.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 May 2011 at 15:02:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011 Egyptian Protests Cardboard in the Chinese Language.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 12:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Essam Sharaf - uploaded by Essam Sharaf - nominated by Essam Sharaf -- Essam Sharaf (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Essam Sharaf (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2011 (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 tight crop. Tomer T (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2011 (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:Antheraea yamamai - caterpillar 02 (HS).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 20:44:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Hsuepfle -- Hsuepfle (talk) 20:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The edges of the caterpillar to the right and bottom along with the hairs of it lack sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Isn't this the equivalent of a "sunset"? They all look the same, so something really needs to make it stand out. The image itself is fine, but nothing outstanding. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bug January 2008-2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 23:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alvesgaspar - uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like the back of the beetle is in focus, but the eyes, and the main areas of the image aren't. Incorrect DOF. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 12:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, lacking contrast and unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 19:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because of the comments here and after realising that the bar for bug images is higher than I thought following the nomination here. Tomer T (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jurgis Kairys Su-31 Góraszka 3.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 17:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Wolf (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Poetic interpretation: a tiny masterpiece of man against the infinite vastness of heavens. Wolf (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't really clear what angle it was taken from. Tomer T (talk) 09:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd guess that the camera was aimed about 60 degrees upwards, but right now I can only guess. So the plane would have its wings aligned roughly vertically at the moment. Wolf (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose polarized sky.--Snaevar (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That's not a polarized sky... did you see the original upload? Someone really tweaked the heck out of this image. Cool picture, but overkill on the saturated colors. Make it a little more realistic, and I could easily make my vote a support : ) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 18:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mariovska Nosija.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 15:15:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wonderful group portrait. Will support if you put description on image page. Since it is an ethnic-related photograph, the information is important. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added English description in the file page.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special here. So they wear an ethnical outfit... and? Tomer T (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only one to think the white balance is completely off ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness as seen on the headwear and bad white balance.--Snaevar (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality on the poor side, agree with Tomer and Snaever. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alvesgaspar--shizhao (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raftsundet panorama 3, 2010 09.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 May 2011 at 14:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Ximonic --Ximonic (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Autumn at Raftsundet, Lofoten archipelago, Nordland, Norway. Landscapes behind the corner...
Support --Ximonic (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent view, great colors. Azeri (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor crop at right --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the reason why I already suggested 3 different crops. The widest version I can make is the original one (Alternative 2 in this case). From that one, anyone can suggest and tell about better crops that one has in mind. --Ximonic (talk) 15:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overexposed and to the left is a lack of sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I did some little changes. Hope they helped somewhat. --Ximonic (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. Nice colors and composition (the best of the three). But still a bit too bright in my opinion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Should I reduce the overall brightness in the image or just some parts? I think, the light should not be reduced too much but maybe just a little(?) --Ximonic (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, what I find too bright is the colorfull right part. Maybe an overall brightness reduction will do. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support now, as I realize you already did it. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) --Ximonic (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this image a result of HDR-processing? I am asking because there is a bright band in the sky following the mountain contour. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good point. I've thought about it but you „picked the cat up on the table” (as we used to say here in Finland :D ). I carefully tried to darken the band, I hope it doesn't look so aggresssive now. The panorama stitch consists of ordinary single shots so It hasn't met any true HDR processing. --Ximonic (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the sky may get brighter towards the horizon, there may be haze over the hills, but this bright band from post processing looks/looked unnatural to me.--KlausFoehl (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Stryn (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose oversaturated and low quality. All is not natural --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too cluttered (tree at left, herbiage obscuring reflections of mountains in centre). Also some quality issues as above. --Avenue (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1 edit

Info Another crop --Ximonic (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 2 edit

Info Yet another crop --Ximonic (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The road on the right adds a special value to this picture, like a 'nature and mankind coexistence'. Azeri (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I deslike the extreme panoramas and this one is no exception. The road also seems a foreign element in this bucolic scene. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the man-made+natural gradient and that the road doesn't demand too much attention. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Usually the road leads into the center as a way of drawing the viewer's eyes, so I'm not sure why I like this composition, but I do. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup, the composition is a bit audacious. Yet in this case the main priority, why I took it like this, is the information value. This picture tells all that's essential of the place. The crops are more like just aesthetic. --Ximonic (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is the best. I dont know really why, because the road isnt leading into the picture. But maybe because the road adds a sense of scale to the picture. --Simonizer (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support The road "into" the landscape is cliché—albeit a very nice kind of cliché. But here, the road was leading you into the landscape, and now real life hits, and hits you hard, and you're swept away from it. This version, of the ones available here, is by far the best and actually tells a story. Brilliant photography, great job. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 18:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting composition overcomes some defects in the details. --Avenue (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Raftsundet_panorama,_2010_09.jpg

File:Attacus atlas qtl1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 17:05:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An Atlas Moth (a live animal). Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 17:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done even for a studio shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it might look like it, but it's not a studio shot. The butterfly happened to be hanging at that wall and I happened to pass under it (admittedly, looking for butterflies) ;-). I climbed onto a bench and held my camera above my head to capture it that way. --Quartl (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support First I searched for a needle, the I read the text... Compliment --Llez (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Impressive. Azeri (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 15:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --Avenue (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose - I don't like the background. I think a black or green one would be nicer to the eye. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the background is neutral and I'm not going to color it. But I've uploaded a slightly brighter version in which the background is maybe less disturbing to File:Attacus atlas qtl1b.jpg. Would this version be acceptable to you? --Quartl (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, I would like the brighter background more. This greyish white / lavender wall makes the picture feel somewhat coldish. --Ximonic (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sorry but the background is a boring, ugly shade of grey to me which clashes with most of the animal and only matches the same bland grey in it and the other one looks very similar. Furthermore if I hadn't read that it was still alive I would've thought it was mounted; looks like something from an insect collector's shelf. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do understand your concerns and the background is a bit bland, but that makes the beauty of the moth stand out even more ;-). Nevertheless, I replaced the image with the brighter version, which I also think is better. --Quartl (talk) 07:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support When a picture is nice, it´s nice...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC) ;o)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fiorellino (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Azerbajiani landscape - Another version.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 May 2011 at 14:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created by Matthew Hadley (nickname diff_sky) - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Azeri -- Azeri (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Azeri (talk) 14:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looking good ;) --Ximonic (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Same excellent composition, much better contrast and colours. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 22:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:51, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 07:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's small, and on top of that, the quality is soso, but I like the colours and composition - Benh (talk) 10:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support featured composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Soso quality renders unfeaturable. W.S. 14:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please say what is wrong with the quality (e.g. white balance is wrong, noisy, etc.)? Saying, "bad quality, it cannot be featured" is no more helpful than saying, "I hate it". --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you add geocodes and info about summits? And cut this man from the photo? It is "lovely" postcard now. Przykuta → [edit] 16:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partly Done: I add a couple of summits and coordinates after a while of searching. If you know there is something to correct, please do so. --Ximonic (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is just great --Alakbaroff (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks dramatic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would like to know in which rayon this valley is situated. The coordinates don't help me finding it, but its needed for a categorization by rayon. --Don-kun (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The valley is located in the Quba Rayon , but I dont understand what you mean by categorization. Azeri (talk) 11:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is for the same purpose as the subdivisional categorization in other countries. Like these examples of Switzerland: Category:Subdivisions of Switzerland / Category:Cantons of Switzerland / Category:Canton of Valais. Just another way to search the images. --Ximonic (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Oke I understand, thanks. I adjusted the categorization to Quba and Xınalıq. Azeri (talk) 09:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture. --Stryn (talk) 16:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Simonizer (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fishing Lake Ohrid.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 09:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Raso mk - nominated by Kiril Simeonovski -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- All sunsets are pretty and this one is not special enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see this all the time in a drive through town past the river. Regarding technique, it's almost a textbook shot of the Rule of Thirds, but the subject material isn't anything I've never seen before. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 12:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking value.--Snaevar (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 991kb, too small--shizhao (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chocolate truffle - Delacre.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 12:34:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- M0tty (talk) 12:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition (for FP) IMO. I think you have to buy a truffle next time, and choose a better background in order to get a FP.--Ankara (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't tell where the focus is, the whole image seems kind of soft. I agree with Ankara, next time a truffle or two should be "modeled" on a nice background. The styrofoam is not a pleasant presentation for food. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:36, 22 May 2011 (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 poor image quality and composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (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:Composition of three green bourgeois .jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 11:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Alex Lukić Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aleksa Lukic (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image may or may not be useful in a fir (?) article, but the house/greenhouse/manmade wall in the background is not a nice backdrop. The image description is "pleasant picture... because of nice, green color", which makes me think you're looking for critique, not really trying to add anything to the actual encyclopedia. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not looking for a critic, but I think the combination of pleasant and useful is good. This is good image and can surely contribute to the Wikipedia, and therefore I've inserted in the article about fir. Aleksa Lukic (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you update the description in the image so it's less of an opinion and more about what's going on in the image? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 15:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes. Is it now OK? Aleksa Lukic (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very distracting background. --Slaunger (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the composition is confusing and the background distracting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2011 (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:Canada Goose Standing.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 03:25:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Jovianeye -- Jovian Eye _talk 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jovian Eye _talk 03:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 06:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose centered boring composition, no wow - Benh (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depends how you want to look at it. The body and the eye are along the line of thirds, so if you're a fan of the rule of thirds, that might help. IMO, it has enough wow as some FPs of birds that commons has like File:Ardea_alba4.jpg, File:Domestic_Goose.jpg and File:Graugans_Anser_Anser.jpg. --Jovian Eye _talk 13:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Benh. And commenting on your comment: I might support your last example as it has good light and interesting DOF, while the other two would not pass today any more for the same reasons as this current nom. W.S. 13:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - composition is very good (from non-artictic (kitsch)-but-must-be-realistically-useful-for-an-educational-purpose POV), but legs... Przykuta → [edit] 15:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking sharpness and the picture should be eather with good DOF or blurry background. Going midway, like this picture does is not working IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- A good, but somewhat basic image. I think the lighting's a bit off, the bird seems a tad greyer where it should likely be white. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Sorry, it is a good picture of the bird but somehow I don't find it special enough. The composition is good for me, quality is good in full size. But as a whole, it kind of keeps me feeling like it's ”just another picture of a bird in a garden”. There are many great pictures of different animals and in this kind of case, I think I would have liked more if the background was more blurred – not so focused. --Ximonic (talk) 15:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Ximonic--shizhao (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Beuggen Gesamtansicht2.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 06:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 06:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 07:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky lacks contrast and lighting is a bit harsh. I think it's a bit overexposed. I'm not thrilled overall. - Benh (talk)

We already know that you nearly find your own pictures thrilling. The time of constructive contibuting of Benh seems to be completed. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how when I talk about the picture itself, you only talk about the reviewER himself. Is this how much you have to say abour the pic ? - Benh (talk) 13:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny to realize that your type of giving feedback to my images here at FPC is following every time the same meaningless argument of "no wow". But this behavior attracted attention also by other users. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do I care about my behaviour getting attracted by some users ? As long as I say what I think, and I don't insult others. I'm justifying enough my point of view. It's clear most of your pictures are properly taken, but that isn't enough. If you submit ur pics in the hope to get only positive reviews, then you should leave. I stop here on that topic. Let's get back to the pics. - Benh (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't submit picture to get only positive reviews - contary many negative reviews was more usefull than positive for me. Of course they has to be constructive. I have already remarked to the quality of your reviews. Have a nice day. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Basically as Benh. Bad lighting, bad colors. Appears to be taken around noon. bamse (talk) 11:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral There is a little dustspot at the top left corner - would be easily removed. Otherwise, I'm sorry, but the time of the day makes it have too much contrast. The shadows are really dark compared to the bright surfaces. The picture has a really good quality but that only makes it a quality image which it already is and deserve to be. I'm not really sure if the contrast could be helped by working with layers in photoshop and carefully adjust the lightning that way. --Ximonic (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much light.--Snaevar (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC) although I don't like the comments on the reviews[reply]
Oppose per Benh. W.S. 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too light--shizhao (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011. День Победы в Донецке 030.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 08:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Soviet war veteran honoured in Victory Day in Donetsk(Ukraine) 2011. created and uploaded by Butko - nominated by Raghith -- Raghith 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Soviet war veteran honoured in Victory Day in Donetsk(Ukraine) 2011. -- Raghith 08:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- He has a face that speaks a story. Very nice photo. Azeri (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Living history and magnificant.--Mile (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Sorry, but some information is obviously needed about the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- Raghith 17:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor DOF: the people in the background are much too prominent rendering the whole image cluttered. W.S. 11:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think crowd is needed in this photograph, (as it is a Victory Day celebration), to explain the mood. -- Raghith 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have no idea who this is or what he's doing. I think in this case, the image definitely fails the foreground/background separation. Although the actual composition of the man is fine, I'm not a fan of the noisy and distracting "border": the barriers, the people, the trees sprouting from his hat, etc. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 12:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ■ MMXX ^talk 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of DOF per W.S. and a bad crop to the right.--Snaevar (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- Raghith 05:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antarctica Nathaniel B Palmer.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 18:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eli Duke - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor white balance, overexposed and lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The "poor white balance" is nothing more than golden hour light. I like the colors and composition. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, the lighting conditions are excellent and WB is alright. However, the subject is very unsharp, especially the front of the vessel. Could there be a problem with the camera/lens? I mention this because the left part of the image is much softer than the rest of it. Fantastic composition, but the unsharpness kills it for me as a FP candidate. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Murdock, the ship is soft. I also feel like the composition is a little too reliant on the reflection. Back of the ship gets busy with the background. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and good composition but the technical quality is not good enough. I do not think you can get it so much better with a 8MP point-and-shoot camera.--Ankara (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Murdock--shizhao (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lacerta agilis male 2011 G2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 20:07:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Male sand lizard become bright green at mating season. It is small animal, head length this one ~17 mm only. Photo taken in wild.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good portrait! Only problem is that the eyebrow is slightly out of focus. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Snaevar (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Looks really good, nice details and definitly wow effect. Azeri (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- aghith 05:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really sharp enough where it matters (most of the head). W.S. 06:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wonderful colors, but my issues are the soft eyes, the slightly awkward composition, and there isn't enough separation between the head and the rock. The nose of the lizard gets confused with the shape of the rock. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Taj-Mahal Mosque-Cooper.jpg

File:On the edge - free world version.jpg, not delisted edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 21:38:27

Info Of quite doubtful educational value. It is not obvious why a "figure in manga style" has to be a naked woman with naive/suggestive face, tightly closed legs and big breasts and what she has to do with fictional landscape. Also don't think that image subject is totally irrelevant here and great usage of GIMP, Inkscape and Blender can be used to justify keeping it. If I were to make a photo of, say, hanged Mary the Elephant while taking care of smallest photographic intricacies, I don't think my image could get featured based on the "great camera work, subject irrelevant" argument. Ari Linn (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC) (Original nomination)[reply]

~~Delist~~ -- Ari Linn (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 11:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No way my fault - the delisting template automatically lists nominator's voice for "Delist". And I think it's logical. I've proposed it for delisting after all, should my voice be excluded for the sole reason I've been not greatly interested in working with images all done not in my native language but at the same time managed to stay active in wikipedia for 5 years and write articles? Ari Linn (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ask Alvesgaspar. He has a strong opinion on that. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 17:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Restoring my vote - now I have those 50 edits and can vote as any regular user. Ari Linn (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account at the time of the delist proposal. W.S. 23:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but nothing in the rules refers to the 'time of the delist proposal'. What if Ari Linn had voted now for th first time? I have restored the vote, which is obvioulsy valid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure? The General rules simply state, "Only registered contributors whose Commons' accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote." Ari Linn fulfils that requirement. She has been a registered contributor in Commons since 2008, and she has more than 50 edits. --JN466 23:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm male. And yeah, I also don't find anything in the rules that prevents me from voting once I've reached 50 edits while voting period is not over. So restoring my vote for the 3rd time: ~~Delist~~ . Ari Linn (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the gender mix-up. :) --JN466 23:51, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Paddy (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep huh? W.S. 11:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist . It's not among the best work in Commons. As some editors pointed out at the FPC, the textures and perspective (especially the waterfall and its backdrop) are not top-notch; while the sky and light are well done, the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style. If it's not illustrative, then it isn't educational, but a work of art in its own right, and as a work of art -- a work of art that is completely unknown outside Commons, by a non-notable artist -- it is too weak. In my view it is even doubtful if the image is within project scope. Commons is not a repository for self-created artwork without obvious educational value. --JN466 13:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice canvassing: [4] -- Paddy (talk) 13:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of discussion the image attracted on the Commons list, notifying the list of this discussion was the right thing to do. --JN466 14:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist This is borderline even with COM:SCOPE (and IMHO on the outside side). Generally, I fail to see the reasons why this should be featured (and the nomination discussion does not help with that, the support vote comments are: “Kawaii”, “I like it”, “Superb work”, “i like her big tits :-)”, “i know that it was very much of work for the user”, “very good work”, “I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant”, that’s all). Not that the picture isn’t nice, but – is that really all it takes for a FP? --Mormegil (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment leaving aside quality issues, this image is in use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia and the Anime and Manga portal of the Tagalog Wikipedia. It is also in use on several featured picture pages, but I cannot reliably tell if these are locally selected pictures or the same selection made on Commons. As it is in use on a Wikimedia project it is explicitly within the scope of Commons, "A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose". It's use on the technology portal of the Chinese Wikipedia (based on Google translate I think it's being used as an example of what can be done with Gimp) suggests that its quality as an example of manga art is not the only consideration that should be made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I come from Chinese Wikipedia, may be can solve some questions(我刚好来自中文维基，或许可以解释一些问题).I see"this image is in use on the Chinese Wikipedia".This may be a mistake(这可能是个误会),we don't know why "this image has been assessed using the Quality image guidelines and is considered a Quality image",in the name of done with Gimp(因为中文维基人也不清楚为何这图以GIMP制作的名义获得优质图像的). Use it, simply because the word "Quality image"(只是看到“优质图像”这词就使用了).
  for myself,it's not among the best work in Commons."the overall composition is poor, and the content of the scene is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style"(只是堆砌技术，画面内容很多但像拼凑而成，找不到重点，并没有丰富的艺术表现)
  即使用推荐开源软件(generalizing Open Source Software)的名义，单论画工也不如这些图 GIMPたん on pixiv("Real good works").--Cirnonine (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hallo. It looks to me like the image was added in this edit two days ago, as part of a periodic image change, probably because it was on the Chinese Wikipedia main page (which copies the Commons picture of the day). That portal is transcluded into the other portal, hence the file usage listing shows the image as being in use on two Chinese Wikipedia portals. --JN466 20:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That canvassing needs to end. Some people didn't liked to see that image in main page and now are creating all that crusade against it. That people needs to understand that Commons is not censored and get over that. Béria Lima ^msg 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, there has not been any canvassing. Secondly, it is not "some people", but rather a lot of people who objected to this image. The discussions that sprang up on the Russian Wikipedia's main page talk, on the Gendergap and Commons lists, and during the Wikimedia presentation of the Commons project to librarians and curators, were quite independent of each other. Perhaps it just isn't a particularly good image. --JN466 16:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That some are offended is not any kind of proof that this counts for a majority. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 16:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No canvasing? Surely i can't take you serious anymore. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not offended by your image, nor were many others among those who commented. I just don't think it is a particularly good image. This image by you deserves to be featured, and I've argued for its use in en:WP. This one doesn't. You didn't create it to illustrate something educational for Commons, you created is as a piece of art. That's fine, but it doesn't meet FP criteria in my book. --JN466 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Beria. It's off the main page. Theo10011 (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 15:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Please, don't take this as an insult or any kind of venomous jeremiad! I'm trying to give an objective opinion. It is a colorful and nice looking picture as an artwork! But in my opinion it just fails to have the real value among other featured pictures as a documentation of the world. I think, in the future it would be quite problematic if every artist were nominating their most recent paintings of fictional stuff from their cool imagination. This is still not like Deviant Art kind of website. --Ximonic (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's beautifully done, and that's mostly what matters here on Commons. - Benh (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to Feature picture policy: "our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures ... beautiful does not always mean valuable." --JN466 17:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree. But I meant that artistic merit is more important than usefulness or encyclopedic value here. And I don't see much better and similar pictures than this one on Commons, which makes it valuable. - Benh (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, but then you have to be prepared to host any halfway decent original art in Commons -- any water-colour, oil painting, charcoal drawing, portrait, drawings of fictitious buildings, fantasy landscapes, etc., as well as garage bands' unpublished songs and other electronic media, each of which will be in a particular style it could conceivably illustrate. That's not what Commons is about, according to the present definition of project scope, where original art is expressly excluded.
    - There is more that could be said about the painting's quality; the waterfall has an involuntary MC Escher quality about it—it just does not make geometric sense; the shadows on the girl are off—considering where the sun is, her right shoulder and the right side of her face and nose should be shaded; her foot and toes look unreal—she is missing a big toe; the water cascading down the cliff should be in the shade, but instead has the same colour as the water at the lip of the fall that is in the sun, etc. While the image is obviously better than what most Wikimedians could produce, the artistic merit judged by professional art world standards is simply nowhere near outstanding. It's amateur art. And we don't have better or similar pictures of this style in Commons because amateur art has traditionally been outside scope, and most professional-quality contemporary artwork and music, even when Creative Commons-licensed, has some restrictions (usually non-commercial) that excludes it from Commons. --JN466 19:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your comments show a big lack of knowledge. The shading of the girl is right, because it is flat shading. (See literature about Super flat, the article is crap) Same goes for the anatomy, which is not human anatomy. The water does not need to be in shade, it actually gets light from the fog in the lower background and additionally from the wall to the left and something like a rainbow due to fine particles. You could also observer this effect in real nature. Just be at the right spot at the right time. You describe it as a fantasy world. But at the same time you want accurate physics and a real world scenario. Think about it. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's natural for you to defend your own work, but I suggest you have a few blind spots in assessing your work objectively. Some of the same objections were raised in the failed featured candidacy at de:WP, notably by Blutgretchen. The foot is just poorly drawn; even in manga people have big toes. The composition and perspective (see comments below) are well below featured quality. --JN466 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Für Dich scheint dafür was ganz anderes natürlich zu sein: du bist seit Monaten auf Commons nicht sonderlich aktiv und erwachtest plötzlich aus deinem "Schlaf" seitdem Du dieses Bild auf der Titelseite gesehen hast und es mit allen Mitteln versuchst los zu werden. Nachdem Du es nicht geschafft hast, Beria zu überzeugen, das Bild von der Titelseite zu entfernen weil es angeblich den enzyklopädischen Ansprüchen widerspricht kommt als weiteres Argümentchen "die Qualität reicht für FP nicht aus". Ein weiterer wegen offensichtlichem Dummfug sofort wieder geschlossener Löschantrag von Dir auf ein anderes Bild, was dieses hier einbindet und weitere Aktionen zeigen schön auf: dein durchsichtiges Verhalten changiert zwar immer wieder aber zielt letztlich doch nur auf Störmassnahmen ab. Du bist unter Beobachtung, mein Freundchen. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think personal threats will get you very far in the long term. I'm not sure which deletion request you're referring to; the only one that fits your description is Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Paleis_lange_voorhout.jpg, which looks like a blatant and deceptive promotion of this same image, making it appear as though it had been displayed on the Escher museum. That deletion request is open. --JN466 11:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dir wurde nicht gedroht; vielmehr stellt es eine sachliche Zusammenfassung deines Verhaltens der letzten Tage dar. Bitte zerfranse zudem keine Diskussionen sondern halt Dich an die hier üblichen Regeln. Danke für Beachtung. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't appreciate being called "Freundchen", which is typical bullying behaviour. It's uncivil, and certainly not "mellow". I would welcome it if you would discuss the image, rather than launching attacks against people who disagree with you. --JN466 11:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Freundchen: "unhöflich" sind hier - und das ist noch eine sehr milde Beschreibung - lediglich Deine Aktivitäten. Ziellose Diskussionen um der Diskussion Willen. Wir können uns auch darüber unterhalten, warum der Joghurt keine Gräten hat. Dem Projekt bringt es nichts, so wie auch alles, was sich aus deinem Dunstkreis der letzten Tage erhoben hat. Ende der Durchsage. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Your are proving yourself wrong again. Do you need some good examples? Asako Nishida, Sakura Asakura, etc. What you still don't understand is perspective and emphasis (see first example). Who cares about the toes, if they aren't important. Or better said: It's the same as with the nose. Small up to invisible when not needed. Exaggerated if of importance. You better read some books about the topic instead making wrong statements based upon insufficient knowledge. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see how the images you linked help your cause. --JN466 15:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not wondering anymore that you fail in so many aspects. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, what did you intend me to glean from these images? They have big toes. The shading is consistent. They are images of single figures, where issues of composition don't even arise. I don't recall complaining about your girl having a small nose. So – what? --JN466 21:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Then you completely misunderstood. But i'm not wondering that you did. But i'm also not willed to give you a lecture about art in anime and manga style and its essentials. At least not after your canvassing and dishonest comments. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good quality, rare to find such material under a free license. --Slaunger (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly Delist . It does not appear to be a valuable picture, nor does it have any particular context, given that it is not used in any Wikipedia articles as best as I can tell (although a derivative File:Censorship in anime.jpg is used in a single English Wikipedia article). If its value can be demonstrated in other ways, then I'm not aware of it. It has a lot of composition issues - each element appears to be very disjointed and don't link well to each other (e.g. the tree looks very odd being so high up on the right, I've no clue what that wooden thing to the left of the tree is, there's a random pot in the background, the waterfall looks very awkward). The half-naked appearance of the girl appears to be gratuitous rather than intrinsically part of the style of image. There are much higher quality images available from the same Wikimedian (including several that are deservedly featured pictures: File:Mahuri.svg and File:Anime Girl.svg) I'm stunned that this became a featured picture at all, to be honest - I thought the standards here were much higher than this. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, it is in use in the portal namespace on at least two Wikipedias, so by the Commons policy it has an educational purpose (the Portal namespace is, like the article namespace, reader facing). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't view use in portals as a sufficient indication of value. Portal content is transient by nature, which means that it will most likely be removed from the portals at some point in the (near?) future (irrespective of this discussion). On the other hand, article use tends to be much more long term. If something really has high enough value to be a featured picture, then it should be used --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)in a mainspace Wikipedia article somewhere, or have some other clear demonstration of its value. Mike Peel (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - BTW, note that I'm arguing that the image lacks sufficient value, not that it lacks any educational value. I'm happy for the image to continue being hosted on Wikimedia Commons; I just don't think it's sufficiently important to be a featured picture. Mike Peel (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a lately elected featured picture (December 2010) should be now, a half year later, not featured because it was "Picture of the Day" and some persons have problems with topless women in art? Nothing but a farce. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I (and apparently a dozen people from Commons mailing list) have great problems with images of topless women that are contemporary art of an unknown artist and have been elected on Commons (not on Deviantart, mind you) with voices like "Kawaii" and "I like her big tits", quite literally. Ari Linn (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apparently this people are only from the mailing list. Have a nice day. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 12:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - And? The fact these people spoke against keeping the pic in question in the mailing list and not here somehow makes them lesser individuals that shouldn't be listened to? Not that I don't understand their voices won't be counted here, but as far as I know nomination in wiki projects is mostly about explaining reasons and not simply stating "Pro" or "Contra" and then counting voices. In fact, existing rules openly encourage participants to "explain their reasoning". Aye, almost forgot: have a nice day too. Ari Linn (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't know what you read in my last comment, but your way off. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 13:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On a side note — while those who are for delisting this pic tend to go into exhaustive detail why exactly it has some problems, why it can seem objectionable and why it's probably not the best idea to have media like that appear on the main page, many voices for keeping it sound like "huh?", "farce", "stop canvassing" and "it's totally your problem and problem of several other freaks like you, you're a minority and we won't deal with you, shush and bear it". I mean, if someone says "This pic is X, Y and Z, delist it", shouldn't opponents say something like "Well it maybe X, Y or even Z, but it is also A, B and C which prevails, keep it". The only real arguments that I see here is "it is used in some wikis" and "commons is not censored". Don't see how the fact it is used affects its being featured though (really, there are thousands of pics that are used in wikis without being featured). As for commons not being censored, all of us agree it's quite useful to have a handful of pics and photos displaying, say, breasts and pelvises of living or recently deceased people belonging to Western culture, but will any of them ever make it to the front page of an educational project without provoking a heated discussion? No. Why? Because pretty much everyone knows these are NOT something generic that you routinely see at the streets (or at home) of cities/towns in Europe or NA. Ari Linn (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As this image and its selection as picture of the day on Commons and, therefore, the Bengali, Chinese, Russian, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Bulgarian Wikipedias has been extensively discussed in largely unflattering terms on the Commons, Foundation and Gendergap mailing lists, some editors have expressed concern that these mailing list discussions may have had a canvassing effect. At present I see no indication whatever that this is so, but regardless would ask any editors voting one way or the other to please indicate whether they indeed did become aware of this delist request through one of the mailing list discussions, so the community and closing admin can take this into account. Thank you. --JN466 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I did become aware of this image through this post on the Gendergap list, and the resulting discussions on the Commons list, which started with this crossposting of that post. --JN466 14:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Karelj (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I didn't think it was Featured quality when it was up for nomination in the first place. If you just compare it to other similar Featured media -- such as this and this -- you can see what I mean about technical and aesthetic quality not being up to snuff. The fact that we had an amateurish piece of anime with naked tits on the Main Page is just insult to injury, as far as I'm concerned, and the fact that we have a ton of people supporting such a crappy, uneducational file for mere sake of being against canvassing is not really applicable to this forum. The question is: is the file Featured quality or not? That's all that matters. There are plenty of Featured or potentially Featured artworks with toplessness in them that would be fine for the Main Page (Good example of what I mean). This file is not one of them. Steven Walling 18:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Probably out of scope and artistically not very special and amateurish. I see no reason why this picture should be featured. Adornix (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist not up to featured picture quality. --Elian ^Talk 20:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ist futured quality, its Art. We dont have to censored Commons. Its a drawing of a topless woman, no more. Would you delete Rubens? --Ralf Roletschek (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, the argument for delisting is not that it has breasts, but that it is several orders of magnitude below the quality of Rubens. Yes, Rubens has breasts, and this image has breasts, but that does not make them the same, nor does it mean that we should ignore all other aspects of this image, such as its artistic quality and educational value. The reasoning "Rubens has breasts, and is featured; this image has breasts, so it should be featured too" ignores the fact that entire books have been written about Rubens, whereas this is a non-notable image by a non-notable artist. Its only claim to fame is that it is here. And has breasts, which seem to be all some people are able to see. --JN466 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Were you born in the wrong Century? I guess yes. I also think that Wikipedia is the wrong place for you. -- Pro2 (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't care if outstanding art was produced yesterday or centuries ago. This, however, is just not outstanding contemporary art, which is reflected in the fact that you only find it in Commons, and need a Photoshop trick to produce this. --JN466 12:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist : the art isn't very high-quality. In particular, the styles of the the foreground and background clash, the shading on the woman's face is poor, and the angles of things feel wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Snaevar (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --ST ○ 04:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see any reason for removal, author is a well-known drawer of excellent images and the image in question has received three different awards (Commons Quality Image, Picture of the Day at en:wp, Featured Image) and is highly used both on Commons and on many Wikipedias. --Manuel Schneider^(bla) (+/-) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It only seems to be used in Wikipedia portals, rather than being included in any articles. The uses here on Commons appear to be due to it being featured on the main page, because it's currently classed as a featured picture, and also as a quality picture - it is e.g. not used in any gallery pages. It has never been "Picture of the Day at en:wp" - I'm not sure where you got that from (possibly from the Commons Picture of the Day template, which has an English translation attached?). Mike Peel (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the portal use in Chinese Wikipedia is recent and transient (see my post 20:23, 18 May 2011 above). --JN466 13:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not necessary and desired to question and commend every vote. Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thoughts. Moreover this undeviating drilling behavior disturbs the atmosphere and good form of use. Thank you for respecting this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
Votings can have personal reasons and no one can be obligated to tell us his personal thought.
Strongly disagree. If X's personal thoughts are "keep, I like her big tits" and Y's personal thoughts are "delist, I'll now explain why I think this way [goes into an extensive explanation where "project rules", "quality rating" and other words of that kind are present]", X's and Y's voices are not equal and we should know that. I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation. There is no such thing in my native wiki when it comes to voting, especially when something is nominated for deletion or status removal. People get reprimanded and their voices can be excluded from counting of the votes if they fail to clearly explain why they think the way they do. Ari Linn (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you disagree, but reasons for a voting pro or contra must not be given here. Beside: this is a democratic basic right. And maybe some users don't give a reason because they see how some users question and commend them in a way that displays a lack of respect and they are not in the mood to suffer that. It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable that you tolerate delist-votes with no or not clear reason but hunting proper those who vote for keeping.

vs

I'm in fact astonished that here people can jump in and say "Keep" or "Delist" without any explanation.

I'm now even more astonished to find out that when I say it may be not quite okay to vote either way without explaining any reasons it means I tolerate those who vote like me and hunt opposing views. Ari Linn (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "not up to featured picture quality" lol -- Pro2 (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aoke1989 (talk) 13:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your interest. However, you need to have at least 50 Commons edits and an account registered more than 10 days ago to vote. As this is your first edit to Commons, you don't fulfil that requirement. --JN466 13:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But you could take Ari Linn as an example how to achieve voting rights... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That vote is invalid anyway. I won't remove it anymore, but it won't be counted in the end. Another thousand posts and he can stand for president ;-) W.S. 14:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ari Linn has been registered since 2008, and surpassed 50 edits while this discussion was ongoing. I am sorry, but with respect, that's different from someone who made their first edit today. --JN466 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - He must had an great interest to participate on Commons so far, having less then 50 edits until now. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 15:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've had a great interest in my native wiki, writing articles since 2006 and illustrating them using pictures from Commons, having had ~12000 edits total in ru-wiki. If anyone here is not going to count my voice, be sure I'll protest with every means I have. Ari Linn (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Preventing Ari Linn to vote now is pushing the rules beyond their literal meaning. I have unstriked his/her vote. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as above.--苹果派.留言 20:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- In my opinion, original artistic works should not be assessed here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is a nice picture. --Suguru@Musashi (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per most of the "delist" comments - I see very little rationale from the "keep" ones at all. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist . This image has no significant artistic, cultural, or historic importance. It's just run-of-the-mill anime porn. I don't see any reason we would want to feature it. Kaldari (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beauty

Keep, good picture --anghy (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomer T (talk) 18:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you think the image should be kept as a featured picture? Thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Ugly show, this is not a circus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Indeed! -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No? I glanced through the votes and discussions above and thought so... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The conversation looks like it's from the current Parliament of Finland. --Ximonic (talk) 12:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds funny, but it isn't so far from the truth. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 18:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it.. I cann't find any reason to delist this image.. Ggia (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delist I avoided this discussion for a long time, but honestly, I'm not offended by it, I'm not registering any artistic euphemism, and the artwork is better than anything I could do (since that seems to be a question/argument thrown around every so often). – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 21:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to consider that "better than anything you (or I) could do" does not equal "outstanding artistic and educational value." I daresay many people draw better than either of us; that doesn't make them outstanding artists, or their works outstanding art examples for educational purposes. --JN466 22:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't at all, I agree, and my only reason for bringing it up was out of slight sarcasm for when it's mentioned at other candidates' lists. Anyway, I don't think I was fully prepared to vote; up until this point, I kept changing my mind, and now I'm still doing that, but I'm going to change my vote per Steven Walling, and also due to the background of the image. The water looks like it's flowing up to the falls, which I wouldn't be able to defend, cartoon or not. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 23:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Lošmi (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 delist, 20 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green Fairy IMG 4156.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 21:57:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Green Fairy [5] at Balelec 2011: Julien Waroux (bass), with Manu Tarabay (guitar, singing) in the background. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The ceiling is grainy. Generally unsharp. The leg of the guitarist, the hand of the drummer and the base-box are all overexposed. Since the drummer is in the back and his face hidden that leaves a bad composition. Generally bad contrast. Bad crop on the right side. That´s all I can see wrong with this picture. And, oh, music festival pictures are hard to take, so don´t worry.--Snaevar (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grainy, and the leg's overexposure in the foreground really makes it scream "leg!". Good clear shot of the face, but image isn't wowing me. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good timing of the shot concerning the foreground musician, but plenty of quality problems as mentioned by the two previous reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rainbow trout FWS 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 09:03:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Knepp, Timothy - uploaded by Neil916 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 09:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ximonic (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have drawn this picture differently. There is an unnecessary line to the right in the background, the holes in the rocks look unrealistic to me and it looks like the fish has two dorsal fins.--Snaevar (talk) 06:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the unnecessary line. Can you annoted on the painting please.--Citron (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Sorry, but no bells ringing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The shadow of the rock(s) stretching up under the fish's jaw is a huge error, in my opinion. I would have given this a solid support otherwise, but that area literally draws the eye down and away from the fish. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the ”shadow” between the jaws of the fish is still just part of the mouth which might be visible from this angle, not supposed to be a continuum for the rock shadow. Or, I'm not sure if you just mean that there should be a little extra place for a small shadow of the rocks between the jaws. --Ximonic (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No no, it's the dark shadow between the rocks just below its lower jawline is too dark, too distracting. I've lightened it in this reduced-size example: Imageshack. I think that looks far better, and that would get my support vote. It's just a flaw of the artist's, I believe, but nothing that can't be fixed as a derivative work : ) Note: I also changed my vote to neutral, above. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 10:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, I got your point. I think you're right, the lighter background there would highlight the head of the fish a little more. So I would definitely support that alternative too – yet I wont oppose this if is this remains as the only proposal. --Ximonic (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Suspension of a superconductor by a magnet.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 May 2011 at 21:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Jubobroff - uploaded by Jubobroff - nominated by Jubobroff -- Jubobroff (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Jubobroff (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 21:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ -- Fbouquet (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the rules, not enough edits in Commons' account. W.S. 21:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Kropotkine 113 (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The physics is impressive, but the DOF is too shallow. I don't care so much about details of the hands and magnet, but I do wish more detail was there on the superconductor. --Avenue (talk) 03:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree, but the fingers allow to get the proper scale of the effect and understand that the levitation/suspension is effective here at about 1 cm --User:Jubobroff
Support -- Raghith 05:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Avenue. --99of9 (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting topic but mediocre photo quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow. Only one thin "layer" of the object is in focus. Interesting (more or less, since many of us have seen this effect allready), but not up to the current level. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 21:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a very interestic physical effect but a bad quality photo. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good subject, but as per Avenue and Niabot who are right on this one IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is what bothers me. The lower hand is just weird looking and I feel the image cropping was forced around the lower hand. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tomer T (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skull-cane-IMG3404-3407.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 14:46:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Masonic cane, Germany (?), 19th century.

Info Masonic cane, Germany (?), 19th century. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator and nominator -- Rama (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 16:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The clock inside is dark and unclear (took me a while to understand it's a clock) Tomer T (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rama, thank you for your pictures, they are valuable. Now, on to the critique: The object itself is great, and the image is of great value. However, going with a full photoshop black background looks a bit phony. I would experiment with a very dark gray background and soften the edges of the object so they diffuse toward the back. And question, how do you know it is masonic? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It being on display during a temporary exhibition titled «L'art de la franc-maçonnerie» was a bit of a clue. Rama (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree on the dark lightning on the clock, but I can´t see how that can be improved without changing the lightning of the cane.--Snaevar (talk) 06:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The original light background is not suited for rendering the image afterwards on a black one. The masking shows. W.S. 11:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I thought it was the head of a cane on a black reflective surface until I saw the original upload. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:19, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsarevets Veliko Tarnovo.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 13:59:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by MrPanyGoff -- MrPanyGoff 13:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 13:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 05:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good overall - could tone/saturation be improved? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you specify what do you mean by "improved"?--MrPanyGoff 13:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sky looks gray/unsaturated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much sky in the image and the lower part (path to the tsaravets is cropped). Ggia (talk) 11:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like the camera is looking too high. Far too much headspace, but a crop would not fix this as I almost want to see a little more of the wall at the bottom. Overall contrast and lighting is kind of standard fare, though. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Keraunoscopia--shizhao (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bishounen Oranges.jpeg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 11:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KishiShiotani on Animexx and brougth to us through a contest for free images there. I think it's of high artistic merit and also high illustrative merit, since there are not much free images to illustrate that subject. And, since there were many complaints about that on commons only pictures with manga-style girls get featured, it may be a strong reason for support that - surprise - it's a boy. - uploaded by Don-kun - nominated by Don-kun -- Don-kun (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral as I am the uploader and nominator ;) -- Don-kun (talk) 11:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 10:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I really don't think this is the right place to assess a work of art, and the argument that it is just an illustration of a certain artistic style is not convincing. Using the same argument, could I make a painting "in the style" of Picasso or Rembrant (or some modern artist/school whose works are not yet free) and submit it to FPC? The only legitimate way I find to assess this work is through my personal taste. And, frankly, I don't like it at all. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Its less about style than it is about the subject it shows. Bishounen is no style, but a genre or theme which can be used. Of cause there is a certain "anime/manga"-style, but thats not really a well-defined style and this image clearly shows some of that "style"s elements. So thats different from painting an image in the style of some famous artist. --Don-kun (talk) 05:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand well, this is to be taken as an original artwork? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do I read here: "Alvesgaspar has no clue but Alvesgaspar has an opinion?" --Paddy (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You read what you want but I'm becoming annoyed with the disrespect some editors express towards other people's opinions. Maybe it would be more clear if I said simply that I found the illustration kitschy and of little value, clearly not among the best Commons has to offer? --Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should also emphasize that I'm just a regular user and that my opinions have exactly the same weight as any other's, as well as my right to express them. I wonder why votes with no rationale, or with hollow ones, like all the supports in this nomination, are not questioned. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the nomination says it all, so the pro-voters don't have to add anything when they just agree. An if the theme is bishounen, a "kitschy" illustration may be appropriate. --Don-kun (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer my question yes/no? --Paddy (talk) 10:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I might nominate as a Valued Image. The nominator makes a good point about gender and subject matter, and I agree it has illustrative value about the subject, but I'm not sure it's quite of the level of quality as previously featured manga/anime style images. Steven Walling 01:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely one of the best manga images we have on Commons. --Lošmi (talk) 03:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those are some shiny oranges. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Alves. Same opinion and taste. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Alves.--shizhao (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer Alves. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For original artwork, I don't find it outstanding. For educational value, I haven't learnt much from it. --99of9 (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ditto to Alves and 99of9. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good specimen for the this type of character. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 18:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice oranges. alofok * 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsuitable, similarity propagation. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per kaʁstn and Tomer T --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paddy (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Wladyslaw and others. --Ralf Roletschek (talk)
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Gamaliel (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martinac bukovy.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 May 2011 at 18:56:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tlusťa - uploaded by Tlusťa - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Chmee2 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop. Tomer T (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is questionable for me, if the crop is bad cause the main focus of image is detail of head with antennae (and they are captured well) and not whole butterfly... Anyway, thank you for vote --Chmee2 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me the fact it is cut this way is quite disturbing. Tomer T (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scared? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbing in the meaning of interrupting. But if you think this is scary, take a look at this :) Tomer T (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The crop isn't entirely conventional, but I think it focuses the viewer's attention nicely on the head. A slightly over-central composition is outweighed by all the interesting angles. --Avenue (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It's a portrait of a bug's face, and seems sharp. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 04:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 05:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose insufficient quality for FP --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks to be a close up on the head, but at same time, there's a lot of room around it. In the end, I feel like looking at random shot. Average quality with focus on the eye, but only the eyes sharp. - Benh (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the back legs of the butterfly are out of focus and yes, the crop is a bit of an issue, well, unless the attenae on the the butterfly would be described as the main feature of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yeah, the composition really irks me as well. I'm also not a fan of the brown on brown on brown, I'm reminded of a Rorschach test. But my final vote is because of the framing. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A surfer in the air 2.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 22:40:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As far as rainbows go (as it's on the rainbow article), this isn't very impressive. The composition is intriguing, and the avant-garde slosh of the waves is interesting to look at, but the surfer isn't really surfing (he's falling) and there's a distracting surfer hanging (but not hanging ten) in the background. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and impressive photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO lack of DOF and a bit overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but ill-defined theme. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ripe fruits by Common Dandelion.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 23:11:32 (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) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is fine, but composition is not. I think Alvesgaspar would have some words of wisdom to impart here... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes I have, but not the ones people expect from me :) Two comments: first, this is not a good candidate for focus stacking (especially with such a large aperture and so many frames) because the different planes (depths) overlap in the image. Better use a much larger F number and take the picture further away, to increase dof; second, the image is clearly overexposed and the lighting is flat. I would have underexposed the shot and bring the highlights back later in the 'lab', to increase contrast and emphasize the delicate structrure of the subject, like in here (sorry to use my own pic as an example). I have also tried to use focus stacking with similar subjects, but it didn't work... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Insufisante quality for this object. a black background give a better result. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, The High Fin Sperm Whale, Alvesgaspar and Archaeodontosaurus. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination

File:Benjamingenocchio.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 05:28:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgenocchio - uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good but why the left elbow is cut ?--Citron (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously a clean portrait, but I agree, the cropping of the elbow is really distracting. Also, the file is a derivative (the original is also cropping the elbow), but there's no mention anywhere of what work was done that altered the derivative image. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Captures his expression very well, despite the shortcoming mentioned above. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ,per Keraunoscopia--shizhao (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This because of the crop on the right. --Ximonic (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor color separation theme - background. Bland as blurred. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It would only pass with 6 votes in favor and no additional oppose vote, and I don't see it happens. --Tomer T (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aerestempel gammeltorv 1749.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 09:36:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Urbandweller - nominated by Urbandweller -- Urbandweller (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Urbandweller (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 09:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 00:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But shouldn't the source be a little more descriptive? Is this from a book? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image is a digital scan made available on-line by the Danish Royal Library. ----Urbandweller (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Needs cleaning and restoration work, and per the question above.--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It looks like someone spilt coffee on it. --99of9 (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the version that the Royal Library has provided. There is no version available superior to this one and I doubt that the library will provide a better version in the near future. It is also a question of restoration philosophy - maybe they decided to leave the patina. Should all old prints and books look like they come straight from the printing press? ----Urbandweller (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. Tomer T (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Restoration work too poor --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Urbandweller (talk) 05:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Micropterus dolomieu2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 May 2011 at 16:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Knepp, Timothy - uploaded by Neil916 - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 17:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good colors and sharp, its a good illustration. Azeri (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fine illustration but nothing extraordinary imo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You find that Commons has a lot of paint that represent simultaneously three different sides of a fish, in their natural habitat?--Citron (talk) 10:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The illustrative value of the image (which is high) is not the problem. Magic (or the lack of it) is. I still believe we should struggle to promote only the very best Commons has to offer. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this is just a demonstration of your belief. It's regrettable, I think. It's hard to make a "magic" painting of ... fishes, while keeping the encyclopedic value. --Citron (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, "magic" is for flickr explored. Commons should emphasize educational content. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Citron & Juliancolton: Yes, my vote is just a demonstration of my conviction, just like any other vote. It would indeed be regrettable if people were not allowed to express it freely, especially when it does not agree with the opinion of others. Or maybe I should have just used "Support" or "Oppose"? "Magic" is just another way of referring to the subjective component of our assessments, which makes a substancial part of people's votes here. What we should, or should not, emphasize when voting in FPC is a question of personal choice. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree on the substance, but not on form. I know very well that you find there is a reduced quality of FP, currently. But you have a clear idea of a "magic" photo that I would understand...--Citron (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Azeri. Steven Walling 01:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral An excellent image for the encyclopedia, but nothing I would consider remarkable. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 12:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Upgrade. I was young and naive back then. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing extraordinary? I suppose most Commoners can paint something like this? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I found the previous fish illustrations very good and useful and this is no exception. --Ximonic (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Generally lacking details but it does have some value.--Snaevar (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The argument of Alvesgaspar reflects what I think : is interesting work which has high encyclopedic value but does not exceptional. We do not know is that we reward. The painter's work, or work from that which has thepicture taken? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mystic River Bascule Bridge 3.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 May 2011 at 20:36:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 10:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'd say the point of view is not optimal. On the right hand side of the picture, the post for the red signal, the frame of the bridge, the raised gates, everything appears stacked. Conversely, the asphalt on the foreground takes too much space. I think a reshoot showing the bridge from the side would better demonstrate its structure and work principle (showing for instance the huge concrete slam counterweighting it). My 2 ¢, --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tons of pictures from the side (both of them), and many similar ones are already on Commons, but I find them boring. I like this shot because it illustrates not only the bridge, but also the highway, and I believe it puts them both into the context of the village. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Maurilbert's comment about "stacked" objects. The eye is drawn to the right drop gate, and the foreground is a lot of asphalt and concrete. When I looked at the image in the article, I feel like I'm not really seeing a bridge. It needs to focus more on the actual structure. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 13:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Keraunoscopia--shizhao (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pieris cheiranthi qtl1.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 20:58:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 08:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ ~~Neutral~~ Despite the cropping, I still think there is too much empty space on the left. I'm also struggling with the DOF, which I think is a little too close to use, and it looks like the blur just begins where the eye is at. The right antenna looks great, but that shouldn't be drawing my attention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 09:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to your suggestion, I slightly cropped the image a bit more. Unfortunately, there's nothin I can do about the DOF, though. --Quartl (talk) 10:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Mmm, I think it helps. I'm having a difficult time with the image caching issue, so at the moment I can't really see the image in full size. But did you tweak the colors? They look really dark now. The colors were fine the way they were when I commented earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 11:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment It's difficult to tell, but looking at the thumbnails, it almost seems like the image is getting darker/more saturated with each upload. Is this intentional? I can't compare the images (I can't see a damned thing) because of the caching problem, unfortunately. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 11:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Commons server seems to have problems at the moment and displays wrong images in the current version and the thumbnails. Probably we have to wait until the bug is resolved. --Quartl (talk) 12:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Support Changed to support. Finally got around to comparing images. The crop definitely works better; I still wish there were a touch more room on the right, less on the left. And I really liked the original colors of the wings and flower, they were less saturated. Otherwise, looks good. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 22:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours of the butterfly and the background --Schnobby (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors, outstanding picture --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done shot. sharpness could be a little better but overall ok for me. greetings mathias K 15:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zonotrichia leucophrys CT2.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2011 at 16:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Crystal clear eyes, good focus, perfect portrait! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 05:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Big air Québec 2011(3).jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 17:02:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A snowboarder at the Big Air event in Quebec City. Created, uploaded, nominated by me -- Letartean (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Letartean (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Raghith 17:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor lighting, the previous version has a much more exciting composition. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the showboard is almost perfectly horizontal aligned facing right at the camera, and I like the white letters, which are eye-catcing. For some time you are confused as an observer until you figure out what happens. I also like how the snowboarder has his head directed straight down. --Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carshten.--Snaevar (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image is too difficult to figure out. I'm the opposite feeling of Slaunger—I stared at the image thinking for a short while that I was looking at a billboard or someone climbing on a weird balcony. I would consider this a foreground/background issue, since the background is interfering with the foreground. It's a nice shot, but it doesn't stand-out on its own. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kerαunoςcopia. Laurent (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) flying, side-on - edit.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 19:22:38
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Avenue (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Avenue (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It is a good shot in a well-caught moment. I am not entirely convinced it is sufficiently crisp and have a sufficiently interesting composition to obtain FP status, as the bar for birds is high. The light is good, but could also have been better. Could I have done better myself? Probably not... --Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The image doesn't seem sharp. Bird-over-water is kind of standard fare, also. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 06:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Now replaced with sharper version. --Avenue (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition seams to be totally random. 2% bird, 98% water, wings not visible, ... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metz Cathedral 003.JPG, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 May 2011 at 21:14:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Support Image seems soft. There's also something about it that's bugging me, like the image isn't straight but really wants to be. If some perspective control was applied, there should be a {{Retouched picture}} template added to the image. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 02:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I didn't use a special program for perspective control. I corrected manually the angles, which were not 100% rectangular - due the fact, that the window was not at the same level as the camera - with photoshop. This were minor corections as you can see, if you compare with the previous version. --Llez (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Unfortunately, the image caching problem still exists (at least for me), so I can't compare the two images, but from the thumbnails, it looks like the corrections were pretty minor. You have my support! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 10:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Thanks for supporting! I think, it's a general problem, it's a medieval window in the cathedral of metz and obviously not all angles have exactly 90 degrees. If you correct the one to 90 degrees, you change others. I corrected the four corners, so that the outline is rectangular, but that doesn't matter that all crossbars are exactly horizontal. --Llez (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good work -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Body of a coyote.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2011 at 07:52:35

InfoPhotography of a whole coyote, taken in Japan. .
Support -- Morphypnos (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per Guidelines "Resolution – Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons"". This one has 0.36 Mpx, and don't have any strong reason for be featured - This one is not the last coyote in world, for sure. Béria Lima ^msg 08:32, 29 May 2011 (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. --Tomer T (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2011 (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:Dornach - Goetheanum4.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2011 at 21:07:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe exposures blending shows up on the leftmost tree edge and white flowers. Must not only be wind because I also notice that on the windows (still on left side). Stitching errors on the top part of the roof. Only a fractional part of the building is lit, and you are kind of saved by exposures blending. I'm being stubborn, but u may try to embed a color profile... - Benh (talk) 21:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lacking sharpness on the left and minor stitching error on the roof are easily to improve, I will do this in the evening --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's lacking sharpness. I think the different source pics don't overlap perfectly, thus resulting in the patterns being "shift-repeated" (but with some transparency due to blending). - Benh (talk) 20:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't overlap perfectly, right, but this brings the lacking sharpness in the result. I have made multiple shots and can choose an other one to rearrange this image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magnifying glass with focus on paper.png, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 10:08:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Infinite DOF (unrealistic, you wont see this in nature)
DOF with focus on glass itself (realistic, blurry content, still rendering)

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot
Note: This image is part of a series. This uses DOF with focus on the content (realistic, since DOF needs to be further away then the glass itself). It does not contain EXIF data nor a color profile. It assumes sRGB as the default color space for 24 bit graphics. It has no lens distortion.
Abstain as creator and nominator -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 10:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A superb illustration of the subject and a good example of what the modern rendering techniques can do. Some other categories related to the technique (and 'dof' ?) should be added though. A minor criticism: the handle of the glass is a little too short imo. Alternatively, the image could be cropped a bit at left and right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No, I think the background is inconvenient, and the focus of the magnifying glas is too small in comparison to the rest. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, but it is easily fixed by cropping at left and right. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice work. Agree with Alves. --Slaunger (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per my previous personal comment on the nominator's talk page. --Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work.--Ankara (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Please can you add information about the copyright and source of the text on the page. --99of9 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to the description -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 08:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It looks realistic to me, and it also looks beautiful to me ;) Support ! - Benh (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The depth of field seems unnaturally shallow to me. I don't know what the DOF of the human eye is, but I'm guessing it's deeper than this. If I were reading a piece of paper like this, I'd certainly see both the magnifying glass and the magnified words to be nearly sharp. --99of9 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vision unphysiological. A magnifying glass is held parallel to the plane of the object that you want to see. art installation that has no encyclopedic value. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a technical illustration for DOF in renderers. If this is art and a reason to oppose, then we should close FPC. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you read the sheets diagonally, with a magnifying glass? No. Why not having a normal way? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is this of any importance if i read my paper from bottom to top and right to left or even mirrored? Does it not illustrate the DOF anymore? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paddy (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Most parts within the glass are also blurry --Llez (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has to be that way... -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 20:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sorry. Large project, some work, but result has no wow factor for me. Also DOF imitation is too low. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sardinian Warbler.jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 May 2011 at 09:32:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent shot, good colors and sharpness. Azeri (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely, very nice image. I'm curious about the halo effect, but it doesn't affect what I think of the image. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 09:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 09:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Ximonic (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Now because the branches have been cloned out. Good work! --Ximonic (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ with that blurry branch included. Nice otherwise. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice detail level, colors and light. Yes, it would have been better without the blurred foreground element in the lower right corner, but luckily it is not close to overlapping with the Warbler. --Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just try to get it that good. W.S. 00:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bely bely nice ! 40D + 400mm seems to be a nice combo for bird photography ;-) - Benh (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per IdLoveOne--shizhao (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is an easy job to erase all the branching on the right. --Cephas (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support -- Agree, the out-of-focus branch (an Olive tree?) should be cloned out. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Done. I informed Merops about this. --Cephas (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Cephas Merops (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per IdLoveOne and Alvesgespar.--Snaevar (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand, yesterday I upload a modified version of this picture and everything was find. Today it is back as it was, while there has been no revertion of the image! --Cephas (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's somekind of a server problem (?). I have had and even currently have a picture which I can't properly update with a new one in any way. It just keeps showing the ugly old one instead of fixed version... --Ximonic (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I saw the modified one when I opened it in full resolution. It's fine for me – even better than this. --Ximonic (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Birds glow nowadays? -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 10:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this one? --Cephas (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:"Colored" drinking fountain from mid-20th century with african-american drinking.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 12:23:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Russell Lee - uploaded by Knutux - modified by Ilmari Karonen - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 12:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Oppose I think this falls into the "high historic merit" category. Othewise, I dislike the composition so greatly, I'm tempted to oppose. Sign is cropped on the left, there's far too much headroom, a lot of empty space on the right. Image itself is grainy; I can't tell if that's from a scan or the actual image, plus he's very out of focus. But the issue of segregation is blatant, and there's more than one "message" being exposed here. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Keraunoscopia, but I disagree about the "high historic merit." Racial segregation was so common that these kinds of photos should not be rare. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't really sure, and I should've placed emphasis on "think" (which I've just added). Changed my vote to oppose. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 06:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is grainy and has an unfortunate crop to the left. All other flaws are acceptable IMO becouse of it´s age. Also I´d like to point out that the picture is overcategorized.--Snaevar (talk) 10:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muumimaailman noita 1.jpg, not featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 14:48:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Woman's face isn't sharp and there's a boy and his torso sitting in her hair. Sort of a point-and-shoot shot. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Keraunoscopia + brightness problems. Tomer T (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good point, snapshot, capturing the moment. --W.Rebel (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleeping Melecta 02 (MK).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2011 at 11:57:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A sleeping cocoo bee Melecta luctuosa. Very good to see is how these bees mostly sleep while "biting" in a part of a plant with their mandibles. And as an extra also the proboscis is visible. Picture was taken 06:30 in the morning and is a focusstack of 2 images taken at ISO 400 f/10 and 1/15 sec exp. c/u/n by mathias K 11:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 11:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I'm happy to be the first to support. This is a superb macro, clearly among the best Commons has to offer. The only criticism I have is to get up so early in the morning, which is a mortal sin! Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Alves! And yes you are right, to get up so early is the only "ugly" part. ;-) greetings mathias K 12:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC) ...and the mosquitos ;-) --mathias K 12:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

~~Oppose~~ Neutral Guilty of Blue-Channel distortion. Clearly visible in histogram. Blue peak at low values, maximum moved to left.[6]. That would be most likely the actual colors: [7] -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Niabot, thank's for your review. I will have a look at the tif file. But I think in your version the bee looks to cold/blue. Please remember that it is illuminated by the very warm morning light. But I will look what I can do. Regards mathias K 15:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are better now. Not perfectly what i would have expected, but ok. What prevents me from a support is lack of sharpness at an important part of the image. It's the "mouth" with which that bee holds itself. -- ／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼苦情処理係 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info I've uploaded a new version where I've corrected the blue channel a little bit. But I won't go any further cause everything more looks to cold for my taste and my memory of the scene in natura. Regards mathias K 16:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't know if you cropped it, but the composition is so carefully done, it's fantastic. And apparently bees sleep with their eyes open. Good job! – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 17:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose green colour cast, very tight crop, noisy, a bit short DOF for a focus stacking imo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Green color cast? Noisy? Short dof? Come on guys, are we talking about the same picture? The fact that there is more bright green than bright blue in the picture doesn't mean that the natural colors are not well reproduced. As a matter of fact, when we try to increase the brightness in the blue channel we quickly obtain a bluish white in the insect's hair. There is no green color cast in the picture that I see; there is no apparent noise in the subject, even in the darker parts; and the dof is more than generous for a macro shot. Fair is fair and this picture is among the very best in our macro FP gallery ! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for me FP. Nice and interesting image. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 07:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 12:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tintern Abbey South.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2011 at 22:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't quite put my finger on it, but there's something that bothers me in the "texture" of this image, esp. in the stone walls. Maybe it's been exceedingly sharpened or contrast-enhanced ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is definitely some strange image processing taking place. The abbey and especially the cow in the foreground almost look "blue screened" into the scene, it's weird. My biggest issue, though, is lack of focused subject: are we suppose to look at the abbey? Or the cow? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁gala xies 04:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Raghith 09:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose incoherent, badlysharpening --W.Rebel (talk) 14:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the opposers concerning the sharpening, so I withdraw my nomination. 18:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Image:Veneto Venezia4 tango7174.jpg edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2011 at 09:47:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tango7174 - uploaded by Tango7174 - nominated by MaiDireLollo -- MaiDireLollo (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MaiDireLollo (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Size half the minimum required for FP, unless strong mitigating reasons, which i don't see here. Heavy distortion, even for a panoramic picture. Poor composition, at first i thought it was 2 separate pics stuck together in the middle. Would have been way nicer if the white palazzio had been straight in front of the camera, i think. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:33, 30 May 2011 (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. Please read the guidelines before nominating --Jebulon (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2011 (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.