Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/December 2014

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log

Contents

File:Maslenitsa kustodiev.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

"Provided the reproduction is of high quality, an artwork generally only needs one of the following four things to be featurable:
  • Notable in its own right: Works by major artists, or works that are otherwise notable, such as the subjects of a controversy...
  • Of high historic merit: The historical method values very early illustrations of scenes and events over later ones. Hence, a work of poor quality depicting a contemporaneous historical event can be nonetheless important, even if the artistic merit is relatively low. Likewise, scans or photographs of important documents – which may not be at all artistic – nonetheless may be highly valuable if the documents are historically significant. The reason for the image's historical importance should be briefly stated in the nomination, for those reviewers unfamiliar with the subject."
I don't know much about art, so I can't say with certainty the artist is a "major artist" but Boris Kustodiev has a Wikipedia article, which is noteworthy and suggest he is an important Russian artist. Otherwise, I think this certainly meets the second criteria above. -- AHeneen (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Saw this before, very picturesque, lively. --Mile (talk) 09:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is above the size limit, but image is still rather small. Wouldn't it be practical to require more than mere 2 Mpx from a photo, that is taken from a static object, like a painting? Kruusamägi (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

AlternativeEdit

 

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


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

File:Kasteel Schoonselhof Antwerpen.jpg, not featuredEdit

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


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

File:Weißstorch Walsrode 2014 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

  •   Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • nice stork, but bad contrast on left side --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The stork is in nice morning sun light. Due to the dark background the animal comes out quite well. IMHO a dark background is the best choice for a white stork. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
      • Generally yes, but not for its dark side. --Kreuzschnabel 05:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak  Support the black background on the left is a bit problematic, but overall quality is just too good not to support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment   Done, Wladyslaw, Kreuzschnabel and Martin: I've selectively brightened the background. Please take another look. An improvement? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
A bit better but the main problem isn`t eliminated. I´ll not oppose, but this is for sure not a FP compared with the other excellent birds images we already have. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak   Support, aber er ist halt ein armes, trauriges Viecherl. Wie bestellt und nicht abgeholt... --Hubertl (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Hubertl, es war noch recht früh und kalt (10:30 Uhr), vielleicht war der Herr (oder Frau) Storch noch müde :) Auf mich wirkten die Tiere im Weltvogelpark Walsrode nicht unglücklich - im Gegenteil. Die Pfleger haben die Tiere mit großem Respekt behandelt, was man z.B. gut bei der Flugshow schon sehen konnte. English: The birds seemed to me not unlucky - in contrary. The stork was photographed in the cold morning and was probably still tired. My impression from the very nice Weltvogelpark Walsrode was that the animals were treated very respectfully by the zookeeper as one could easily observe during the great flight show. --Tuxyso (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
      • No misinterpretation please, I remember the disput you have about pictures from the zoo. I am pretty relaxed with modern zoos.--Hubertl (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak   Support for overall quality, however I still find the dark background on the left disturbing. Takes some effort to tell what’s bird and what isn’t. --Kreuzschnabel 06:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Bennu's Journey.webm, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Baroña. Porto do Son. Galiza. 2013-10.jpgEdit

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

  •   Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico talk 14:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice and good as always however the mid-day harch light don't help for to make pleasant colors. -- ChristianFerrer 20:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but image taken at 9:36 UTC because Spain are in the same time zone than Germany. See Time Zone Converter--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 09:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In summer Spain have the same hour than France, I think. But the important is not the UTC hour but most the sun hour for the place where you are. In Spain or in Australia 11:36:47 is more near to the mid -day rather than the golden hour. -- ChristianFerrer 17:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 12:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

  •   Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Halavar (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support The place is charming --LivioAndronico talk 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The place is certainly charming but we are assessing images, not places. There’s severe chromatic aberration on this one (visible e.g. in the rocks on the left, or the dark ribbons on the yurts), and large parts of the roofs are blown. This is not sufficient on an 8 mpix FPC. Not even QI for me, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel 11:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Kreuzschnabel here isn't QI i see other,like a observatory and don't the door of the observatory is for me out of nomination...--LivioAndronico talk 14:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I am quite aware that this is not QI but I want to see a reasonable technical quality on an FPC as well, sorry. Anything technical flaws to mention on my part of an observatory? --Kreuzschnabel 16:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry Kreuzschnabel I am very sorry  . I definitely wrong to express myself. I just wanted to make a comparison, to make you understand, about what I see as possible FP. I still I have not voted against at you  .--LivioAndronico talk 16:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Feel free to oppose my nominations if you think they are not featurable. This is not a personal thing for me at all, like "I dont vote against you, so please do you not vote against me" – I judge images here, neither places, nominators or photographers. Whenever I think a nomination doesn’t meet FP standards, I oppose without regarding the author, nominator or other votes. --Kreuzschnabel 16:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

File:Svjatogorsk, Lavra 1.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Street musician Handschoenmarkt Antwerp.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

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

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

  •   Info Abandoned Icelandic turf house in the region of Búðahraun, Western Region, Iceland. All by me, Poco2 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice composition, it's good (and even necessary) to see the surroundings; nice mood. --Kadellar (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lighting somewhat dull to me, and I’d prefer to see the background mountains sharper. Lacks wow. --Kreuzschnabel 05:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the lighting fits that harsh environment very well. The scenery reminds me of how Jackson made Tolkien's Rohan look in the movies. --El Grafo (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support per Kadellar · Favalli ⟡ 03:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --King of ♠ 05:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --P e z i (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Gjirokastёr (by Pudelek).JPG, featuredEdit

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

  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Christian Ferrer Talk / Im. / Fav. 19:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please remove the white fringe on the bottom (from rotating I suppose). Otherwise nice. --Kreuzschnabel 05:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment corrected :) --Pudelek (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, but the problem pointed by Kreuzschnabel must be fixed. --Kadellar (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hubertl (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hubertl two times,brat --LivioAndronico talk 20:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Jean Cocteau b Meurisse 1923.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Leopard Tree AdF.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 05:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Lüdinghausen, Burg Vischering -- 2014 -- 5492.jpg, featuredEdit

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

  •   Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay talk 11:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- XRay talk 11:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --LivioAndronico talk 21:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak   Support A bit soft for only 7 mpix but lighting & composition make up for that. --Kreuzschnabel 05:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry. Forgotten. An image with a better resolution (with more than 11 mpix) is uploading.--XRay talk 06:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think the quality is absolutely sufficient and the light is great. The crop on both sides though, although I know it's often hard to get wide enough in such a photo, is just too close to the building in my opinion. — Julian H.✈ (talk/files) 09:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support the crop is a bit tight, as mentioned before, but still awesome mood and colors --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very nice. A little bit more space would have been nice, but it's good as is. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Brackenheim (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. --LivioAndronico talk 18:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 14:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Todi panorama.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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

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

  • Thanks for your comment Martin Falbisoner. Anyway I don't think,also beacuse is a quality and valued image. I think that the others could tell me me this. --LivioAndronico talk 10:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree with Martin. If this is getting direct sunlight, it's a bit underexposed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  • weak   Support Better now. Maybe it could further help to increase saturation a bit? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hey Martin You haven't signed the edit  ...anyway more saturation. What do you think? thanks --LivioAndronico talk 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

  •   Comment But it is possible that nobody votes??? It's possible that there are people here who put their photos but don't care to review each other ??? From now on, I will abstain from voting people who do not reciprocate by voting other people (of course I'm not saying they should vote favorably) that leave at least one comment or vote to photos of other users (and there are many). Thanks. --LivioAndronico talk 12:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment I vote when I feel it, not because you wish it. This looks like racket, and is not the right attitude. Yann (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
For you Yann to be educated is a racket? Receive consideration from others and not caring to give it to others is a racket? How sad just sad. --LivioAndronico talk 13:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses --Hubertl (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ciao, as you are insisting to request a vote, I do not hesitate to oppose your nomination because I truly believe that this photo is good in composition and the object is interesting but unfortunately the light and the sky are pretty flat and boring (pardon me for beeing sincere). That#s for the photo. In regard to voting, I strongly believe that nominations for FP are not supposed to be as reciprocal as nominations for QI, where it is expressly stated in the guidelines that you should review one image for every nomination. I personally do not feel to be able to judge most of the time if a picture is adequate for FP and I refrain from voting even if I have abut 40 FP. I, personally, do not feel very comfortable to judge FP candidates and I am more than happy to leave the burden to others. Please consider also that I have plenty of gratitude for your support and appreciation of my work. Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you Wolfgang Moroder but i I don't require a vote for a vote, but at least a vote, comment or suggestion every 10, it isn't good to be ignored !!! At least for me.I prefer a negative vote that spurs me to improve myself that nothing and for that I thank you.And then if everyone did like you .... here we would do? --LivioAndronico talk 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support nevertheless, with the last,slightly corrections, its a pro for me. Please, don´t try fishing for votes. This can turn against your interest! --Hubertl (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks Hubertl but i don't looking for votes but consideration.Danke. --LivioAndronico talk 22:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Beautiful. Very good lighting, good colors, very sharp and last but not least a good motif. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Technically not perfect, but beautiful --Uoaei1 (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--LivioAndronico talk 12:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 06:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Industry

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a pity.   😞 ArionEstar (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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


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

File:Museo Arqueológico de Palencia - 05.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Päiksetõus rabas.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

File:Монастир над Латорицею.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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

Edited versionEdit

 

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places
The chosen alternative is: File:Монастир над Латорицею - 2.jpg

File:Onagers Negev Mountains 1.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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

AltEdit

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Gidip (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals
The chosen alternative is: File:Onagers Negev Mountains 1.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

File:Batticaloa landscape.JPG, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Canoe Dordogne.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Cesis castle in the spring.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

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

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

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

AlternativeEdit

 

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


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

File:140823 Märchendom Saalfelder Feengrotten.jpg, featuredEdit

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

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Code (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Code (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW! --Hubertl (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry there are areas overexposed,the part on the left is disturbing --LivioAndronico talk 07:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Crop on the left (dark area) would be nice. --AntonTalk 08:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you for your comment, Anton. I would do the crop but I am not sure whether this is allowed after exactly this version of the picture was promoted as a VI. Wouldn't I have to upload it as a completely new picture? --Code (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Some parts are too bright, others too dark, but IMO it's OK. But: IMO you should crop out the dark area at the left.--XRay talk 08:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent! Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support I checked it with LR, I could´nt find any burned out areas. Hubertl (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I leave some notes for burned aereas,anyway one vote is enough Hubertl --LivioAndronico talk 09:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
You are right, one vote is enough. ;-) --Hubertl (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment I checked it with lightroom as well and in fact there are no burned out areas. I don't understand your critique anyway, LivioAndronico, since it was you who promoted exactly this version of the picture as a QI without any concern about burned out areas or a bad crop just one week ago. --Code (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Code, first thing you should write under the comment of the person that you want answer. Anyway a thing is QI and another is FP. It IQ is given the quality of the picture and I felt that burned parts were minimum standards for the quality of the same. In FP is different, the picture has to be perfect it whole and these areas or the dark part on the left does not make that, again in my opinion of course. Let's do this, cut the dark part on the left and i can review my vote.Grazie. --LivioAndronico talk 15:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 08:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with the crop on the left. --King of ♠ 08:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Also agree about that crop. --Halavar (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment See above - I would do it but I'm not sure whether this is allowed after the actual version was promoted as VI? --Code (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment If it makes common sense then it is allowed. Cropping that black off the left is common sense. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolute   Support, but do the cropping. --Uoaei1 (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support how it is. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --The Photographer (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Alright everybody, the cropping is done. Do you like it better now? Especially Anton and LivioAndronico? --Code (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment Look nice, and i support. --AntonTalk 13:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok accetable now --LivioAndronico talk 14:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support The new crop is better. Thanks for it --Chmee2 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent and rare.--Jebulon (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:2014 Tarnobrzeg, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP, organy.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Bledule jarni.jpg, not featuredEdit

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


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

File:Buccinum undatum - Hydractinia echinata 07.JPG, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

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

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


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

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

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

  •   Info Detail of Mulher do xale verde, by Cyprien Eugene Boulet. Uploaded and Photo by -- The Photographer (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice painting, very good reproduction. Great colors. Yann (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support ArionEstar (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and very nice painting --LivioAndronico talk 13:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Yes. I did not know this author so little known, however, for me was a shock to see this painting in the room where it was --The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ChristianFerrer 19:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support · Favalli ⟡ 01:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Is there a reason that only a fraction of the painting is nominated? --Godot13 (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  Comment One of the parts of the assembly is out of focus. I would say that as the mona lisa, I wanted to capture and enhance the look in her eyes. --The Photographer (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand cropping a landscape/cityscape for a specific feature (particularly if the whole image has issues), but dramatically cropping part of a painting to be a featured picture because the whole image had flaws just doesn't seem, well, like a featured picture...--Godot13 (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I have been honest, despite my mistake, I must admit that some wonderful things come from errors. --The Photographer (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I rather agree with Godot. I'm curious as to what the whole painting looked like. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
You can see the full peinture in description of this image. --The Photographer (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I meant the one that you took. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
IMO this crop is much more interesting than the whole painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It would be great to have photographs, paintings by Brazilian artists. Your mission @ArionEstar: , if you want to accept it, will apply for a permit at the São Paulo Museum of Art. --The Photographer (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@The Photographer: read this: [1]. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
With the permission you can take pictures with tripod and profesional camera, however, you need send a formal permission. It's what he told me, museum director --The Photographer (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
[2]. ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Fish in El Manglillo e.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

  •   Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak   Oppose Intersting subject, however centered subjects not really centered, it's a bit disturbing. The position of the second boat in background is much disturbing for me. For info 2 dustspots (see notes). -- ChristianFerrer 12:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not wow for me -- Jiel (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others; looks like a competently-taken vacation picture but that's it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It is the return after a fishing trip, is the daily life of these people. This photograph was taken on an island where I lived for 30 years. --The Photographer (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Fine but that doesn’t make the picture special. --Kreuzschnabel 18:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  Comment This image is not tourist for me, however it is special. For some it is touristy and bit special, so important in FP is average in both cases. Because evaluations are subjective, and of course, your opinion is valid. I am constantly looking for how special for most people, however, the special varies from experiences of each. To better understand this section I had to imagine myself as a citizen of the first world who are amazed with iguanas or completely normal situations around me. Understand that every opinion is important part of mutual respect and understanding of the universality of thought, there is obviously sync assertiveness and respect for voters. --The Photographer (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Gobi, Klasztor Chamaryn (07).jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

File:Gothic Chapel Peterhof tonemapped.jpg, featuredEdit

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Religious buildings

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

File:Melitta maura female 2.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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

AlternativeEdit

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:54, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods/Hymenoptera
The chosen alternative is: File:Melitta maura female 2.jpg

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

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

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

  •   Info created by Paul Gauguin, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support A very high resolution of a beautiful painting by a famous painter. -- Yann (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support WoW --LivioAndronico talk 15:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Gidip (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jiel (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --JLPC (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice work; helps that I'm sitting here watching a documentary on Gauguin at the moment.  Daniel Case (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Please, could you tell me where?. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
On a DVD playing on my TV set in my living room. Daniel Case (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Schloss Charlottenburg nachts (Zuschnitt).jpg, featuredEdit

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture/Castles and fortifications

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:42, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Stiftskirche Göttweig Orgel 03.JPG, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 15:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Interiors

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

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

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


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

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

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

  •   Info created by King of Hearts - uploaded by King of Hearts - nominated by King of Hearts -- King of ♠ 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 22:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and nice view --The Photographer (talk) 23:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support Really good i don't like normally the pictures of skyscraper but this is relly spectacular --LivioAndronico talk 10:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment good and nice however problems in the sky (see notes) -- ChristianFerrer 12:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer, PetarM: Fixed. You gotta love sensor auto-cleaning; as soon I turned my camera off and back on after taking these four shots the dust was gone.   --King of ♠ 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
      Support -- ChristianFerrer 18:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per User:Christian Ferrer, there are 2 pretty big smudge tracks. Better now. --Mile (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not wow for me, classical photo -- Jiel (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
    That's what I thought at first, that this skyline would have lots of photos available on Commons, but I was surprised to find that there really aren't that many decent pics of this particular view. Also, the WTC has only been completed recently. --King of ♠ 17:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Code (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Because I will support a set.--Claus (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that set nominations were still banned? --King of ♠ 16:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    @King of Hearts: I prefer a set like this. ArionEstar (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Claus: I have nominated a set below. --King of ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support but I prefer the blue hour one. --Kadellar (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Kadellar: I was planning on nominating it later. But that might not be necessary; see below. -- King of ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice picture capturing what the Lower Manhattan skyline is now (This was purely accidental, I'm sure, but I like that little plane in the far background at right ... a subtle acknowledgement of how it got that way. Daniel Case (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support --Halavar (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    Halavar: Since you added your vote under the three images but before I made it officially a set, could you please clarify your intentions? Thanks! -- King of ♠ 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  Done I would like to vote here, for a single image. --Halavar (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

SetEdit

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

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

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

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


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

File:Pongo pygmaeus (orangutang).jpg (delist), delistedEdit

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

  •   Info Very small, not even sharp at this size (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Yann (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep not really unsharp, and the size is not a big issue IMO. -- ChristianFerrer 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist per Yann. --Kadellar (talk) 10:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist Pearl Jam --The Photographer (talk) 12:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist While it’s a nice shot the image itself isn’t FP for me. Besides the small size there are JPEG artifacts visible in the fur. --Kreuzschnabel 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong   Keep I think it's very unfair to deselect the photo. The technical standards are very different today than ten years ago almost. And the demands placed on today photos are also considerably higher. Following this motto thousands of other photos should also be deselected. --Steindy (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    •   Comment *sigh* Do we have to go through this again? FP rules clearly say that any image may be delisted as soon as it no longer meets FP criteria (which, of course, rise with the technical possibilities) though it did so when it was featured: Over time, featured picture standards change. It may be decided that for some pictures which were formerly "good enough", this is no longer the case. So, this is by no means "unfair" but a plain straightforward procedure. Being an FP once does not mean being it for a lifetime. On the last delisting discussion about an image of the same author a few weeks ago, even the author agreed to delist! --Kreuzschnabel 06:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
No, we must not. But I can have an opinion on such actions... --Steindy (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Of course you can, just refrain from blaming others to be "very unfair". --Kreuzschnabel 19:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Laitche (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Keep -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Delist , btw that's funny :D --Stryn (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

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

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

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


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

File:Building in São Paulo city.jpgEdit

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

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

File:Parque Avenida Building in Paulista Avenue.jpg, featuredEdit

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

@Villy Fink Isaksen:   Done. ArionEstar (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support wow what a building --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Comment. I would support, as it's an interesting building, but it seems clear that the brightness is not consistent in the building. It's much brighter at the bottom. I assume it was stitched, perhaps the exposure was not locked. Diliff (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Diliff: It is fixable? ArionEstar (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
    Probably, but to do it properly, it would require The Photographer to do it from his original files. Diliff (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks @Diliff: and @ArionEstar:. I will try fix it this weekend. This is a exposition problem easy to fix from RAW files. --The Photographer (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is partially strong CA visible. --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
  Done Please @Diliff: and @Taxiarchos228: , let me know if you are satisfied with the result and the problem is corrected. thank you very much --The Photographer (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support. Hi The Photographer, yes, much better. The top is a bit noisy as you have brightened it to match the bottom, rather than darkened the bottom to match the top, but given the resolution of the image is high, it's not a major problem. Diliff (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
  Comment Thank you for your analysis. I found it interesting, as such a thin structure, can have as many wanderings, I have been investigating how it was built. I added some information in the description --The Photographer (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /😄 ArionEstar 😜 (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

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

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

  •   Info The beach of Costa da Capatica (near Lisbon, Portugal) in a stormy winter afternoon -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose That stick spolied some pretty view. --Mile (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Could be nice too fot here --The Photographer (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Non solum bene, sed etiam optime. --Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It is Latin, Wilfredo: "Not only well (done) but also very well"; "However the optimum is a enemy of the good" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  • +1 to Wilfredo hahahaha. Latin always looks so solemn (I stay   Neutral, I also agree with Mile about the pole; the soft light creates a nice mood). --Kadellar (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  •   Support Great scenery, mood and composition. The pole doesn't bother me at all – I think it interplays nicely with the all other diagonals. --El Grafo (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


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

File:Dülmen, Kreuzkapelle -- 2014 -- 2725.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Octopus arms suntanned.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Altja jõgi Lahemaal.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Arseniy Yatsenyuk.jpg, not featuredEdit

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

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


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

File:Cotton boll nearly ready for harvest.jpg, featuredEdit

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

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


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /-- ChristianFerrer 11:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Plants

File:Kuppelsaal TU Wien DSC 8691w.jpg, featuredEdit

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

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)