Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2012

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log

Contents

File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 11:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Tlusťa - uploaded by Tlusťa - nominated by Tlusťa -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Chmee2 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 17:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --ianaré (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose now wow, nothing oustanding for FP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info French caption (blasonnement) added.--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Question I'm interested to find a primary source showing a golden crown on the head of the black silesian eagle. I'm not sure about this specific ornament...--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) But it is good, according to the czech text (...zlatou koronou...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Macaca mulatta, Puerto Rico.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 12:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Basel - Wasserturm Bruderholz2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 15:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor white balance, crop and POV. พ.s. 16:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Please concretise your arguments - if you can. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 17:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support bin ja kein Fan von strahlendem Sonnenschein mit harten Schatten, aber die Schattenwürfe der Bäume auf den Turm gefallen mir. Passt. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Solid work, wb is not so good imho, good QI but I don't see why it should be FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good picture, with a crop a bit tight however, no opinion about the wb, but as Berthold Werner about the FP status.--Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful light --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Don-kun (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Hawaiian Stilt Hawaiian Duck RWD1.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 21:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Map Berlin Brandenburg Airport.png, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 19:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by CellarDoor85 -   Support
  •   Oppose too many inscriptions--David საქართველო 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support clearly arranged map, for me the absolutely appropriate inscriptions, we have a complex topic, commendable solved --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, PNG- map. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 06:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment Is it less kreativ, or less worth to invest hours of creating a well-arranged graphic, then a successful photoshot? - Just to think about. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Needs to be vector-based. พ.s. 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment A svg-version would be nice, I know (I prefer it too) - but it's extremly difficult with graphics of this complexity to convert it to a error-free svg-file. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment - I have created a vector version of this file. Please check it if I did wrong or you can fix it. Regards, --Katarighe (Talk) 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's not a vector version, that is a bitmap with an SVG coat. พ.s. 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Bret Cox L-39 - Reno Race -58 .jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Support FPD removed. Let this is my nomination. I give my limit of nominations to this candidate and support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks.--Sammyday (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Uniform background, good crop, and high resolution (8,846418 megapixels). –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 06:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Altensteinia virescens.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 00:56:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Cattleya iricolor - Flickr 003.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 01:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Grandtetonnational park59887215.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 10:45:02(UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because it is too small at 0.6 megapixels. —Bruce1eetalk 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:View of the Rabí Castle (2) 2.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 21:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Chmee2 - uploaded by Chmee2 - modified by Ximonic - nominated by Chmee2 -- Chmee2 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I know that this image was already nominated, however this improve version was active only for last 3 days with 5 positive votes and no oppose one. I'd be thankful give one more chance to it see if in normal voting period will be more successful. Thank you for this opportunity! :) -- Chmee2 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX  talk 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think for FP, one should get better sky conditions. Not mandatory but, the lighting here could be improved a lot. Some areas are very dark. Another photo from the same place in other conditions would be totally featurable though, imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I rather like the somber mood, it's fitting for a fortress.
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianare (talk • contribs)
  •   Support The cloudy sky is fine. Yann (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment sky conditions are super, also the light and composition, but the image is oversharpened --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Carschten, and I fight against the dictatorship of blue skies. But the castle itself looks bad (oversharpening ?), enough for a "decline" vote, sorry. I like the light and the composition very much though.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Палач,-Петропавловская-крепость.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 20:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine. Uniform background ang high resolution (7,265496 megapixels). –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Impressive. I think the colors are very good (the nuances of the dress). Nit picking: a very little red CA at the top of head, and the sharpness of the block not perfect.--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ximonic (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Question Did I miss something, or the info about the end of the voting period (29 jan.) is wrong ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment Concerning date an error. It is corrected. ;) --Aleks G (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - nice :) --Pudelek (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Amanohashidate view from Kasamatsu Park01s3s4410.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 00:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info All by -- 663h (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 663h (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful view, but there're Chromatic aberrations, blown parts, black areas, noise, chroma noise... too many details for FP status in my opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Loeb 2011 WRC Portugal.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 02:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Tiago Fernandes, uploaded and nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate crop, I would see the car lower in the frame; the dust would be more interesting than empty road. --ianaré (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per ianaré. I have the same feeling that framing is not the best. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Per Ianaré, but still good picture. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I upload alternative crop version. Sasha Krotov (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

AlternativeEdit

 

  •   Support Good action shot, technically good, has wow, EV... --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Good shot --Katarighe (Talk) 17:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Gnangarra 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Haematopus unicolor LC0239.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 17:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info A couple of the Variable Oystercatcher (Haematopus unicolor), created, uploaded and- nominated by Jörg Hempel
  •   Support -- LC-de (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC). Because is IUCN Endangered specie.
  •   I withdraw my nomination

File:Golubac.JPG, delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 08:34:56
 

  •   Info Chromatic aberration, unsharp, hazy colors (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Regretful   Delist Very interesting place. Nice mood, quality not terrible. I would have liked trying to fix this picture rather than delist it... but then, the blur is really too bad. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist poor quality and colours, bad composition and light --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist does not meet current standards. --Jovian Eye storm 13:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist 2004 quality...--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist Per Carschten (kaʁstn). –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 11:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist as per nominator --LC-de (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist --Katarighe (Talk) 17:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/

File:Israeli West Bank Barrier.jpg, not delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 13:33:08
 

  •   Info Full of chromatic aberration, especially in the sky (Original nomination)
  •   Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist I like the composition and there are no CA, but the image is full of (colour) noise, sharpness and details are on an low level; also poor colours --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      Neutral The new version is much better. Very good work, Wetenschatje! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep Because of the historical value of the subject. A FP is not only a super Quality Image. We have to be very careful in the delisting process IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Isn't the rationale "because of the historical value" lacking in NPOV? What makes the subject of high historical value? Tomer T (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any point of view, neutral or not, here. Opinions about this barrier is not important here. But this barrier exists, and it is an historical fact.--Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep per Jebulon.. the image quality is not so bad..and the subject has high encyclopedic value and aesthetically is nice. do we have another featured image, like that, of the isreali barrier? Ggia (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep Good picture of historical value. Achird (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep as others. Yann (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep No noticeable chromatic aberration, no reason to delist --Tony Wills (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep. I would have voted to delist the original version, per Carschten, but Wetenschatje's subsequent edit has improved it a lot. Still not that sharp, but good enough IMO. --Avenue (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep - Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep --Katarighe (Talk) 17:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 8 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Aepyceros melampus petersi female 8014.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 01:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Weak support -- The out-of-focus impala in the background is a little distracting, but otherwise I like it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate composition with the the edge of the waterhole being aligned with the underside of the heads of the two rightmost impalas and the back of the leftmost. พ.s. 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per Wetenschatje, also no "wow" for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support This is an image taken in the wild, so yes! Yann (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann and Brucelee. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 14:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--H. Krisp (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support there is enough "wow" for me due to the water droplets falling of the snout of the specimen in the middle. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Grand-Duc. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wetenschatje, but the positive elements dominate. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Miguel Bugallo 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support "in the wild" shot IMHO negates the minor issues Gnangarra 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Anton Raphael Mengs, The Triumph of History over Time (Allegory of the Museum Clementinum), ceiling fresco in the Camera dei Papiri, Vatican Library, 1772 - M0tty.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 12:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Bahía Onelli Parque Nacional Los Glaciares Patagonia Argentina Luca Galuzzi 2005.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 17:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created & uploaded by Lucag - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kelidimari (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think this is very beautiful, and the colors and peaceful feel of this photo is nice.
  •   Support Per Kelidimari. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice impression of the park. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting light and composition with rocks and ice. --ELEKHHT 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Definite wow factor --NJR_ZA (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Shots like this too often wind up being the ones that you think "But it looked like it was going to be cool!" when you finally look at them. But this one has the composition and colors just right. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Belfry Panormitis monastery.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 13:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support View of the colorful belfry of the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Panormitis, in the little island of Symi, Dodecanese, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment oversaturated --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In-camera processing or post-processing has removed lots of fine details. Colours (saturation) could be OK, I can't judge that. Composition is a bit random and there might be a slight CCW tilt. พ.s. 08:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for serious, even if negative, review. I don't think lots of details are lost, and don't see any obvious tilt. Composition is matter of taste and was maybe wrong in your opinion, but not random. I need other opinions, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I don't see problems with this picture besides the crop. Don't think it is random but it is not optimal either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose oversaturated --Llorenzi (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:North America from low orbiting satellite Suomi NPP.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 04:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring, uploaded by and nominated by -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Very high resolution (64 megapixels) and sharp focus throughout.
  •   Support Wow! A great image of our small planet. Yann (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I change my vote. Nice but wrong proportions. Yann (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

*  Support wow it's my favourite picture. our blue planet :)--David საქართველო 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  •   Support Great --Paolo Costa (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --Chmee2 (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aleks G (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

*  Neutral Not bad. Yet another NASA picture of the earth... I prefer pictures made by wikimedians.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

  •   Oppose. The size of landforms is not the normal one and gives a false impression. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -Erick- Talk 16:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - Awesome high-res photo of Earth! --versageek (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support nice shot Mamad TALK
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I think I can see my house. --AlphaEta (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 07:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Ouch!! per Thierry Caro พ.s. 09:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I change my vote, Per Thierry Caro and ws. Is the Gulf of Mexico so bright ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Brightness in the Gulf could be due to algal blooms. พ.s. 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Misunderstanding, my mistake, due to poor english. I meant "large", "wide", about the visual distortion. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I just read Thierry Caro's comment, then noticed inmediately the wrong proportions. It's weird how one doesn't notice such an important detail at first sight. This is really misrepresentative of the earth. Not really encyclopedic, au contraire. That planet looks like Americaland, not the earth. I heard on the radio about this pic from NASA. Why would (on purpose??) NASA make this unrealistic representation? As if they could not do a perfect job... --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose confusing and unexplained distortion, as remarked above. --ELEKHHT 15:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow! –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Thierry Caro is right. I compared it with this image, and with a globe on Google Earth. North America is definitely oversized. I can't believe they said it's "most detailed picture of Earth ever seen", and it has wrong proportions?! o.O --Lošmi (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I won't oppose due to explanation about satellite position. --Lošmi (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--David საქართველო 20:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I hadn't really paid that much attention to the proportions before, but now I see it too. It looks a bit like fisheye-distorted view, but I can only guess. Hellbus (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that it got a fish eye like effect which, in this case, makes the USA look quite enormous compared to the apparent "diameter" of the Earth seen here. This is an important matter which should be mentioned about this picture! Otherwise the picture would really mislead less attentive people. What comes to the picture itself, it is really beautiful and detailed... But..! --Ximonic (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Because the satellite seems to be named as Suomi which means Finland (even though it was named after Verner E. Suomi) they should take this kind of fish eye picture where Finland fills the entire half of globe. :-) Let's talk about false impression after that... --Ximonic (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above. -- -donald- (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as above. -- Achird (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- Ximonic is right, the picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that a substancial part of the visible hemisphere is "behind the horizon". Take the Earth representation in Google Earth and imagine cropping the image with a smaller circle. The result is similar to the present picture. This is not a distortion, in the sense people is using here, just a close-up. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment For those concerned about the fisheye/cropped aspect of the picture, would amending the description to reflect that fact help? Hellbus (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Definitely should be explained, as is very different from common perspectives and projections. --ELEKHHT 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I have added the following text to the beginning of the image description. Hellbus (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "A view of most of North America taken from a low orbit. This vantage point results in a view that is distorted much like that of a fisheye camera lens, making the land mass appear disproportionately large. NASA description follows."
  •   Oppose per fisheye effect. -- Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm even considering to propose this "image" for deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment and   Support -- I can't understand the animosity against this image. This is not a fisheye effect at all! When looking at a sphere you only see (almost) a full hemisphere when you are very, very far from it. The closer you are the less you see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I think what is meant by "fish-eye effect" and "distortion" is not that is "artificial" use of a special lens, but that is a very particular perspective, in contrast to the ones we are used to, taken from further away and which are closer to the projections used in mapping. The problem I see is that it does not provide any significant advantage in terms of major additional detail in the centre, while reducing the overview. Furthermore, the distinction from the "standard" perspectives is here ambiguous as some of the usual conventions are kept (i.e. north upwards), and thus the viewers are confused, as well demonstrated above. --ELEKHHT 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Let them be confused, they will undestand and maybe learn something then - isn't this a purpose of the project? Of course the description of file should explain this. --sfu (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I believe a good image should be self-explanatory. For instance here is clear for anybody that the image is from close-distance (while the description is also more precise). My other argument illustrated, is that I find a good overview more educational. --ELEKHHT 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I don't believe so. I think description is needed sometimes. --sfu (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Alves you are right with the distance, but it suggests that you see the whole (half) globe, but it isn't so. -- -donald- (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Jes. People. It really looks that way if you are close to the surface. You can only see full hemisphere if you are far enough from the surface. Being very strictl you can only see full hemisphere while being in infinite distance from the sphere. Plese read the: en:Horizon, please. --sfu (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment A shot from the moon is far less than infinite. It would be good enough, no need to go to infinity. It gives a perfectly precise enough idea of what the continents and landmasses sizes are, compared to the total size of the earth. We are not arguing technical facts, fisheye distortions and crazy calculation stuff here, as I've understood. We are just opposing because when a person opens the file gets a wrong proportion of the landmasses, which is not very helpful for an encyclopedia. If I were a learning kid and looked at this picture I'd get confused (what the heck, is the north pole in the grand canyon?? Is California the opposite of Ushuaia? Are Asia plus Europe smaller than America????). Problem here is, that this stitched pano's contour is round, coinciding with the earth roundness. Had it been a circular sector, there would have been no problem. But the file, as it is, is misleading, no matter what we say. It is an extremely cool panoramic image, but it gives more wrong information than it gives right. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Once again, bacause I have a slight impression that you are trying too suggest it's arifficial: if you where on this height above Mexico as the satellite you would see exacly the same. The fact that it looks that way is a very strage indeed, and that is why it's worth to show it to the people. Of course the decription have to be changed, as now it doesn't mention the word horizon, nor the height of the satellite above the ground. Give people something confusing, and explain to then. Are you really stucked in showing people nice but not surprising views and animals? If look at the picture more carefully you will see that the atmosphere is very thick in it. That's because the satellite was close to the surface. Everything fits, it looks that way. What have to be changed is the description, which should mention the approximate height of the satellite and the link to horizon. It's disturbing, it's true, Great! Then that's what we want (with a good description)! Ok, I'll try to make the description today. --sfu (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Also the file name have to be changed. --sfu (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      Done --sfu (talk) 09:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per many above on proportions. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mt Cook LC0247.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 22:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Aoraki/Mount Cook as seen from Hooker Valley. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
  •   Support -- LC-de (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 23:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Lot of wow to me. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support very good quality and composition, breathtaking view --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --ianaré (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support beautiful landscape--David საქართველო 09:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 14:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much boring sky at top; blown snow on the mountain, looks posterized --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Wladyslaw.--Jebulon (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. Excellent weather, and beautiful, but it's just the standard shot of Mt Cook up the Hooker Valley, so no great wow to me. Agree with Carschten about the composition. --Avenue (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Gnangarra 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Reflet-tour-Eifel-Paris-Luc-Viatour.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 17:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice picture! Sadly, it will get deleted due to copyright restrictions. --Jovian Eye storm 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support There is no copyright on ordinary light. Yann (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--David საქართველო 21:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX  talk 23:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow for me, I like the composition which is the not usual picture of Eiffel Tower by night. PierreSelim (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Pretty cool. But I think it is a little too dark isn't it? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose superb idea, but the image is noisy and I would prefer more space at top and less at bottom --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting concept, including WOW, but insufficient image quality (e.g. noise). พ.s. 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support a very interesting and fantastic shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yes, noisy. But...Did somebody ever see such a view of this monument ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Great shot. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support with a reservation. This is not a picture of the Eiffel tower, but of the reflection of the Eiffel tower in a sheet of water. I'm sure French lawyers will appreciate the difference. I'm equally sure they will take this completely nonsensical and idiotic matter seriously. MartinD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Mergus octosetaceus, por Sávio Freire Bruno.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 15:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because the image size is less than 2MPx Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Full Moon Luc Viatour.jpg, not delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 21:14:50
 

Name and description of file purports to show a full moon. In fact, the moon shown is not a full moon, so should not be a featured picture illustrating a full moon. Suggest another picture showing an actual full moon would be a better candidate for a featured picture.

  Comment I'm not sure if there is a way to withdraw my nomination, but I've changed my vote. Meanwhile, I've also emailed the author, who has a much better camera now and possibly could simply replace the picture with a better one, which would satisfy some of the criticisms when originally featured.Victor Engel (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment It says "nearly full moon". The name can be changed. I didn't understand why it should be delisted though. Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Keep No valid reason to delist, and I wish people would get over filenames - a filename is not a description! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment It says nearly full moon because I made that edit. It says full moon in other languages, and it's referenced by a number of pages as a full moon picture. It's wrong for it to be used as an example of a full moon picture. That's what I would like to correct, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. Delisting it is one step toward that direction.Victor Engel (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Note: this is not just a featured picture. It is a picture featured as a full moon picture. See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_pictures/Astronomy Victor Engel (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  Comment It is a Featured Picture because of the quality of the image, it wasn't featured because it was of a full moon, that is irrelevant to its featured status. You are quite welcome to correct the descriptions and captions wherever they occur, and even request a rename of the file. But your reason for delisting appears to be that you think it is easier to delist than bother to correct what you see as a problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  CommentIt would be nice if I could receive some constructive comments. Did you follow the link posted to the comment you replied to? Did you see that the picture is listed there as a featured full moon picture? Note that this is the first time I've dealt with modifying the status of an existing wikimedia commons entry, so this is new ground for me. Rather than criticize what I'm doing, instructing me what I SHOULD do would be more helpful. I have not followed all the links to this picture, but I suspect there are a number of pages that use this picture to illustrate a full moon. If those pages are to be corrected to reference another picture (there are plenty out there), what is the best way to do that?Victor Engel (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Malta Gozo Ta Pinu BW 2011-10-08 10-18-54.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 14:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Loved this the moment I saw you first post it. In checking the WWW I don't think there is one that is better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Beautiful church, good quality. I don't like the environment though, with all the dry vegetation. Lacking some sharpness too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support The dry vegetation is typical for the region. --Mbdortmund (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good perspective. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Gnangarra 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Mihael Grmek {talk) 14:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Schlammspringer Periophthalmus sp.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 23:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish

File:Tachar Persepolis Iran.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Weißeritztalbruecke-pano.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kolossos -- Kolossos (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kolossos (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice! --Aleks G (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info The bridge is very distorted. Take a look to Google-Maps. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I have no problem with the distortion, we have a very wide viewing angle, well done sitching and a very interesting view of the bridge --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I think geometric distortions are sometimes needed in order to give a wider view. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. + bad crop IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor distortion and crop at bottom. Panoramics are not always useful... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Yann (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 11:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2010-02-20-kickboxen-by-RalfR-01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 10:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ralf Roletschek - uploaded by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by Ralf Roletschek -- Ralf Roleček 10:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good action shot, but motion blur is a bit strong, and composition seems indecisive. For instance, legs are cut off, top and right crop very tight, busy background. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support alofok* 19:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with Maurilbert, composition is way below FP quality. Legs seem to be important in this sport so shouldn't be cut off. The relationship to the spectators might be interesting but was mostly missed here. And the file description doesn't say very much about the image either. Instead there is an endless list of licenses, including many NC. --ELEKHHT 20:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lower crop, framing. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Paolo Costa. Additional, partially over-sharpened and strong noise. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Commercial stopped badly, poor crop, and an uneven background. Not featured. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose per ElmA. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Too much motion blur, poor composition, poor crop, disturbing background. / Achird (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Gyps fulvus LC0202.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 08:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
  •   Support -- LC-de (talk) 08:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Light is not good, with shade on the face of the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I find that the shade in the face and the drop of blood increase the dramatic expression, which match the bird's reputation. Yann (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment Not a drop of blood, IMO, but a piece of flesh/meat.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose very bad light: shady face and strong blown parts on the plumage --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann / Achird (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Yann Cathy Richards (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Yann. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As kaʁstn--Miguel Bugallo 20:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blown parts. พ.s. 11:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:MG PA 6 Race, 1300 cm³, Bj. 1936 (2008-06-28 Sp).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Spurzem - Lothar Spurzem (edited by Alchemist-hp) - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Nor the sharpness (at high resolution) neither the background look optimum (backgrounds are always difficult for cars...), but it is a very good picture, "featurable" IMO. I support.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support per Jebulon. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 06:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • very closely cut, but nevertheless   Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really a very unappealing background, just as in focus as the car. The resolution isn't great and the crop is too tight right and left. It's a decent illustration of the car, but not featurable. I've seen much better pictures of vehicles fail, such as this one: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow Lamborghini Gallardo edit2.jpg. Julia\talk 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --byggxx (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support The background, a box in the historic paddock of the Nürburgring, is authentic and marvelous. I like the silence of this moment between the competitions. --Pitlane02 talk 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportM 93 (talk) 07:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support — I like the picture including the Nürburgring background (and I like the car).--Genossegerd (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful car. The background shows that it was photographed in its element - the paddock/pits at a race track. Royalbroil 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Molière Mignard Chantilly.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Painting by Pierre Mignard - photo, upload and nomination by me -- Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support this rare and pretty little portrait of Molière by Mignard, 55cm X 48.5cm. On display at Château de Chantilly, France. Photo not made by Mr.Google.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support just an observation it could even go main page on the 17th Feb the date Molière died 339 years ago Gnangarra 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aleks G (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Narasimha oil colour.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 18:01:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Shinisaurus crocodilurus krokodilschwanz höckerechse.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 19:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Citron (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I wouldn't support it on en because it shows only part of the animal, but gladly do here. Nice for showing semi-aquatic lifestyle. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad light and background (too similar like the animal) IMHO --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    It's the principle of camouflage... If the environment was yellow, I don't think the lizard survive long.--Citron (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    Camouflage. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Great. I particularly like the position of the head and the eye, directly pointing at the viewer. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Wow. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Miguel Bugallo 20:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aleks G (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too hard to see the animal, not enough of the animal to see. Royalbroil 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --99of9 (talk) 13:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Reptiles

File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 15:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Meho29 - uploaded by Meho29 - nominated by Meho29 -- Mihael Grmek (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportBruce1eetalk 15:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Waouww beautiful light --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Very beautifully, good color. --Aleks G (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Fantastic view! But is WB ok?? seems too yellow, also considering the blown parts in the clouds. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --AlphaEta (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!  ■ MMXX  talk 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info Very nice, but the picture is a little bit tilted. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportYerpo Eh? 07:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --sfu (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sometimes the world really does look like a painting. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support wonderful lighting - Benh (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm a bit worried about the white balance. It seems very yellow or green. In such weather condition as it seems to be I would expect a little more reddish tones too. --Ximonic (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 
...with different white balance. Maybe not perfect but to give the idea.


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places

File:Arcade.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Delphine, Madame de Staël, Paris, 1803 01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 04:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Coyau (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Coyau (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aleks G (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop on the bottom is very tight it should be fixed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment The depth of field is very short, volume 3 is unsharp...--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mumiae, Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte IMG 1897 edit.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info Mummia in a box, pharmacists collection of the hamburgmuseum - created, edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment da fehlt für meinen Geschmack eindeutig (irgend)ein Größenvergleich. Ich kann mir gerade überhaupt nicht vorstellen wie groß diese Box ist (  a size comparison is sadly missed here IMO) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Die korrekte Beschreibungen und Metadaten werden aus dem Museum nachgeliefert. Ein Datenexport erfolgt demnächst und war bei Erstellung technisch nicht möglich. So viel vorab: die Box ist etwa so groß wie eine Hand. Oben auf kannst du den Inhalt der Schachtel sehen. Das ist etwa so feinkörnig wie feiner Sand. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - entire object should be sharp for FP. --Claritas (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Why? --LC-de (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
      • It is good to show detail through the whole image in an encyclopedic picture. Blur is good for artistic pics, but sharpness is necessary here. It depends on the use of the image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Not at all. It depends on the photographer's decision. It's hard for me to understand what makes you believe that the whole object should be in focus. Using that shallow depth of field and having this bokeh was created intentionally. Using a larger aperture would provide insufficient optical resolution and therefore less sharpness. The faded label does not provide a distinct sharpness. Yet one can estimate the focal point when looking at the Mummia atop of the box. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
        • what Details do you expect on the rear of this box? --LC-de (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment I was answering to a question in general terms, of why people usually gives a negative vote on this page, with shallow depth of field as the reason for it. I did not oppose, even if I must say I would have liked it more focused on this white background, through the whole image even if there's nothing to see - a matter of personal taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Julia W
  •   SupportJulia\talk 11:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice. But what would the encyclopedic use of the pic be? Also chromatic aberrations present, and looks like noise reduction was too strongly applied. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Noise reduction was applied to the sky only. I think you may be seeing haze in the distance? Julia\talk 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment This seems to illustrate quite a few things about this locality - presence of sandy beach, presence of haze, water apparently too cold or too dangerous to swim, rocks that pose problems to navigation, human attempt to address this problem (lighthouse). And is that the other side of the bay in the distance there, or an island? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  Comment -- Other side of the bay. No islands that big in the bay. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but nothing special. --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per PAULOGARCIA2005 –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Expressive--Miguel Bugallo 20:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support very nice --Pudelek (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose water, only water--Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good --Katarighe (Talk) 22:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not special --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 10:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Detroit Publishing Co. - uploaded and edited by Durova - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 11:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the sky.--Claus (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support nice illustration, and although the "wow" not that strong, it helps the topic balance given the very low number of streetlife FPCs. --ELEKHHT 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine photo. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 17:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX  talk 23:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support As Elekhh. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Speculative color correction removed all of the characteristic tones of the photochrom process. Also the attribution is incorrect, this is an image by Photochrom Zürich, not the Detroit Publishing Co. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a reference and if yes, correct the attribution? --ELEKHHT 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Trongphu (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Historical

File:Roquemartine 06.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 21:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because The resolution ist to small, minimum 2MP - Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

,

File:Adi Holzer Werksverzeichnis 899 Satchmo (Louis Armstrong).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Fleur de givre.tif, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 17:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Annick MONNIER| - uploaded by Annick MONNIER| - nominated by Annick MONNIER| -- Cquoi 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cquoi 17:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice photo, but wrong format. Please renominate it with a JPEG format. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment TIFF is used by a variety of institutions over PNG for obvious reasons, despite our current policy. Given this image was taken in RAW mode, a TIFF is suitable. In addition a JPG can be helpful for people who are not technically able to handle TIFF. Both formats are helpful with respect to future possible reusers. Afaik there is no statement on formats in our FPC guideline. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 15:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Other version featured now. -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Fleur de givre L.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Natural phenomena

File:Haetera piera - Ptari tepuy - Gran Sabana.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --PAULOGARCIA2005 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- The fact it is in a natural setting is a major plus for me.Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 11:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, imo the image quality is far below the actual macro bar and I also don't like the "messy" background
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan1983 (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
    • It could be helpful to show the BF transparency in this case, maybe it mitigates. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • But a more blurry background would show the transparency the same way. --mathias K 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much leaf. Would support the cropped version. --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    •   Support --WikedKentaur (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    •   Fixed Done, image also has less distractions now. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Don't like the background and would love the id of the Melastomaceae it's sitting on. พ.s. 11:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Trongphu (talk) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Leviathan1983 --Citron (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC).
  •   Question ¿Cuál es la subespecie? Conrado (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • La sub-especie es piera también (es decir Haetera piera piera), que es la única sub-especie que se encuentra en Venezuela, y primera Haetera identificada de todas, alrededor del año 1750. Existen otras 5 sub-especies entre las cuales la Haetera piera negra o Haetera piera diaphana, pero se encuentran en países como Perú, Colombia y Brasil. Espero te haya servido, saludos. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

 
The Helix Nebula (also known as The Helix, NGC 7293, or Caldwell 63) is a large planetary nebula (PN) located in the constellation Aquarius. The Helix has often been referred to as the Eye of God on the Internet, since about 2003.
With a resolution 16,000 × 16,000 and a filesize 37.15 246.9 MB this is one of the best (if not the best) images of the Helix nebula.
Image was nominated before but I do feel it deserves another go given the upload of improved version by Tryphon since the nominaiton.
 
Other image (featured)
  •   Comment Wahhhh. Amazing! But wait, I can see HUGE pixels... so what are those 37 Mb for if resolution is not that good in the end? Takes hours to open, but I could open in 10 sec a similar file with almost the same res I think, am I wrong? --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It is not the same image. Compared to the 2004 version (the other image) way more effort was given to the creation of this image due to a meteor storm so it is more accurate I believe. You'll notice old image has more "red" and colors are actually off in other ways as well.
Story: "Valuable Hubble observing time became available during the November 2002 Leonid meteor storm. To protect the spacecraft, including HST's precise mirror, controllers turned the aft end into the direction of the meteor stream for about half a day. Fortunately, the Helix Nebula was almost exactly in the opposite direction of the meteor stream, so Hubble used nine orbits to photograph the nebula while it waited out the storm. To capture the sprawling nebula, Hubble had to take nine separate snapshots."
  • Mind that the source image is a 285.99 MB TIFF file which unfortunately isn't as easy to carry to Wikipedia. I will try to upload a better copy though as I am downloading this TIFF. The pixels are the detail Hubble is capable of. Aside from looking good the pixel color differences gives us better clue on how the material is distributed in the planetary nebula (back when I first uploaded it, my computer had less ram than the size of the TIFF file). So it is supposed to be pixelated when zoomed in too much I believe.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the massive pixels are a product of low quality JPG. I'll be working on this right away. The better quality version is at 4shared.com, though I am not sure if devs will agree to upload it here yet. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I still see huge pixels, but now the image is way higher in size, which requires even more time to open. That's probably not the way to solve the issue, it's not a matter of compression of the tiff, nor the fact that the file was made out of 9 separate images. If I have a photo of 2 by 2 px of information and make it larger I can now have a lot more pixels, but the information is gonna be only 4 pixels, in 4 squares, repeating themselves. I'm not adding quality/information to the file, only weight. That's what appears to be happening here. As for the second upload, I think 250 Mb is really too much, you probably want to revert the picture to its previous size of 37 Mbs. Just an opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Reduced size is reduced quality in this case though. I do not believe there are giant squares anymore. There are subtle differences in pixels, the difference is small due to the increased resolution. Are you sure it isn't a setting issue? I am not sure if I understand your concern completely. I thought I did which is why I went to great lengths to upgrade quality. :/ -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I still see them, even refreshing the file. I don't know, could be a setting issue... it never happened to me before, even on large panos of approx. 100 Mbs. But I'm not sure, it could be a problem on my computer, that's why I'm not opposing. Maybe we can get an opinion from another user. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 
Crop: Comet-like Filaments Along the Inner Rim of the Helix Nebula's Gas Ring
 
Crop: Another close-up of the Helix Nebula
  • The file is using what came from NASA/ESA/Hubble. I have not increased the resolution artificially by stretching the image. :) Mind you we do not really expect the viewer to view the file full. I am unaware of any computer that can display in 16k by 16k resolution. :) When you downscale the file down to screen size or printable size it should not show pixelization of any kind. If the person wants to print this image into a poster the size of the ones in times square, it should still not show pixels. High resoluition allows this. What it also allows is if someone wants to zoom to a specific point and crop that detail as the very center could be of great importance like here. If the file is downscaled down to 3k by 3k pixels it would loose that kind of detail.
  • By the way the individual stars you see may be pixelated as they are out of focus. The stars and the nebula are light years apart (literally). The object (nebula) you see is about 2.87 lightyears wide (~2,715,171,650,000 kilometers or ~1,687,129,450,000 miles) so it would take you 2.87 years to get to one side to the other if you are traveling at the speed of light!
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 19:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Awesome stuff :) Crazy numbers. --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • To give you a better idea, the nearest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri C which is 4.24 light years away making the nebula's radius ~0.677/10ths the distance to there. Indeed the numbers are crazy. :) -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support WOW! Yann (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC). For the glory of G-d!
  •   Support I love astronomy.Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - I see no problems, and beautiful and educational image. --Claritas (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:JFK library Stitch Crop.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Fcb981 - derivative by MickStephenson - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHHT 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ELEKHHT 03:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that «designed by the studio of the architect I. M. Pei» should be added in the description.--MrPanyGoff 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Added architect. Please always feel free to improve descriptions, or add other languages. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support, and added french description.--Jebulon (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing special, large dark foreground, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Half of image are empty, just blue sky. Sasha Krotov (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. No wow or speciality. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 12:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Nathan Phillips square - Toronto.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 05:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Paolo Costa (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paolo Costa (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment strong brown cast, also a stitching problem. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment But they were twins!! I saw them... - joking of course - I'm working on it. The brown cast though... I wouldn't know how to fix it. I'll try some WB and local desat. Let's get to work. Thanks. --Paolo Costa (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Fixed I fixed the stitching error and reduced a bit of brown tint. But I think it can still be improved. I tried more WB variations but the outcome is just too blueish or greenish. This is the version I like the most. --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Everything ok, a nice work. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Despite being born there I am not a fan of TO but this is still a rather nice capture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Toronto-rama!! Daniel Case (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Rhinogobius flumineus(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 19:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish

File:Saint-Petersburg-Mosque,-dome.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 12:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created & uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Just enough   Support The crop could be better. --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop, angle, assymmetry, WB too blue. --201.208.169.81 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Not signed in. Tomer T (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Proponuję przyciąć do samej kopuły, ponieważ "żabia perspektywa" deformuje. Poaz tym bardzo mi się podoba. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • What? Tomer T (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • He suggested cropping to show only dome Bulwersator (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Antalya Side Apollo.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 20:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

--kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I get that you don't like my photgraphy as evidence by the long history of negative votes but there is nothing bad about the light. Some might say the shadows add a bit of drama. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Harsh shadows because taken at the wrong time of the day. It would be better if taken with the sun at your back. Royalbroil 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment Brilliant advice...wish I thought of that.Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 
Sun at Back!
  •   Support -- I see nothing wrong in shadows + per Ritchyblack Bulwersator (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Calocochlia festiva 02.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 11:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Durham Ranger salmon fly.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 12:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created & uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose if the motive has several black / dark parts, it's not good and useful to choose a black background IMO. So not a featured picture to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Strking image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support the black backgound make the wow-effect --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The difference from the hook to the background is too little. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please provide a reference that can be used to verify and reproduce the pattern. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bad background --P0lyzoarium (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - I love the black background, it is key to making the colors pop out at the viewer. Royalbroil 22:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support พ.s. 11:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Trongphu (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Floury Baker cicada side.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 13:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 08:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by w:en:Samuel H. Gottscho - uploaded by Michel Vuijlsteke - nominated by Elekhh -- ELEKHHT 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ELEKHHT 08:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support 79 years old! Achird (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support! -- MJJR (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support  ■ MMXX  talk 00:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As a historical document it is valuable, no doubt about that. As an FP candidate is sucks big time. พ.s. 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • You might not like the mood or the tension between light and darkness, or simply not like any historic photo, but if you don't explain nobody will understand. --ELEKHHT 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • The only thing that sucks is your inappropriate use of the English language. Wetenschatje, insulting other people's photographies is not very cricket of you. Constructive critique is welcome and I assume that even you can do better than "is sucks". Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --AlphaEta (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose current version. I like the scene, and the image deserves some leeway due to age, but I think it also needs further restoration work to make FP grade. There's a lot of noise, a lack of sharpness near the top of the Center, and there's an odd lighter patch flaring in from the right side (indicated with a note). --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Avenue. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - needs de-noising, sharpening and some local reduction in contrast. --Claritas (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Avenue. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Lacks sharpness at the main focal building. Royalbroil 22:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose needs de-noising--Miguel Bugallo 17:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Strong support --Torstein (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see need for restoration here. --Lošmi (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 09:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC).
  •   Info Now you can official write and say: this image is simply shit   --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Remembers me this one, never assessed in the QIC page...:/...;)--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose See the shade: Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise. In adition, chromatic noise in all the object IMO--Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    Hi Lmbuga, please read the article: Color temperature and then you understand the "blue shadow" areas. I can mail you my RAW file too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I only can read the spanish version (too little version) and I think the same, sorry--Miguel Bugallo 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I have never seen something like this in a picture mine not oversaturated. In the shade there are green colors, violet colors, blue colors...!: Excessive to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support The shade is not a valid reason to oppose. I see nothing wrong with this picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
the shade (or shadow) is a demonstration that the image is oversaturated IMO--Miguel Bugallo 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Brackenheim (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Let us not argue about this shit. Shit Happens ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not wow for me--Umnik (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Umnik, nothing so special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm afraid Miguel is right. The shadow does look really weird. But also the top left corner, and the dung looks too reddish and oversaturated. There's also some chroma noise. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The original shot wasn't "tick sharp" and the well executed sharpening process can't change that fact. Moreover the chromatic noise in the dark areas as mentioned by others reduce the images' quality. Please consider using {{Retouched picture}} to point out the changes done to the image. Great idea for a featured picture btw. Regards, PETER WEIS TALK 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    It isn't retouched. It is simple an other second image, taken some seconds later.
  •   I withdraw my nomination I withdraw this image for now. I try to rework it new, perhaps without chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mergus octosetaceus.pngEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 18:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
  •   Support Conrado (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
      Oppose Conrado (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Umnik (talk) 19:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Size, quality and crop. Sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because this image with 1,4 MPx resolution does not meat the minimum size criteria of at least 2 MPx --LC-de (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •   Info But the image has 3,37 MPx! Conrado (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    No, the filesize is 3,37 MB, but the image size is 1.452 × 946 pixels = ~1.373.600 pixels = ~1,37 mega pixels < 2 Mpx. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    Forgive my ignorance! Conrado (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
    No problem :) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Chairs freeze in Winter.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Shillong parrot.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Dipankan001 - uploaded by Dipankan001 - nominated by Dipankan001 -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Dipankan001 (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Because ot the flash shadow, and the cropped tail. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, unsharp, nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jebulon. --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose cropped tail and harsh flash. --ELEKHHT 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mastle y la Odles.JPGEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Question Pardon me, could you please point out the underexposed parts of the image? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  Comment I suspect the grey clouds and yellowish snow make one wonder as they should be lit up by the sun. Regardless, you should take care of the dust spot just above Sas Rigais. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
It's the magic of the evening, when the path of the sunlight is much more intriguing - thanks for thw dustspot!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Beautiful colors/scenery, but most of the picture is in shade, and when you open the file full size you see artifacts in the sky, and the rock is not very sharp.--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Paolo Costa. –ElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 17:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination Do I have to understand that only pictures in full sunshine are eligible for FP? The artifacts can be fixed. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:AMG Mercedes-Benz C204 (DTM).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why not votes anybody ? Pro - Contra opposed, as you think, but nothing at all, very strange --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Good otherwise but there is something with the crop that bothers me. I feel it's too tight. --Ximonic (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - They must feel like its close to FP standards but have no specific criticisms. Royalbroil 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathy Richards (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   SupportElmA (TalkMy filesE-mail) 15:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Chepry (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I don't like the car, and I don't like the crop. / Achird (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:Hindu Bride, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Yann (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Yann (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Katarighe (Talk) 16:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image with high educational value --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Rich in color and detail; tells us so much. Daniel Case (talk) 06:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --sfu (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't like the harsh flash light.. but the image is nice as a composition and has high EV. Ggia (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   OpposePoor light, poor background. พ.s. 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As พ.s. and a bit oversharpened--Miguel Bugallo 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It is not oversharpened. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support same as all the support above.Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Could be better... --Citron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Little of a person's arm is seen on left border and distracting background. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Arrecife. Lanzarote-36.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 19:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Miguel Bugallo 19:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The horizon is a very very little bit tilted clockwise.--Jebulon (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment The technical quality is ok, but I miss that certain something qualifying it for a FP. --LC-de (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Done Thanks. New version (not tilted now, I think)--Miguel Bugallo 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome quality. Nice water color! --Paolo Costa (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support Love the perspective on it with the centred pillar. Orderinchaos (