Open main menu

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/January 2011

< Commons:Featured picture candidates‎ | Log

Contents

File:Bubble Ring in Sunlight.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 01:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Joe Burch - uploaded by Joe Burch - nominated by User:Rep07 -- Rep07 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rep07 (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tight crop, some of the bubbles at the bottom of the image are cut off.--Snaevar (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- No idea of what a bubble ring was before I did a search on the web. I see nothing exceptional here justifying a promotion to FP, either in the subject, the aesthetics or the image quality. Close to FPX, really. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ferrofluid Magnet under glass.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 03:29:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created and uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I nominated this once before, but sadly, it had one vote to few and failed. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The ferromagnetic fluid itself could have better lightning. There is an area to the right, which appear completely black and with no discernable structure. The presence of the glass plate gives a better impression of what is actually going on than the existing FP from the same series of photos, but it is also distracting because it protrudes so much out in the foreground. Thus, I prefer the aforementioned illustration of the subject. --Slaunger (talk) 08:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I wanted to indicate the black area as an annotation, but somehow the annotation template code does not work. Maybe due to some renaming issues, because it has been nominated previously? --Slaunger (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The subject is really interesting and I guess it's kind of an interesting effect to show the magnetic field going through the glass. But there's something about this that makes it hard to tell what that is, I might not have guessed that was liquid without some of the above comments and actually going to WP ("Where's the fluid? Is it invisible? That green thing?"), where I found this already featured image that I think is easier on someone looking at it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacking illustrative value, per IdLoveOne.--Snaevar (talk) 03:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I cannot follow any of those comments above. It's highly illustrative, and the fact that you can't tell it's fluid without reading the description makes it even more interesting. The background could be a lot whiter though. -- H005 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Yellowstone Castle Geysir Edit.jpg, not delistedEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 31 Dec 2010 at 14:10:20
 

  •   Info
  1. This is a downsampled version of File:Yellowstone Castle Geysir.jpg. Downsampling is generally disapproved for FP.
  2. I can't find the nomination page. -- H005   14:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

(Original nomination)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Batrachostomus septimus 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 1 Jan 2011 at 16:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Joseph Smit - restorated, uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Citron (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 06:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Restorations should be made in a different file and not on the original.--Garrondo (talk) 11:51, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hum, the original of this file is also a restoration. --Citron (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The 2008 first image provided by Regani? Nevertheless I would say that further changes (specially if the are as important as here) should be uploaded as different files.--Garrondo (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it was a bad restoration, then I finished Regani's work. Why not, that's the original, you can do it. Regards --Citron (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support... I also support Garrondo's remark above. --Cayambe (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 20:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Makele-90 (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Over-saturated - compared with both the original version of the artwork and photos of the actual bird. Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Petroica boodang orford.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 16:59:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support LeavXC (talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Too much space to the right, but w/e. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo, congratulations. --Ken Billington (talk) 08:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhuk (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice! Good composition too. -- MJJR (talk) 20:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Miguel Bugallo 11:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --663h (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Yarl 18:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:20100701 Pelpin, cathedral, 9.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 2 Jan 2011 at 17:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Martin Kozák -- Martin Kozák (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info nominated especially because of very high resolution (375 megapixels)
  •   Support -- Martin Kozák (talk) 17:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Poor framing (large is not necessarily valuable or beautiful) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 18:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The crop and perspective are far from ideal, but here I just love the level of detail and the sharpness over the entire image. Worth downloading despite its size. -- H005 18:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 08:51:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Maedin
  •   Support. Second ever own-work nomination. We have very few files that show, from ground level, the Tour, the Seine, the proximity of the two, and the river traffic. This is certainly the only decent, quality one available on Commons, that I could find. Maedin\talk 08:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 11:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhuk (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --663h (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. It would be even better if the inward tilt at the sides was removed. --Avenue (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Miguel Bugallo 09:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Honningsvåg-01.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 16:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Luca Boldrini - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kadellar (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Sorry, oversaturated flickr kitsch. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Cayambe (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Oversaturated. This is no tropic coast, but an artic one so such a saturation is obviously unrealistic. --Aktron (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Machine gun corps Gaza line WWIb edit2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 07:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by the American Colony of Jerusalem - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by Patriot8790 --патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment: The file has been restored departing from the original. However there is no tag indicating that it has been retouched, no indication on what has been actually done and no link to the original file, which would be a good idea to upload to commons. A tiff version of the restoration would also a great addition to commons. Otherwise is a great image.--Garrondo (talk) 11:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until some info on the restoration is provided.--Garrondo (talk) 13:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC
  •   Info you might want to notice that the required information is available under "other versions". a retouched and a restored picture are two different things. a wise decision to not apply the template here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 22:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


  •   Support per Garrando, it's interesting. Part of me is against featuring it, but it's not really for VP or QI, so.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Valuable historical photo. Steven Walling 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Jebulon (talk) 21:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Notre-Dame arrière neige.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 16:40:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Cathedrale Notre-Dame de Paris, snowy day...Blue sky and sunny day are not a mandatory... -- Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Not bad, I like it, I like the cloudy mood, but the bottom crop seems somewhat tight, the image looks a bit blurry and I miss the special, the featured thing in the composition. Just an opinion... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Thank you for giving your opinion. The bottom looks maybe tight, because the picture is taken from a bridge (please look at the geotag) and his rail is would have been a bit disturbing in foreground  , and there is nothing else to see but the wall of the Seine embankment--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO somewhat unsharp.--Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice atmosphere --George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support One of the things I learned in Paris is that photographing Notre Dame is not an easy task. There is a myriad of obstacles in the way, or you have to get so close that you get horrible distortions. This is a pretty good image, high quality, composition is good, the lighting is very flat so it plays excellently on the subject. FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition seems cut-off. integrating the Archbishop's Bridge or the Seine could be benficial. levels and sharpness should be reworked. please consider adding an annotation explaining the meaning of the locks, clarifying the last day of autumn (which can be different depending on you cultural background), linking to the articles of Notre Dame and the Archbishop's Bridge, using Template:Date (for people unaware of the french notion of december) and providing additional information on the equipment used by using Template:Photo Information. checking the image reveals repetitive patterns on the top - do i sense some kind of tinkering here? regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Archbishop's Palace Bridge would be a disturbing foreground and out of the main subject.
  • The Seine is here about ten meters below a vertical wall. Impossible to add it.
  • Levels are sufficient to my eyes. Sharpness could maybe be better, indeed.
  • Explaining the meaning of locks is off topic and disturbing. Furthermore, I don't know nothing about this touristic practice.
  • The last day of autumn seems to be understandable enough. Autumn (or fall) is the season between summer and winter, and ends the 20 december, everywhere in the world. It is due to the equinox of the sun, but explanations are off topic here.
  • The photo is well categorized enough in "Commons". Please feel free to use it in articles.
  • There is no special french notion of december. December is a month, the last of the year, between november and january of the following year... Sunny in the southern hemisphere, it is cloudy, rainy and snowy in the northern one, generally speaking.
  • I don't have further informations about the equipment used, please see metadata.
  • I'm not sure I appreciate the word tinkering. As the frame was a bit tight above, because of my non-professional lens, I cloned some parts of the sky and added it at the top, to let the poor thing breathe. I used the GIMP. But please don't beat me, Master. Ich wusste nicht dass es verboten war.--Jebulon (talk) 13:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:PG Girl with strawberries.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 22:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Prokudin-Gorskii - uploaded by Gorgo - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Color photo taken in 1909. Same girl is shown in another featured picture - File:Prokudin-Gorskii-08.jpg,   Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support for now Looks pretty good for and 102-year-old picture, even though this same image almost definitely wouldn't pass if taken today. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Is it an autochrome ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    No. --Sasha Krotov (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Very old color photo. Very good --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose IMO Oversaturated.--Snaevar (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment: I have taken a look at the Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky category (author of the image) and all the images seem a bit oversaturated. Most probably due to the technique of taking the picture: Three-color process. If this is so the image can not be punished for the limitations of early photography.--Garrondo (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question How can one tell whether it's oversaturated? The reference here should not be whether it looks natural today, but how paper copies of it looked back in 1909. -- H005 18:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment a histogram analysis can do the trick. a more convincing attempt to check for oversaturation is the digital colour composite as reference to what we can see here. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with sorry. I was to support, but this one is very similar to the already featured you mentioned, same girl, the same plate with strawberries is just in other hands, three girls instead of one, different background. I think the second one is better, and I disagree with featuring two pictures of the same subject. But obviously, I have nothing to say against the quality of a 1909 color picture. Thanks for make me (us ?) discovering this photographer I didn't know. Beware that the Library of Congress has digitalized about 2000 colored plaques from this author, and all could be feature-able. Should we ? If yes, in my opinion, maybe should we chose first other subjects from this author ... BTW, I have added a french translation and a link to the french WP in the creator template, and no, it is not "autochrome", but very interesting technics too.--Jebulon (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment Regarding the subject of oversaturation. According to Libary of Congress photo description (this image comes from there), this image has been digitally colored from a glass negitive. As Garrando pointed out, saturation is a problem that can occour during coloring of pictures. Thus, I don´t belive that my voting on this photo has been too harsh, since it targets clearly the coloring process, but not the original.--Snaevar (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose this digital rendering has hardly anything to do with the impression of the original colour composite. mr frankhauser had a rather artistic attempt to render and adjust the digital versions of the glass plate negatives. some images benefit from this treatment but this certainly doesn't. you may notice the issue of colour saturation or the fixing of technical problems (aligning damaged glass plate negatives will result in green, red and yellow blemishes) - the house in the background has richer colours in the digital colour composite and got a sepia touch in this rendering. if looking closer on the head of this girl and comparing rendering and composite you might as well notice a effect similar to the outcome of CA. creating an own rendering of the b/w triple frames and performing a proper restoration is worth a try - alas very time consuming and not achievable for all 1902 pictures available for this method. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 10:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (12).JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 19:15:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington
  •   Support -- Ken Billington 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Not perfectly sharp at high resolution --Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Well captured... but the head isn't really sharp. Also: too much noise, mainly on the head and in the water around the bird (ISO 1000). --Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Done softness and avoidable noise now corrected. --Ken Billington (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Jebulon.--Garrondo (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Jebulon. --Snaevar (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The reflection wins me over, despite the softness and avoidable noise. --Avenue (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Done softness and avoidable noise now corrected. --Ken Billington (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The feathers on the body seem unrealistic to me as well as the skin on the legs. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per Jebulon. But an interesting shot: "bird in action" with a nice reflection. Pity, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Snowing street to Fanealm.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 13:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, looks like a random snapshot from anywhere. Can't find anything special enough for FP. -- H005 18:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I just like it. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per H005. --Slaunger (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose idem.--Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would like the original (current picture is only 700kb) and it shows in quality, since the trees in the background are unsharp/blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Just a snowy street, nothing special. There are plenty of such pictures on Commons. --Aktron (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Tataragi Dam01n4272.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 02:06:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info All by -- 663h (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 663h (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's a bit blurry, plus someone's fishing line is in the way.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) (5).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 3 Jan 2011 at 19:10:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington
  •   Support -- Ken Billington 19:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info the stork had just flown off the nest, you can see traces of the straw from its nest between its toes and on its beak! --Ken Billington (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment I feel that the lighting could be improved. It's supposed to be white and black but some feathers look greyish-pinkish. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    •   Neutral per above but I don't dislike it enough to oppose. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting action shot. It would be hard to find lighting that illuminated the underside of the wings. --99of9 (talk) 09:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Very good. Hard to do better in these circumstances. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon (talk) 11:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice capture otherwise, but we have several great pictures of this kind and the crop feels boxy and odd. Not quite FP quality from my perspective. Steven Walling 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Nice wingtip feather silhouette action, but too much pure black in center focus area, = poor depth/separation of foreground/background wings, = subliminal frustration/dissatisfaction.Rep07 (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, to me, too tight crop at right. I don't like the composition--Miguel Bugallo 11:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Alves   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 17:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Beppu Bay02n4272.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 14:01:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info All by -- 663h (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 663h (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The sun makes interesting lens flare and sepia effect, but for an image to educationally show a body of water like this something more overhead or from a high point would be better, otherwise that could be any body of water. Still nice. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but same as other sunshines/rises. No educational value. Useless in "Commons".--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hexaplex radix 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 16:32:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hexaplex (Muricanthus) radix, Muricidae, Radish Murex; Length 9,5 cm; Originating from Pacific Coast of Central America; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 16:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 20:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Citron (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Even if I'm not a fan of the grey background...--Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks. I also prefer black, but the spines... --Llez (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC) --
      • I understand what you mean. Given the circumstances, your choice is the best possible...--Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Pieris rapae .JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 23:50:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Bruce Marlin - uploaded by Bruce Marlin - nominated by Bruce Marlin -- Bruce Marlin (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bruce Marlin (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Supporting before the haters descend on it. And before they get here, for the sake of this image passing I   Request, no beg that you stretch the image out on top. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Tight composition.--Snaevar (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- The haters are here: let the two poor things (the flower and the insect) breathe! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info I think it's not a Pieris rapae but a Pieris brassicae. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

AltEdit

 

  •   Info Crop extended. - LeavXC (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --LeavXC (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Too much empty space to the right but w/e.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info I think it's not a Pieris rapae but a Pieris brassicae. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info The picture was taken near Chicago, Illinois. That species does not exist here. It's Pieris rapae.Bruce Marlin (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Dundus Square.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 19:52:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The color, the composition, the sensations it produces in my, the feeling of being there. I simply like it.--Garrondo (talk) 08:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Really nasty distortion and tilt. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Sorry, oversaturated flickr kitsch -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Seriously... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flickr kitsch --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Garrando, I would like being there, but sadly I don´t vote on pictures based on that. This image is tilted and disorted, per THFSW.--Snaevar (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is cool but I think it looks to high to be a FP. --Aktron (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Alvesgaspar and The High Fin Sperm Whale--Miguel Bugallo 11:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support FWIW. I stayed away from this 'cause I couldn't decide at first if it was a photo or a digital painting, but I think I agree with Garrondo. I find it kind of artistic. It's possible it could be run through GIMP and have the perspective corrected, but it probably would ruin the looking-up effect. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I really like the perspective. It's perfect for this kind of image. But it isn't sharp enough and the colors are ugly, especially the black parts (wrong colors) inside the signs. --Niabot (talk) 19:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. No, sorry, the list of postprocessing operations reads like a self-satire: Imagenomic Noiseware twice, one stronger on the sky. For the next commands I masked the sky. - Smart sharpen - Freaky details masking - Nik Tonal Contrast - Vibrance increase on the whole image - A bit os saturation boost on the sky - Curves - Burn the top of the sky and the edges. The result is typical Flickr Kitsch. --Dschwen (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support great composition Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Rathaus Großbottwar neu.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 4 Jan 2011 at 17:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- -- Felix König 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- -- Felix König 17:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Cropped to tight, sharpening halos. -- H005 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Very valuable image, great encyclopedic value. Maybe not enough wow factor for a FP... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too tight composition.--Snaevar (talk) 14:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Agree. The context would certainly add to the picture of this beautiful house. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I accept your votes, but I don't really think that a partially view of an ice cream parlor and a parking area would be add something. -- Felix König 09:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   FWIW my only problem is that it could be lightened (looks like the sun was setting?) --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW ????--Jebulon (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • FWIW = For what it´s worth.--Snaevar (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Maika Makovski-02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 17:46:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Alterna2 - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kadellar (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral cool lighting and pose, but her eyes are closed. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Does not meet the 2 million pixels minium limit and background is blurry. --Snaevar (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    •   Comment 2.000x1.333=2.666.000 pixels. Background is blurry because the singer is what's on focus, she is the main and sole subject, what does the background matter?? Therefore, I can't understand your opposal. Kadellar (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      •   Comment About the picture, I miscalculated the resulution. I´ll accept a focus on the singer, where it serves a purpose. As a sidenote, I´d remind you to assume good faith, due to this comment.--Snaevar (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      •   Comment I assume good faith. Sorry if I got misunderstood, but I just wanted you to check your decision, I couldn't agree with you. Kadellar (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Macropus rufogriseus rufogriseus Bruny.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 07:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LeavXC (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Please log in to vote. Anymous votes are not counted.--Snaevar (talk) 12:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it really an anonymous vote ? "Regards" . --Jebulon (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Mammals

File:Phalacrocorax carbo Vic.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 16:48:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Trachemys -- Trachemys (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Trachemys (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- A good picture even if the resolution is relatively ”low”. --Ximonic (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Just another bird pic, unremarkable, flat/dull colors/textures/lighting.Rep07 (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • The bird didn't get to choose its coloring. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 21:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The bird is in good quality. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Noodle snacks (talk) 08:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Some folks get bored by bird photos (Rep07) but I think it's great. --Ken Billington (talk) 08:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Zhuk (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Citron (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Makele-90 (talk) 19:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Miguel Bugallo 09:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please see annotations, regarding noise and darkness--Jebulon (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose downsampled. jebulon did you check for blocked up shadows? my display shows structure/pixel information in the area marked by you. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Birds

File:Uetliberg LCD.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 5 Jan 2011 at 17:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Info View from the top of the telecommunications tower at Uetliberg, Zurich, Switzerland. On the foreground: the observation deck at Uto Kulm, Uetliberg. On center: Lake Zurich and the "Golden Mile" of Zurich. Background, right: the alps of canton Glarus.
  •   Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice, souvenir-like but educational. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Snaevar (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support glad to be the seventh !--Jebulon (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Moulin Moidrey.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 17:25:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Steampunk-falksen.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 05:13:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by TyrusFlynn - uploaded by TyrusFlynn - nominated by Spongie555 -- Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Oh my, yes. :) --Von.grzanka (talk) 12:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support per Von.grzanka. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support--Snaevar (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Certainly eye-catching, but the lighting/exposure is harsh enough to leave me unconvinced. Parts of the collar and buttons are overexposed, and I find the three lights reflected in his eye a bit overwhelming. --Avenue (talk) 00:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support A refreshing and unusual steampunk portrait (which was a new concept for me). I would have preferred if his stick had not been cropped, but I am prepared to mitigate from this. --Slaunger (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support per Slaunger. --Cayambe (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome. Yarl 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Interieur middenbeuk.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 15:16:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Jan van den Eijnden - uploaded by Jan van den Eijnden - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I like this overwhelming picture -- Basvb (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't like the composition: bad crop at the upper side, too much of the floor and the benches (is that the right word?), imho too dark. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Berthold Werner. --Cayambe (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Berthold Werner.--Garrondo (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Berthold Werner on the composition. The picture should show the dome, not just the altar.--Snaevar (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nearly full {{support}}. Love the lighting and the serene feeling, but per the others.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

  Basvb (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Hospital de Sant Pau 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 16:05:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bgag (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Question Is this just supposed to be part of the roof? Or was an attempt made to get the whole building? --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)   Comment It is just part of the roof, the most interesting part of the building. --Bgag (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral PQ is great, but the composition of the originally uploaded image is better.--Snaevar (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Haven't seen the original, but IMO that's a pretty good piece of roof. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good light, colors and sharpness, but I really do not like the crop on the lower and right edges. Composition is fairly good, but not quite FP standard IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kairo Ibn Tulun Moschee BW 4.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 6 Jan 2011 at 19:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created - uploaded - nominated by-- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support The sky is a bit noisy, but it doesn't affect the general quality. Nice view and encyclopedic value. I was there in 1991, during a sand storm... -- MJJR (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO Somewhat unsharp. This is apperant at the tower with the spiral staircase.--Snaevar (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Comment The border of the bottom shadow has strong CA. This should be easy to fix though... --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see chromatic aberration, it's just a bit boring. A very good image all the same. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Nice view and encyclopedic value, but IMO somewhat unsharp and visible CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Info CA should be better now. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
    •   Support Yes, CA is much better now, you have my vote, great image. --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good technical quality and interesting subject. But I do not like the strong shadow and the composition. The composition is a compromise between either a strictly symmetric composition with the main tower in the corner centered and a rule of thirds composition with the two towers aligned with rules of thirds vertical lines. For me this in-between choise does not work and makes it appear uninteresting. I think a better composition would have been something along the lines indicated with my annotation. --Slaunger (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Aulostomus maculatus (Trumpetfish -brown variation).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 12:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - uploaded by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Rare underwater picture, with an original point of view.-- Citron (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Hell yes. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --663h (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support, although in this case I would prefer to eliminate some of the left background to have the animal more centred. --Garrondo (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Funny fish --Schnobby (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support kip (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Grand-Duc (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Fish

File:Callyspongia vaginalis (Branching Vase Sponge - pink variation).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 17:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This isn't a CA, it's a natural reflection of this sponge.

  •   Support Nice pic and there are no featured pictures of sponges. -- Citron (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO Visually pleasing at full resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Yarl 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Great work. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Creedite 3.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 19:52:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- LeavXC (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - good educational value. Jonathunder (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Although I wish the lighting on the left was better. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The caption should give: the mineral species, place of discovery and dimensions --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I've put what is known to me (and was in the enwiki article, and emailed about the size). Noodle snacks (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 21:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Missing specs making the use of this image impossible. --Niabot (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Noodle snacks (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Orci Disk. 12:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:Temple of Bel, Palmyra 02.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Jan 2011 at 00:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by bgag - uploaded by bgag - nominated by bgag -- Bgag (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bgag (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose sorry there noise consistant with using an unsharp mask tool around the edges of the building, additionally its dull appearance means I cant support Gnangarra 05:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support because IMO relics are almost always interesting. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Kirchenburg Birthälm.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 20:18:38 (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 there is a watermark in the bottom-left corner. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:33, 6 January 2011 (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.

(UTC)

File:Jagtlust-detailhek-9070.JPG, not featuredEdit

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

  •   Info created by Efraa-marlies - uploaded by Efraa-marlies - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I like the simplicity and the details from this picture -- Basvb (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment I believe in including simple subject that we might take for granted, but this one could be more interesting, like if the photographer shot it from a higher angle, maybe changed the lighting... --IdLoveOne (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think on the current angle it is better than it would be on a higher angle. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 11:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment Have you considered nominating this picture as a Valued image? --Snaevar (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not really known with the valued image process and the differences. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
An valued image is a image that is best within a scope. To put this more simply, images are being judged in comparison with other images of similar objects. For example, this image would, presumably be compared with other railing photos on commons. This is different from Featured Pictures in that way, that Featured pictures are the best of commons, but not within a scope like Valued images are.--Snaevar (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Rathaus Großbottwar neu edit.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 12:36:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Felix König (original photograph), Papa Lima Whiskey (this derivative edit) - nominated by the latter.
  •   Info Shadows lifted, addressing a complaint with the version nominated a few days earlier. -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support - good rework. -- Felix König 12:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support It is a little bit tight but illustrates the subject very well. The lighting is very good, the colors are great. What I like the most, though, is that the subject is pin-sharp. Good job. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support of course. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Citron (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 18:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 22:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Belfort-Pano-1.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 08:02:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting place, good light. Yann (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tree tilt suggests curved horizon artefact. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Komposition, Licht, ... --Böhringer (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The composition needs a bit more space on the top side - too much cut on the top right (trees). --Aktron (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful winter scenery.--MrPanyGoff 10:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- This is a very beautiful image. But the composition doesn't convince me, due to the too large width and too short height, and the central building. Maybe cutting off part of it. And correcting the obvious geometric distortion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Panoramas

File:Belfort-Pano-2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 08:01:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose About half of the image is sky and cloud without any interesting features. Also I don't like the sun facing right in the middle. Yann (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann.--Snaevar (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Also per Yann. Perhaps (if the metadata is correct) it could also be improved if it was taken near the end of the day? That way the sun wouldn't interfere with the shot, and it could also give good lighting. LeavXC (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 17:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Yann. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Daniela Mercury - Claridália 9.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 02:56:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ministério da Cultura - uploaded by Truu - nominated by Rodrigogomesonetwo -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Severe compression artifacts/noise in the background. Very expressive indeed, yet her mouth is hidden. Very valuable but not a FP imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Her right elbow is cut off. Also, I agree with Murilbert on the hidden mouth.--Snaevar (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Yup I knew someone would oppose for that. I'd support if you have an uncutoff version. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Sorry. It seems that the Ministry's photographer took the picture like that: [1]. Maybe I'll have a better shot with this one: [2] --200.101.124.243 13:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Icebreaker Stephan Jantzen in Stadthafen Rostock 2010-12-28 perspective correction-GD.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 02:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by, uploaded by and nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Abstain due to the nomination of my own work. -- Grand-Duc (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Overexposed? Still, for the subject matter, likely rarity of getting it and cause I like the angle and light directions.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I had the same feeling that it might be slightly overexposed ; yet, I just love the colors, lighting, and general atmosphere of this one, along with the composition. Given I live in Québec City, I am keen on pictures that do capture the cold. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support The histogram shows very few pixels that are at 255, so I would say that image is not overexposed at all. It is very sharp, the composition is great and the colors are fantastic. FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support "cool" --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, interesting subject, and for a change from birds and insects. ;o) Yann (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support What's wrong with birds and insects though? Per Alchemist. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Would be nice if the crop wasn't so tight on the top, but still a great shot. Steven Walling 08:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects/Vehicles

File:On the edge - free world version.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 8 Jan 2011 at 22:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Abstain Critique is welcome -- Niabot (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I want to like this image, and I am a fan of most your work, technical illustrations, renderings, and Anime artwork. But I have several problems with this image. The rock texture on the left looks washed out and not very believable, the river has something going on with perspective, just at the waterfall it seems we look down on it at a steeper angle, the grass at the edge of the river looks smudged together (I'm missing some crisp edge here, the grass just blurrily blends into its own reflection). The gate looks unmotivated and just pasted into the landscape (connect it with some bushy grass around the posts maybe?). The waterfall itself lacks crispness. You may be going for a certain look here, but this has too much the feel of amateurish watercolor. --Dschwen (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support   Kawaii :) Masur (talk) 09:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC) ps. I can only criticize the hand holding "the staff (?)". I don't see the fingers very natural, while holding this item. Gives me a slight impression of misfit. Masur (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good work! But, as usual, I don't understand some things : Why manga woman rhymes with big tits? Why the landscape is also oversaturated (flickr kitsch) and why I cannot determine the educational value of this image? best regards --Citron (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    •   Comment Let me comment on this. So "big tits" and this image in general is some kind of archetypal manga drawing. And, I need to admit that one either likes this style (I'm not saying - manga in general) or not. Similar to one of the previous Niabot's nomination, where the "tilted camera" POV was disapproved, but was typical for manga on the other hand. Masur (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 
Colorspace from this picture
 
Colorspace from oversaturated image File:Dundus Square.jpg. Visible color distribution near the edges of the RGB-Cube.
    •   Comment "Why manga woman rhymes with big tits?" Since every time i present an image, with a girl that is less developed, someone claims to see child pornography. "Why the landscape is also oversaturated[?]" It's a colorfull drawing. Oversaturation is a technical issue, that does not apply to images like this one, since it isn't. ^^ --Niabot (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There's a huge difference between "less developed" and "completely oversized". There's nothing proportional about her breasts, one is spilling over her arm, even—so what's the real reason? Why not draw something a little more realistic and less like misogyny? Maedin\talk 17:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Do we need to discuss the size of breasts? For self education you can follow this link (rating:safe). I'm also willing to mention this deletion request: Futanari.png If you look at the last example, and also read the arguments, then we might start a discussion. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
          • No, we don't, particularly not here! Please disregard my comment. Maedin\talk 22:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm myself an illustrator particulary influenced by the manga, IMO it is a style aimed primarily the young's. In fact, it's regrettable to mislead the young reader of Wikipedia with free and discrete pornography. I prefer your example because the choice is assumed. In this featured picture candidate, I find that the nudity isn't justified, as the landscape catches also our attention. When I talk about oversaturation, I talk in fact the choice of colors, IMO I find this little bit exaggerated for a sun so high in the sky. :) --Citron (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I would tend to say that the majority of the audience from this style is over 18, since most of the commercial works are rated at least 16. Series created for the younger audience are an exception in numbers, even if some of them are very popular. Meaning that the number of works intended for an older audience is larger, even if the number of published copies is lower. Regarding the oversaturation: Since the image is not technically oversaturated, you can always reduce the saturation without artifacts. If it would be to less saturated, you can't increase saturation without visible errors. --Niabot (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it. Well it's manga so the colors or landscape do not have to make sense ;-) --Aktron (talk) 13:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pro2 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support Superb work Rastrojo (DES) 15:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not educational, nor is it one of our best examples of manga style. See this and this as examples of featured quality work in the genre. Steven Walling 21:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    •   Comment I hope you know the difference between manga and anime style. All three would be more fitting to anime, but as you should know, the style has a wide variety. It shows, instead of the two previously mentioned examples, that the style isn't limited to simple outlines, lighting and backgrounds. --Niabot (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I honestly don't care. The fact that is that this is a cartoon of a topless woman in a fantasy setting. It's not particularly good compared to other featured work, and no person outside Commons would say it's educational if they saw it. Steven Walling 08:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral just not really in the mood to vote in favor of something that isn't actually something. (Slight weirdness aside) I'm not really sure we need a drawing of a girl with her nipples hanging out, or I'd be more in favor if it was cultural or historic. Maybe I'm not being fair to anime and maybe in time it will gain more respect like those of other art forms. Although I do like the idea of users being able to nominate artwork of their own that isn't photographic, computer rendered or totally EV-related - not that EV arguments can't be made for this - if only to check out users' art, creativity and such. =) --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support i like her big tits :-) Bunnyfrosch (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Stephen Walling and Dschwen.--Snaevar (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually since I reviewed the image it was (in my opinion) considerably improved. I like the new waterfall much better than the old one, the new riverbank is an improvement and the light/shadow around the gate is much nicer too. --Dschwen (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info. I wasn´t quite sure how I should vote on a manga picture. Steven Walling´s vote made the most sense to me about what I should look for, but the reasoning behind the vote was based on Dschwen thoughts, as I agreed with him, and I still do in all aspects but one. I still think that the left bedrock could be sharper, but I don´t feel like that is reason enough to oppose the picture. I therefore change my vote to   Neutral.--Snaevar (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment -- There is something wrong with the perspective of the river, which looks like that Escher engraving in which the water is flowing upward (here) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support i know that it was very much of work for the user. i have seen the first lines of it and can see now the result: a wunderful work. alofok* 17:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  1.   Support - very good work. -- Felix König 19:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • strong   Support I have seen this work evolve and it is brilliant. Keep up the good work niabot! --Paddy (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media

File:Trogon surrucura -Parque Nacional do Itatiaia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil-8 (1).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 04:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Dario Sanches - uploaded by Snowmanradio using File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    •   Question Anyone else think this could benefit from a bit of cropping on the right? To balance the space? --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose downsampled. chromatic noise and artifacts. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 05:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Quality is OK, except for some noise, but the crop is imbalanced, and the background looks too cluttered. And Peter, how do you know it is downsampled? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment the camera model of this shot enables pictures of 4,288 × 2,848 pixels at maximum resolution. my assumption was that is was shot upright and then cropped (i am aware of lower resolution settings which come along with this camera). even if the original author can disprove this assumption - chromatic noise and artifacts are my main reasons for opposing. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 06:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peter Weis.--Snaevar (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Molaire de Platybelodon grangeri perspective.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 18:19:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Done Error Corrected, thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

  •   Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Great value. --Murdockcrc (talk) 17:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Jebulon (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Excellent Image --Ken Billington (talk) 10:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only because of the background, the colors match the tooth way too much, almost looks like glass or dirty ice. A black background would've been a more neutral background for this subject (a version with a scale would be good for educational purposes also). --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment ¾ of my images are on white or black background for scientific publications but, in Commons, we are in science popularization which is very different. This year two laboratories, one French and Gabonese asked me two photo series : with and without background, the second set for publication on Internet ... the world is changing. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    •   Comment Could you apply a depth blur to the shadow? (or provide the raw image/cutout?) It looks odd that it isn't more blured further back. Somehow this is distracting and gives it really fake look. Some room for improvement. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Here is absolutely true! I do not master this point well, and I will work. I am a beginner in background... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Artificial-looking background devalues it. Steven Walling 08:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 18:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Steven Walling. IMO a black background is better.--Citron (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support - very good. -- Felix König 19:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Turbo imperialis 01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 06:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Turbo imperialis, Turbinidae, Giant Green Turbo; shell diameter 8 cm; Originating from the Indian Ocean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez| - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support good one. thanks for the metadata. keep on rollin'. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 08:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Garrondo (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Steven Walling 08:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --George Chernilevsky talk 10:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support  Question There is a light blue reflection on several shells and there are seemingly some variations in sharpness. Could you please describe your setup for these photos? :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  Comment The photos were taken by daylight in the shadow. The surface of the shell is glossy, so that one can hardly avoid all reflections. --Llez (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I am not about to ask for that every reflection is avoided, but I wanted to know its origin. :-) Thanks for explanation! Grand-Duc (talk) 19:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals

File:Alces alces (juvenile).jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 20:54:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

- nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

  •   Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A bit noisy and soft at full res, and distracting background, especially the blurry hooves right under its chin. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Distracting background. --Elekhh (talk) 02:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it, a rare perspective of an animal that's gonna be huge when it's grown. Just sitting there enjoying a sunny day and I like being able to see the hoof like this, that way you know it's lying down. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Elekhh.--Garrondo (talk) 07:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support as a profile picture, I´ll support this image.--Snaevar (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but nothing special. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Body-bones3.pngEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 00:09:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Niabot (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment Interesting, high educational value. I would like to have more information about the accuracy before voting: did you use a model? which one? male or female? Thanks, Yann (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
    •   Comment It's basing on an older 3D-Scan (several layers) from Otto-von-Guericke Universität Magdeburg with different aspect ratio for each axis. I used this relatively low resolution images to adjust the bones that where modeled by hand. The outer surface is from MakeHuman and the bones got stretched/rotated to match the model. --Niabot (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the info. Could you include that in the description? Yann (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination The skeleton has some issues as a discussion at german wikipedia revealed. I will fix the problems and replace it with a corrected version. Until then the nomination should be stopped. --Niabot (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment The bones are stylised. The clavicle should clearly articulate with the sternum. It is not clear which is rib cartilage and which is rib bone. There should be more ankle and foot bones. The intervertibral discs are not represented properly. Not in the anatomical position. If used for educational purposes, it would need properly shaped bones. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Why did you need a 1/2000s for this photo? A quarter of that with a accordingly reduced ISO rating to avoid such noise would have been "featurable", well, it could be even better if you hadn't cut the shadow of the bird (using the rule of third, maybe?). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition per Grand-Duc.--Snaevar (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sciurus niger.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 9 Jan 2011 at 22:09:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded and nominated by Skyttea -- Skyttea (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Skyttea (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good and sharp, but the background is too distracting and busy for a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good light and well caught moment. Do not like the centered composition and the DOF is a little to shallow. The head is in focus, which is most important, but I would have appreciated if the rest of the body had been a tad sharper. --Slaunger (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support DOF is a bit shallow, but a photo of a squirrel is one of luck and you seem to have either gotten pretty close or had good zoom. Not the best composition, but natural. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support per IdLoveOne. I do not feel that the background is distracting.--Garrondo (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Slaunger--Miguel Bugallo 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion, I feel that the focus on the squirrel serves a purpose.--Snaevar (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per slaunger.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Focus is OK, but the line in the background is disturbing. Yann (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Image:Aleppo Panorama.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 18 Jan 2011 at 11:27:42 (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 Very poor quality, not properly cropped, disturbing hand at left, very distorted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2011 (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:Imagoura Kasumi Coast10o4592.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 14 Jan 2011 at 11:17:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by me. -- 663h (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 663h (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but not a whole lot EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale. I'm missing the EV. One more sunset image ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per THFSW--Snaevar (talk) 17:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Pano Alep 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 10 Jan 2011 at 15:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support high quality, nice annotations.. it is also my favourite city in syria! did you walk a lot around the citadel? it is amazing the old town around the citadel.. Ggia (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment Highly valuable and very, very high detail level. My only concern is the composition. There really isn't much composition in this. On the other hand the city is as it is. Can't make up my mind what to vote for it, so I will   Abstain . --Slaunger (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose excellent detail, but there are some vertical lines in the sky; probably a result of stitching!? bamse (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid I cannot see them. Would you please care to add annotations to the picture? --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Seems to be a problem with the (flash) interactive image viewer. The image does not have any such lines. As far as image quality is concerned, I am more than happy. However like Slaunger I wonder about composition and whether this view shows something typical for Aleppo or just a random bunch of houses. Can't say since I haven't been there and therefore will   Abstain . bamse (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  Info Aleppo is more or less a "random bunch of houses", with several notable buildings, among which the citadel (from where the picture is taken), the Umayyad mosque and the souq (all annotated on the picture). I also tagged several other landmarks. I have made two panoramas of Aleppo, this one shows more interesting places. This is just for information, I totally understand that this picture can be considered not so featurable. --Eusebius (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Âne d'Ethiopie.jpg

File:Feheregyhaza2.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 17 Jan 2011 at 11:48:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Vargatamas - uploaded and nominated by Burghiu Burghiu (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Burghiu (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Request Could you geocode it? -- Thomas888b (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would be very happy to see an FP of this subject, but composition is not that good, and is bellow 2 Mpix. --Elekhh (talk) 07:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because too small: below 2 Mpixels. Yann (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2011 (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:Plan de Paris en 1657.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 16:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Johannes Janssonius - uploaded by Thesupermat - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Very high quality : I can see my house ! --Jebulon (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support this first version of google earth.--Garrondo (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality given the age of the plan (354 years old), but otherwise I wouldn´t support it.--Snaevar (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--MrPanyGoff 10:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support It's my city...! --Citron (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice quality. Steven Walling 08:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   InfoBizarre : le nord est au sud ouest.--Pline (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very nice copy of a historical map by a great cartographer. Unfortunately, the reproduction is not that good: chromatic aberration (especially in the upper part and upper left corner) and several disturbing dusts in the cartouche. -- MJJR (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--shizhao (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lots of great detail, but the chromatic aberration is too strong for me. --Avenue (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Non-photographic media/Maps

File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Dani Sordo 2.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 14:04:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment The background is IMO just perfect: sunny forest and field (sidenotice: the day was the hottest ever measured in Finland) + typical rallyspectators = iconic setting for Rally Finland. The angle is the same in other photo, and only because of the angle the worn out road can be seen. kallerna 10:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The composition is certainly better in the nominated image than the suggested alternative, given a more practical crop and implementation of lead room/rule of thirds. –Juliancolton | Talk 11:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Royalbroil. Also, we allready have a FP from this event (File:Rally Finland 2010 - shakedown - Jari-Matti Latvala 3.jpg), so it´s only fair that any other FP nomination fill the same quality standards.--Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I still don't feel that these types of photos showoff the cars best, but it is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - While the composition is superior IMO to the suggested alternative, I still feel it's rather awkward and underwhelming. The bar has been set high. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Four is by no means a small amount. I don't subscribe to the argument that the number of existing FPs on a particular topic precludes others from being promoted, but I feel the existing FPs in this case superior. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Porto Covo January 2011-2b.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 15 Jan 2011 at 16:11:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info The Island of Pessegueiro as seen from Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal, in a winter evening. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Gorgeous. Steven Walling 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral IMO not special enough for an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Thomas888b (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfectly sharp at high resolution (the wave at right), but very nice, with a very pleasant light, and geographical educational value to me. I like this picture very much.--Jebulon (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support nice colors, like an artist picture --George Chernilevsky talk 12:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Miguel Bugallo 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support nice atmosphere Ggia (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--shizhao (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Natural

File:Zentsu-ji in Zentsu-ji City Kagawa pref10s3s4592.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 05:38:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by me --663h (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 663h (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Very nice aesthetics. Just wondderful! -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Chromatic aberrations at full resolution. I am not expert enough to know if they are important enough to oppose.--Garrondo (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • There are no strict rules here, so if you think that they are bad enough to oppose, go ahead. In themselves I don't think i would oppose, but with the distracting branch on the side, I vote   Oppose. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  Oppose per The High Fin Sperm Whale.--Garrondo (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  •   Neutral Great image and time of day to take it, but disappointingly unsharp. The fault of the camera it seems, not that I'm an expert. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Perhaps, work that is more excellent than this will not appear for the time being in pagodas. --Laughaded (talk) 08:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality (esp. lack of sharpness and distortion at the bottom of the pic) are not sufficient for a FP. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion, good image quality and if anyone can improve it, then please do.--Snaevar (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA scattered and major problems of perspective on the buildings of backgournd --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Christ the Redeemer edit.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 15:55:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by ILYES - uploaded by User:Felipe Menegaz - nominated by Rodrigogomesonetwo -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Rodrigogomesonetwo (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral The viewpoint is unexpected. Looking up to the statue might be symbolic and quite surely it´s only possible to take a straight view on picture of the statue in a helicopter or at great distances. What makes me put a neutral vote however, is the noise/stains on the statue and the statue platform, seen in full resolution.--Snaevar (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I kind of like the composition: How Jesus appears to be mightier than the sun or like he's going to embrace it, it seems like an artistic choice in step with the religion, which I personally don't mind. Would be better if the sky wasn't so boring, a cloud or two.. The lens might not have been right though, almost seems the sunlight is too strong some places, but not enough for me to oppose this. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Terrible image quality, with extensive chromatic noise and blurriness caused by a denoising filter. A clear FPX case. Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - noise/denoise... -- Felix König 19:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective not convincing. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting, but does not show the statue well. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not good perspective, wrong angle. --Karelj (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose--shizhao (talk) 08:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Halles de Paris, 1863.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 12:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Victor Baltard - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Comment: Info on the restoration is always a good idea.--Garrondo (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Some noise spots in the sky, but all of them are fixable. Also, it´s appearant that this picture has gone through some restoration, since the original has a yellowish tone and is smaller, but this one is black and white and is larger. I would like information on that restoration.--Snaevar (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It´s becoming quite obvious, that no one is going to fix those spots I mentioned erlier. Becouse of that, I change my vote to   Oppose.--Snaevar (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose until a restoration has been performed. removing dust and blemishes should be worth investing some time. keeping the original canvas colour is reasonable since decolourisation destroys the original feeling to this image. cropping of the original tiff is not necessary for a future restoration. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 05:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm happy as is, the quality seems very good to me, but if you can improve on near-perfection, then please do. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It's good, but to become FP the remaining dust spots and lines should be fixed. -- H005 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--shizhao (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image:Poppy closeup of a single blossom outside.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 12 Jan 2011 at 20:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by MatthiasKabel - uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by MatthiasKabel -- MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Focus is a bit unfortunate. The subject is several flowers of the same type, and it would be better if the focus was on all of them. Also, the composition is tight at the bottom, as one of the flowers are cut out.--Snaevar (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the composition is confusing and the subject is not focused -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
the focus is on the blossom, ok it's a very narrow DOF, but this is needed to guide the viewer to the single blossom. Otherwise it would be very confusing with many blossoms. Would you prefer File:Poppy closeup of a single blossom.jpg? MatthiasKabel (talk) 06:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't think it's so bad, I like the colors and quality. It's an unusual choice, but not necessarily a terrible one... --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I would like blurry flowers as a background, but here, some are right behind the main subject, so it is hard to tell where one starts and another begins. Worse, a blurry pedal is in front of the main subject. However, I think another shot here could produce a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Orangerie-kempten-2.jpgEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 16 Jan 2011 at 19:14:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by Alofok alofok* 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- alofok* 19:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Request Could you please add an English description, so that I know what it is? Mein Deutsch ist nicht sehr gut. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Albeit I'm not Alofok, I took charge of your request. :-) Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- the foreground is distracting. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   NeutralThomas888b (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support - imo the foreground isn't distracting, but part of the very good composition. -- Felix König 19:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose composition could be better. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Info we can stop this candidature. alofok* 10:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination

File:Treatment-pond-raster.pngEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 19 Jan 2011 at 05:18:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Jon C -- born of a Graphics Lab request, a diagram of the three types of reedbed sewage treatments. Original illustration. Jon C (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support. --Спас Колев (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Shizhao's right, an SVG of this image would be good too. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose,have svg: File:Treatment pond r1.svg--shizhao (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose On all three diagrams I see a problem with the hill between the settlement tank and the treatment area. The problem is that the shadow is broken, at the far end of the hill and close to the center. Also, on the second diagram (from top) the outtake valve from the treatment area is half-cut off. Not the sort of quality I would expect from an FP.--Snaevar (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  You're right - I'll fix this first. Jon C (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosas de La Vega.JPGEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 20 Jan 2011 at 15:59:02 (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's too small (it's below 2 MP) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:34, 11 January 2011 (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:Maslenica Bridge (D 8), Croatia.JPG, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 21:40:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Places/Architecture

File:Stereo snow crystals.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 11 Jan 2011 at 19:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Agricultural Research Service - uploaded by Sasha Krotov - nominated by Sasha Krotov -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Strong support! --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good work. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support nice Bunnyfrosch (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support.--Garrondo (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't see anything extraordinay here other than being a stereo pair. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The two images are reversed. This is not parallel stereoscopy , but cross stereoscopy ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Now Good equation between photos and the category. Shame not to have reversed the picture: the perception is better in parallel stereoscopy. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Why stereo? I don't see anything extraordinary. Too tight crop at right and at left--Miguel Bugallo 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Opposeas others.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Objects

File:Emperor-Dragonfly-(5).jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:51:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Ken Billington - uploaded by Ken Billington - nominated by Ken Billington -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ken Billington (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Great photo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Amazing! --IdLoveOne (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support--Miguel Bugallo 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sharpness is not very high and small details on the legs, wings, antenna and the underbelly of the thorax were seemingly destroyed by denoising (ISO 1000 is likely too high for a EOS 50D) and/or a JPEG compression beyond a wise measure. I would have expected a higher perceived sharpness on such a downscaled image. Grand-Duc (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  Comment just to clarify, the image has not been downscaled --Ken Billington (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, then your licensing template ("If you would like to use, license, or purchase a high resolution copy of this image...") misleaded me on that point, I thought that your camera makes 15-MPx-images. What kind of lens did you use? (I'm not aware of a lot for Canon EF having the used 400mm focal length) :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC) And to explain my opposing vote somewhat: I guess that I'm spoiled by the excellent fokus stacked images of insects made by user:Richard Bartz, taking them as a benchmark.
  Comment It's true that the images of Richard Bartz are outstanding but they are "macro" images. This image of the dragonfly was taken with a 400mm telephoto lens from a distance of approx 6 metre. Since the image was not full frame it was cropped but not downscaled. i.e. the size of the dragonfly in pixels is exactly the same as it when was photographed.
  •   Support Steven Walling 01:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Royalbroil 01:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Karelj (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Jon C (talk) 07:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: Animals/Arthropods

File:Southwold Sea Front.jpg, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 14:30:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Thomas888b - uploaded by Thomas888b - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Quality-wise it looks fine to me. However, it just doesn't stand out enough to be a FP IMO. Try COM:QI. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 15:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral per THFSW --Snaevar (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An slightly different perspective of the sea front, but the composition does not work for me. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's too small. For this image I really would rather see a larger version with more magnification of the scenery. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  Comment I'm pretty sure it falls into big enough to become a Featured Picture :-) Thomas888b (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
It does, but that's not how I mean. I mean I can't really see enough detail because the image is too small, I would've liked if it was bigger so I could see more features of the houses on the pier in the background for instance. But if you couldn't get the magnification or zoom for that it probably would've been better just to focus on a nearby object to photograph. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Thomas888b (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Ebony Bones-01.jpg, featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 19:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info created by Alterna2 - uploaded and nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I love it: The outfit, the pose, the background, the look on her face and the direction she's looking in all make for an interesting subject. Really makes me wonder what she's about to, I'm guessing, sing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Yann (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Well, this picture got some minor issues like the microphone stand is cut off and the backlight is cousing some overexposure and finally that the right hand is underexposed (I´m being picky here). What makes me put a neutral vote however is the wow factor, feel to the touch, not special enough or whatever you´ll want to call it. As both the guidelines and some FP users have pointed out, that is acchived by side-lightning, but not backlight like on this picture.--Snaevar (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose downsampled. would support a full res version. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 12:17, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support Good resolution and colourful. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lošmi (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP category: People

File:Malá Fatra - pillar of the gondola lift.JPG, not featuredEdit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 13 Jan 2011 at 21:48:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Good QI, but not special enough for FP. -- H005 23:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the clear difference between fore- and background. --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose, dark--shizhao (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose underexposed, subject unfortunately just boring in the middle --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per carshten.--Snaevar (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky