Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/September 2009


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 13:31:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral =>  delisted. --Karel (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 11:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Barack Obama
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:45:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 16:09:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mexican flameknee birdeater
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 07:45:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mexican flameknee birdeater
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not featured, instead File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg is featured which has the better support/oppose ratio. See Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#How_far_does_the_rule_of_.22two_versions.22_go.3F for details. -- JovanCormac 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 07:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 09:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Delicate Arch at sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:20:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fort Baker
I fixed it. If you believe it is still tilted please tell me which way and how many degrees?--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a very minor tilt. 1.15 degree CCW adjustment should fix that right up though. Great pano work. Julielangford (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but are you sure. I rotated the original one 1 degree CW. If I am to rotate as you're saying I will be rotating it back.--Two+two=4 (talk)
That will probably depend on which part of the image the eye goes to when judging the horizon. For me, the horizon is that of the sea, in the upper right. That line is about 1.15 degrees out in a clockwise orientation. Julielangford (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also look really close at the vertical posts visible at the mid left [around the buildlings]. It really is tiny, when you look there, but it's there, and makes more of a difference up on the sea horizon. Julielangford (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dschwen, please do not keep suspense going on :) Do tell me what side and how many degrees to rotate it to, or beeter yet rotate it yourself please. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colours are great on this one, but tilt is worse. 1.5 CCW adjustment should sort it. Julielangford (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Julie. I did as you said. I hope it is fixed now. --Two+two=4 (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I did. The image was taken from Golden Gate Bridge as you could see from the image: File:Fort Baker with shadow of Goden Gate Bridge.jpg.--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which incidentally is tilted like crazy as well :-) --Dschwen (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let go on it. I would not like to cut off the shadow :)--Two+two=4 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You actually shouldn't lose too much of the bridge shadow as it needs a CWW rotation [quite a big rotation though]. The loss would mainly be the upper right and bottom left areas [sky and rock], with some loss on each side. If you make it more panoramic with the crop after rotatstion, it should be great. Julielangford (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Julie, thank you. How many degrees I should rotate it to?--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you already rotated it by the time I read this, but still needs a further 1.15 degrees. Careful not to lose too much of the sky :) Julielangford (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man, 2+2 you should really go see a chiropractic ;-). Get that neck straight. Or put some coasters under your monitor (on the left). --Dschwen (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dschwen, I hurt my neck when I tried to figure out what's going on in your image that is nominated just below --Two+two=4 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! :-D --Dschwen (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was taken less than 3 hours before sunset. The sun sets behind the hills so let's take one more hour out. The image was taken from the bridge looking down to the Bay. The sun was positioned about right. --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 10:42:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common Loon, adult and immature
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 14:36:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common Loon
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 00:44:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fog on Golden Gate Bridge is reducing visibility.
This image is not so much about Golden Gate. This image illustrates fog as a visibility hazard. There two road signs there that one hardly could see. In my opinion this image is the best to illustrate the subject and that's why it is special.--Two+two=4 (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong  Oppose At first, I was impressed by the scene, where it seems a cloud is crossing the Golden Gate (more than general fog). However, I realized the fog was digitally added (original version)
I reverted to the original but the only thing I tried to do was to reduce noise in some places, where it was hard to reduce using other ways because of the cables. So I made the image lighter in some places.Here's one of the first images I took on that day File:Fog over Golden Gate Bridge 2.jpg. It is an original image. Then I decided to take shots for panorama. The fog over the bridge is ever moving and ever changing. While I was taken the images of a lower part the fog moved in, while I was taken images of the middle part the fog moved out, while I was taken images of the upper part... and so on, and so on. I like to take images of the moving subjects for my panoramas Hugin blended images together and actually reduced the fog in some places I guess. When I made my edit I brought the image back to the way it looked in the reality. --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The alterations are still there (the version you reverted back to still contains the added fog). I think (I might be mistaken) you are fairly new to FPC process, so I will direct you towards the digital manipulations guidelines, especially to the {{RetouchedPicture}} template. --S23678 (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than mistaking (about the fog I mean)! Here's one more image I took this very day (also an original one) File:Fog over GGB.jpg. The fog over Golden Gate Bridge is a well known phenomenon.I really wish I could add the fog digitally. I guess I will direct you to learning more about the subject before making such a serious accusations as "adding fog digitally" or you could look over other images that were uploaded to Commons like this one for instance File:Morning Fog at GGB.JPG}{{smile} --Two+two=4 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remove my "Oppose", since it no longer applies to the current FPC (although I would suggest you nominate edits as alternatives). I think there has been some misunderstandings, so I will try to rectify some things: My first comment about the "added fog" referred to a note I made on the image, which got erased when you changed the version of the image. It was about a spot of fog a lot more bright than the fog in the rest of the picture, which is no longer present on the current version. I thought that spot was simply brighten by photoshop (that's where the "digitally added" comes from), but is was actually from images blending. This is still a digital manipulation, hence my suggestion of adding the retouched picture template (since a viewer can be easily mistaken in thinking it's a genuine scene). About my second comment, I added it because the new version of the file was then appearing as being the exact same as the version I opposed (no longer the case now, I don't know why). BTW, I've been on the bridge myself when there was fog, I do not think it's an impossible phenomenon. --S23678 (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad we cleared the fog up. --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I do the bad puns around here! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am learning fast . --Two+two=4 (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. I found this image after I nominated mine, yet I believe mine is different because it really illustrates how hard it is to see road signs in the fog.--Two+two=4 (talk) 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 18:57:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kodiak Harbor and rainbow
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 02:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night Light
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 12:08:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old Tower in Vinnitsia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:53:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cirque of Soaso/Pyrenees
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 20:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
I knew it  ! When I created panorama Hugin select a cylindrical setting. I believe it is the way it should be counting that the image includes both towers of Golden Gate Bridge on the left and Alcatraz Island on the right. I believe this tilt is kind of natural. This image was incredibly hard to stitch. Everything was moving from frame to frame. The weather was also bad. In my opinion this image is interesting because it shows the preparations for the race in the different stages. You could see boats from USA, Germany, Australia, Sweden and Great Britain. BTW thanks for the comment versus opposing right away .--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another look, and maybe I will try to correct it.  for nowThe images was fixed to the best of my ability. So let's go on with the nomination.--Two+two=4 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always prefer discussing an image before opposing it, especially considering the immense amount of effort out into the last panorama you nominated. Being a photographically challenged person, I'm generally reluctant to oppose works where I'm out of my depth tech-wise; I don't have the knowledge to tell whether the tilt could, or indeed should, be fixed, so I thought I'd do the gentlemanly thing, and wait until those more informed than myself had comented. I do agree with you regarding the value and quality of the image, and I'll be happy to support it, pending the inevitable barrage of questions and stitchings. Thank you, though, for taking the time to take such wonderful images, and taking criticism in your stride. I don't think that gets said enough around here. Best of luck! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! It is very kind of you. BTW the image is withdrawn only for oppose votes. Everybody, who would like to support it please proceed. --Two+two=4 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Horizontal control points should allow you to straighten things out. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you please give me a link me to tutorials?Found it.--Two+two=4 (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a bad weather, a normal weather for San Francisco summers, but the scene was quite unique. About the crop. So much was going on that no matter what something should have been off, and actually nothing is.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I was on the verge of voting both ways already, but simply can't make up my mind. Quality is good, but not stellar; subject is interesting, but colors are dull. So neutral it is. -- JovanCormac 11:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I like it. But there's one stitching error between the second and third boat on the right side. I'll support fixed version. (no need to restich. you can use clone tool for that) --Lošmi (talk) 02:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean between boats 8558 and 8842? If so there's no error. I could upload the original. If you mean something different could you please add a note to the image or the nomination? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your initial comment! I believe only a very kind and a very nice person would make a comment as you did versus opposing the image right away for a fixable problem! I was very lucky you were the first one, who saw the image --Two+two=4 (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac) 21:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:13:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 21:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aeshna cyanea
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:09:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Aeshna cyanea

* Comment Now that I think about it more... If you clone out the bottom-left corner, this may be better than the one above. --Relic38 (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aeshna cyanea looks me.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Argiope bruennichi with his stabilimentum
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Episyrphus balteatus in fly
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 16:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sympetrum striolatum
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 13:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tachina fera
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 18:21:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A tripe seller in Naples
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 02:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A former US president (Calvin Coolidge, left) and one of the greatest pitchers of all time (Walter Johnson, right) shake hands. Replaced the original "final" upload with a version further edited by Durova and Adam.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 19:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 12:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 11:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great White Shark
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac]]) 17:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2009 at 14:10:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently renamed Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower)

* Oppose the main tower is great, but there is a definate perspective issue on the left tower and also on the posts at the front of the building for me. Julielangford (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac]]) 09:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 13:20:55 (UTC)
Photo of a hedgehog

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:38:17 (UTC)
San Bartolomeo

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:15:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:03:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:03:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:06:22
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 18:09:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 3 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:26:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:58:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created by anonymous - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Grant of arms.jpg by Durova. -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Illustration from a sixteenth century grant of arms signed by Philip II of Spain. Digitized directly from the original manuscript.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I think this is a highly valuable historic illustration, and fascinating to look at. I have been looking carefully at the original scan and also your partially restored version where you have not yet brightened it up as much in the colors. The change in colors seems dramatic in your last step. The red colors are really red, and the somewhat blue-grey steel? swordsarm in the original is more clearly blue (further from the original?). I realize that the pigments in the original has fainted during all those years, but how do you "dose" the color correction? Is it by-eye or via a more systematic approach? I guess your objective is to get as close as possible to how it was when the manuscript was written? For me it seems like you have been very bold in putting your own interpretation in the last color step. So bold that I get the impression that there is a risk of adding too much of your own guess at the original colors. Personally, I think I have a greater affection for the colors in the partially restored version. They may not be as colorful as in the nominated image, but perhaps more true? I am aware though that I am not terribly knowledgeable about the area, and I would be interested in hearing what your comments are to those observations--Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the difference comes not from the color adjustment but from the curves adjustment. The brightest data point on the original is at 211; data is minimal between 23 and 202. In context it makes historic sense that the colors would be brilliant: this was a royal grant signed by a king which used the most expensive pigments of its era. Durova (talk) 21:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Support Thank you for the explanation. I suppose it is well sourced that the king used the most expensive pigments in its era? Very nice image and very professional restoration. --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Durova's explanation - colours certainly seem right compared to other things I've seen. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Another great restoration. -- JovanCormac 06:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support very good result -George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 22:42:32 (UTC)
Lynx lynx

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:23:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fireworks over the battleship North Carolina, during ceremonies commemorating the commissioning of a submarine of the same name.
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 11:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view over "Pasterze" a glacier in the Alps.
The full resolution may cause problems to display on some computers. MatthiasKabel (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, and the full resolution image also exhausts resources on my not so new nor resourceful laptop. Nevertheless, this is a problem with a significant fraction of browsers/viewers now, but in five years time, it would probably not be a problem for most users, and I think FPs should be long-lasting... --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment When I see it in full res in my browser, there is a 1 pixel height grey line in the lower right side of the image - see annotation - can only be seen in full res. Besides that, a very impressive stitch.--Slaunger (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
corrected, at least in this version. The upload of the full version ends in an error right now. Will be uploaded later. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
- I have removed the annotation again. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
also some improvements with the new version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... better, but still not smooth as it should be. If this is not from your out-of-camera pictures (which I doubt, since vigneting is not visible in the posterization), I guess at one point in your workflow you sacrificed quality, probably for size. I would suggest you rebuild your panorama directly at the shown size here (preferably in TIFF format). If it's not working, maybe your stitching program is flawed (I never had posterization problems in Hugin, if you're using another program) --S23678 (talk) 11:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with S23678 (and on his proposals for improving it) that posterization in the sky is a problem. Strange what the origin of that is? Could you add some technical detail in the file description as to how the stitch has been done? Otherwise a very impressive detail level - there is so much information in that image. I would be very happy to support if the posterization issue is solved. --Slaunger (talk) 17:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose posterization doesn't seem to be getting resolved. Lycaon (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'm on vacation right now, my laptop is not able to handle the original file and it makes no sense to resolve the issue only on the smaller version. MatthiasKabel (talk) 11:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 09:08:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 18:34:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Topographic map of the Kerguelen island.
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Maps

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 06:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Laptop parts (CPU + FAN)
  •  Info created by diacritica - uploaded by diacritica - nominated by diacritica -- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I strongly believe that this photo combines the awesomeness of the integrated circuits and high-end technology with the good old brass/copper instruments meant to support the former. Thermodynamics in it's various forms, BTW.-- Diacritica (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Nearly no post-processing, just erased some dust particles from the laptop lid. --Diacritica (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The fan and the inner part of the laptop are out of focus and noisy, the processor that seems to be the thing that is supposed to be in focus is blurry. Did you use a tripod? With the camera you used, and the static nature of the subject I think you should be able to get much better results with a tripod and proper light.--Korall (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Korall. I can understand the "out of focus" comment (it was intended that way) but not the "noisy" claim. I used a very low ISO speed just to avoid that (see exif metadate). I would appreciate if you pointed me to noisy regions (other than the always difficult pure-black). I did used a tripod. If you find the processor to be too blurry, then I find your opposition legitimate :-)
  •  Comment I pointed out the region where I see the most noise. I do not think 400 is a very low ISO number. That is what I use for freehand macros of living animals sitting on flowers on windy days. For photos of dead subjects with a tripod I think you should be able to use ISO 200or lower. Please look here to see previous sucessful nominations of dead things.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 13:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 12:27:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
In general I have read a couple of FP discussions recently, where people seemed to search a little too desperately for any technical flaw in a picture, which to me is ludicrous. 99% of the people will anyway look at the picture in the context of a Wikipedia article and not in full size. Not everybody can afford high-end cameras with super noise performance nor knows how to photoshop the maximum out of a picture, but some of them might instead have the opportunity to take images at special places. I rather like to encourage these people to take nevertheless photos and upload them here, than scaring them off with too harsh criticism.
Please keep in mind that we are reviewing the candidates for featured pictures here. They are supposed to be some of the finest on Commons. Quoting from the guidelines above they should be of "high technical quality". If a nominated picture here is subjected to harsh criticism, that doesn't mean that it's not a good picture and it shouldn't be used. It just means that it doesn't meet the very high standards applied for featured pictures, which are necessary to maintain the high level of quality among them. Of course you don't have to be a professional photographer and possess a high-end camera to contribute to Commons (I myself never shot a photo I would nominate here). There are thousands of technically average pictures out there made by common people with standard cameras (I don't mean this one), which are a great benefit for Commons and the Wikimedia projects. Commons could not exist without them, but they still don't belong here. --NEUROtiker  17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Not every image uploaded to commons has to end up on this page. There is also thousands of pictures taken with high-end cameras that won't stand a chance here (I regularly upload some of those myself) but are still valuable. There are also several FP's taken with point-n-shooters (I have some myself too). But in the end, as NEUROtiker said, we are here to select the finest on Commons. And it is the end result that counts, whatever the hardware, as long as it is very good. Lycaon (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 21:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Swiss Federal Railways Re 482 with an intermodal freight train
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:41:13 (UTC)
Araneus diadematus

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 07:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 20:44:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Machu Picchu
  •  Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This picture is 97 mpx. It has been assembled from 3 different exposures, 12 pictures per exposure. It has been downsampled a little in the center (to get under the 100 mpx limit), but it's upsampled on the outside because of the projection choosen (rectilinear), which explain the softer sides. There's some defects I could not get rid of from the method used to assemble the pictures (this is something like my 10th try at stitching it), like 1 pixel shifts between exposures, because of the displacement of the stitching line from one exposure to another (I hope I'm clear), which is happening on less than 1% of the image, and would disappear immediately on downsampling. A drastic 25 to 1 downsampling would still be 2 times larger than the minimum required, and show none of the defects I am talking about. Still, I chose to nominate this picture at it's original size, hoping people will see the size as a strong mitigating factor for quality issues.
  •  Support -- S23678 (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost one Mb per MP seems a bit much. Looks like you went overboard with the JPG quality setting. Nah well, better than overcompressing I guess. --Dschwen (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm now always saving my JPEGs at the highest quality. It's maybe an overkill, but given the huge size of the TIFF files (more than a Gb for this one), the JPEG is the only thing I keep once my workflow is completed. As you said, I think it's better to push it on this side than on the overcompressing side --S23678 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That looks really impressive. But IMO the defects you are talking about are quite serious to me and unfortunately very visible. If this can be resolved by downsampling, I would really like to see a downsampled version. --NEUROtiker  21:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A small version will be useful for many people who don't have the bandwith to download this file in a reasonable time. Yann (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment, I think you should nominate a smaller version (say, 30-40 mpx), and link to this version from the file page. This may be a local occurrence, but Firefox 3.5 refuses to load the picture no matter how long I wait (and the Windows XP picture viewer is unable to zoom in the picture). Additionally, the picture isn't really detailed enough for the 97 mpx - at this size, it is rather unsharp (somewhat similar to how pictures a compact digital camera with 12 mpx don't have enough details for the high resolution to be useful). I appreciate that the full resolution version is useful for certain purposes, such as making huge prints, but even if we feature a smaller version of the picture and link to this version from the file page, anyone who needs the full version of the picture can use the non-FP version. --Aqwis (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that is a sensible suggestion. I can second that. It probably is not worth the trouble convincing that a downsampled version doesn't actually offer better quality, when it will still be huge and suddenly appear immaculate at 100%. --Dschwen (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 True... given the vast amount of comments I've received (within 1 hour of nomination), I'll withdraw my nomination, try to correct it with all of your comments (which are all very good BTW), and submit a better version later. Thank you all --S23678 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Sure, it takes time to open the image, but I could open it with only DSL 700, Windows XP and T-Online Browser. I saw the enlarged image in the resolution 1600x1200, it is mostly very sharp. It shows the town in warm colors and in many details. Yes, there is also a problem with unsharp and twin-lined small parts or strips of the image, above all on the left and lower margin and on some other places. But all together: it is a very interesting image from Machu Picchu to get a general idea of this old town. I hope you will find a way to repair the image in great detail. Later on it will be easy and quick to enlarge such an image with DSL 5000, 10000.... --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 08:47:39 (UTC)
Infrared (IR) photograph of a tree.

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 18:28:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago at dawn
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Mbz1 (talk) 15:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 13:20:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rudkhan Castle
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 19:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A detail of one of the girders from the World Trade Center, on display in Sacramento, CA at Cal Expo.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 00:18:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A girder from the World Trade Center disaster with various flags in the background.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 14:39:57 (UTC)
Kleiner Fuchs auf Blume

  •  Oppose Focus problems. You might want to try a longer exposure time and higer F number to increase the depth of field next try. I have been getting OK pictures or butterflies with something around 1/200 sec. --Korall (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 06 Sept 2009 at 18:07:34
Little tigers albinos in the Moscow zoo

✓ Done -- TonyBallioni (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't see your comment, just saw the closing and tried to fix it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 20:44:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 09:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:50:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info Reason to delist (Original nomination): 700 × 472 pixels??? That's less than one fifth of the guideline 2 Mpx! Incredible that this was ever featured. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist As nominator. -- JovanCormac 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist Agreed. Yann (talk) 16:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Absolutely Keep Despite its inferior resolution it is a unique and outstanding image from the war in Sarajevo in 1992. It cannot be reproduced, an attempt has been made previously to get original material in higher resolution. It is not possible. It deals with matters much more important to humanity than YAAI (Yet Another Anthropod Image) and every single (OK, thats only five) FP I have created. The image is used on +200 pages on +30 wiki projects and is a perfect example of exceptional value being a strong mitigating reasons for allowing < 2MPx. The image has been nominated for delisting in 2007 and again in 2008 and I very much agree with the detailed arguments for keeping it put forth by especially BenAveling in 2007. --Slaunger (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an interesting picture, and I haven't nominated it for deletion - merely for removal from the list of Featured Pictures, whose standards it clearly doesn't fulfill. Were this nominated today, it would receive an FPX, and be closed after 24 hours. -- JovanCormac 22:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that it would probably be FPXed by a user seeing the 2 MPx guideline as a strict rule which cannot be mitigated. However, I also think it is likely that it would be contested by another user within 24 h using an argument about a strong mitigating reason. It is close to the lower resolution limit of what I can accept, but for me it would still pass. I am unsure whether it would actually pass if renominated today. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Besides, when you think about it a little, it becomes clear that this photo is most likely not a "war snapshot", but staged to some degree. The image description talks about the musician playing at funerals during war time. That's interesting, and I do not doubt that, but the picture obviously does not show him playing at one of those funerals. He is sitting on a pile of rubble in a destroyed building, and the only one around to watch or listen appears to have been the photographer, who probably asked him to pose for that very photo. Shots like this, showing people doing unusual things in war-torn regions of the world, are a dime a dozen, and, I dare say, almost a cliché of modern war photography. Just look through the archives of the World Press Photo Awards. You will find many more examples there. -- JovanCormac 22:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am very much aware that it is probably partly staged (I consider the rubble for real but the pose of the musician staged) and that it has been generated partly for propagandistic purposes. However, I perceive it as way more inventive and refined in its composition than, e.g., the recent File:I'll Miss You Dad by Cecilio M. Ricardo Jr.jpg, and it has an interesting peaceful micro-story about a musician playing at funerals under great danger. Thus, within its genre of war-photography it is very well made - except for the resolution. This micro-story could of course be propaganda in itself. My decision to vote keep is based on an assumption that this part of the story is actually true. --Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep My vote has not changed since the last time it was tried to be delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I've asked the author to provide us a higher resolution of his image. Since his last contribution was more than 2 months ago, I suggest we wait for his response, and possibly his actions before pursuing with the delisting. While doing that, I'm thinking that we could add a step in the delisting process, where the author/uploader/original nominator would be informed about the delisting proposal, so they could take actions for correcting the apparent flaws --S23678 (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist kallerna 14:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep--2+2=4 (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist per nom. Delisting doesn't mean deleting, you know... Lycaon (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delist --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep despite my opposition in the original nomination, I consider it bad form trying to delist pictures yearly until it finally succeeds. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all respect, that is a pretty stupid reason for voting "keep", as it has nothing to do with the picture itself. It actually makes me consider re-nominating it for delisting immediately after this nomination is closed, should it not succeed. The quality of this picture is inferior, and we all know it. There is no chance in hell this would make FP today. Keeping it anyway means granting special privileges to older pictures by saying they do not have to measure up to today's standards, which is insulting and discouraging for anyone working today. It's the stuff feudalism and fiefdomism are made of, the stuff nobility thrives on. When they do it, they are being criticised for it nowadays, even though some may still consider it stylish. But for a project like Commons, which is barely 5 years old, even talking about "old stuff", much less "tradition", is just plain ridiculous; and pseudo-tradition is the only reason people vote to keep pictures like this. -- JovanCormac 18:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep extremly strong picture --Jklamo (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I agree with Slaunger. Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 6 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:54:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 12:52:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 16:11:41
Polygonia c-album


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:27:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 4 delist, 4 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:24:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 16:22:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /FPCBot (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 17:54:41 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has an extensive level of noise for a daylight picture --S23678 (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 08:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mike Simons, Director of the National Electronic Museum in Baltimore assembles an Apollo TV camera for display
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a very distracting background. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
That said, it is an interesting device he is assembling. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2009 at 09:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Il minerale "rosa del deserto"
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is blurred and too noisy. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 00:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wichita radar's storm relative motion of the a tornado-producing mesocyclone over Salina, Kansas on June 11, 2008. Blue/green shades are winds moving towards the radar (to the south-southeast), while red/yellow shades are winds moving away from the radar.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small 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.

Lycaon (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 06:29:37 (UTC)
High resolution panoramic image

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: lightning is not consistent from frame to frame throughout the panorama --S23678 (talk) 06:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  • As well, other qualities issues, such as visible stitching boundaries, noise, stitching misalignments. The camera's automatic mode isn't an option for such panoramas. The qualities issues are overwhelming, BUT, I must praise the resolution (136 mpx!), and the great beauty of the scene (especially in the parts of the picture where the colors are bright and saturated). --S23678 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:53:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment Please explain. That an image has good qulity is in my opinion not something that can be a reasonable reason to oppose. --Korall (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Richard is saying here that while it may be of sufficient quality, it lacks that something extra to make it to FP. --ianaré (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:50:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chaka Demus, a famous reggae DJ and singer during concert.
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

edit
Chaka Demus, a famous reggae DJ and singer during concert.
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 22:48:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 11:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 18:47:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info created and uploaded by Kieff - nominated by Diti Diti the penguin 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If someone succeeds in creating a bigger version of this animation… Nevertheless, I see the smoothness and usefulness of this animation (remember that the 2 Mpx limit is because of prints, and we cannot print animations) as a strong mitigating reason. Diti the penguin 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose While the animation itself is beautiful, and definitely big enough, I don't like the way waves are used here with the intention of illustrating the wave nature of light. The illustration gives the impression that light waves are much like water waves, and somehow "run along the ray of light", which is false (and because the truth is very complex indeed, the wavyness should probably be left out entirely). As this is a scientific illustration, IMO this misrepresentation is reason enough for opposing. -- JovanCormac 11:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think the wwaves are being used to show that it's the different frequencies that cause the split - which is important information. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but imagine a still frame from the animation. It contains the very same information. The only info the animation adds to that still frame is the way the waves move - and it is precisely there where it goes wrong. -- JovanCormac 15:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Agree with JovanCormac that the animation transmits a wrong interpretation of the refraction of the different wavelengths and of the nature of light -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I think the opposers arguing that the animation conveys a wrong interpretation of how refraction works is somewhat missing the point in the purpose/scope of this animation. An animation displaying the full wave-particle duality, the detailed processes leading to dispersion in a reactive medium illustrating is not the scope here, but to portray the wave nature of light in a refractive medium. The file page description also explains this quite thoroughly. So the ambition here is more aimed at primary/high-school level and not a high level quantum-electrodynamic explanation. In fact it is such that in a macroscopic view of the problem it can be considered as a raytracing problem. However, there are certain aspects of the animation, which I think should be clarified to make it clearer. First of all there are six colors shown and the refractive index and dispersion of the prism is relatively low meaning that the separation between the colors is not so large. This means that the animation gets rather busy when the colors split out. This also means that only a careful observer will notice that the wavelength inside the prism for a given color is actually shorter than in the surrounding vacuum. The shorter wavelength is an important aspect of understanding the origin of the refraction (that light travels slower in the prism leading to a shorter wavelength). If the refractive index of the prism was set to a larger value with higher dispersion, the waves would split more out and the wavelength inside the prism would get even shorter. Also reducing the number of colors from six to, say four or five would also reduce the "clutter" in the animation and make it more illustrative. --Slaunger (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Why not replace the waves with particles of different colours? That would make the whole thing more clear --Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Two+two=4 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per JC and Alvesgaspar. --Dschwen (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Ks0stm (TC) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --kaʁstn 10:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per others. Lycaon (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The Dark Side of the Moon animated. I like it. --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry, late vote. Lycaon (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2009 at 15:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canada Geese and morning fog
  •  Info created by Two+two=4 - uploaded by Two+two=4 - nominated by Two+two=4 -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Two+two=4 (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think the image has a great mood, and it must have been a nice view. However, I do not think it quite reaches the level of another FP from Golden Gate Park, File:Crepuscular rays in ggp 2.jpg. I think the latter also have larger value in clearly showing crepuscular rays. Your photo certainly has some very good aesthetic qualities, and it is something you can be proud of, but I do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional. The image quality is also a little dissapointing when I have closer look with quite some noise in the darker areas. I know it is hard to avoid, but anyway, this is FPC. Could you add a geolocation please? Its odd how your and the now self-excluded photographer, mbz1 creations deal with quite similar subjects. Do you know her? (You do not have to reply on the last question). --Slaunger (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit disappointed with your oppose reason. First you compare the nominated image to the image that got fourth place in the picture of the year competition. Then you say that you "do not think its educational and informational value is exceptional." The images add to each other. They were taken in about the same place at about the same time and show how different the fog could be. The fog is different, the light is different, the sky condition is different. One image has the rays, the other has flying geese. One image has the sun behind the tree the other has the sun behind the fog. One image has a clear sky, the other has a foggy sky. In my opinion they both have educational and informational value, but where it is written in FPC criteria, that the value should be exceptional? I added location. Just copied from Mila's image. I know her. I reduced noise in some areas.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Point taken. Maybe I was coming down a little too hard on your image. I was not aware that milas image came in fourth so I agree it is a little unfair to compare the two. Albeit there is an informational and educational element in showing the fog, I feel we are pretty well covered with fog images on Commons. Almost as well covered as with sunsets. Pleasing to look at from an artistical side, but actually obscuring otherwise informational and educational elements such as the ducks (we have plenty of those here as well) and geese. You are right that it does not say anywhere in the guidelines that the value should be exceptional. It says "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others" and it also say "beautiful does not always mean valuable". It would be more precise to point at those sentences for my reasoning. Interesting that you know mila. Did you borrow her camera as well? You use the same camera model - a Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi!?! OK, let me just pop a more blunt question, just to avoid any further speculations: Is Two+Two=mila?--Slaunger (talk) 06:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What made you to believe that I cannot afford my own camera? Two+two=4 or as you explained to me "2+2=10 in the Ternary numeral system". In my opinion the nominated image is at least as valuable as quite a few current FP images. Of course if you decided to fight for the value of FPC even using my own image as a scapegoat, I wish you good luck . I hope to see more oppose/neutral votes from you for the same reason and with the same detail description of your opinion in the feature.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, when two users know each other, shoot the same kinds of subjects from the same locations, with the exact same camera model it could have been the same camera and even the same person... But you have stated now that it not the case, so case closed. Concerning "scapegoat" I want you to know that I try to the best of my ability to review any image as objectively as I can against how I perceive the criteria and not let my review be influenced by who the creator is and the topic. I am not a robot though, nor flawless. --Slaunger (talk) 20:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best way to check if we're using the very same camera is to check for dust spots. If you find one in the very same place on both images then your quest will be solved, my dear Sherlock Holmes . On a more serious note I would like you to know that I have stated nothing except that I am using my own camera and that 2+2=4 that is a well known fact :). With my statement I tried to make you to realize that I consider your questions and statements that have nothing to do with the nomination a little bit intrusive and strange. I am glad you closed the case. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dust spots can be cleaned, both off the sensor and off the images, and given that the photos you shot and the photos that Mbz1 shot are a couple of months apart, there's no proof either way to be gleaned from looking at spots... For the record, I noticed that you also used the same version of Photoshop CS3, and both saved with progressive JPEG... Just saying... Diliff (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, now I'm also being accused in destroying the most important evidences - dust spots:) Diliff, how interesting you mentioned progressive JPEG. As a matter of fact I've tried to use different saving options (I assume you have not looked over all of my uploads :)), and was about to ask you what is the best way to save the files after editing with CS3. I've noticed that every time I do a minor edit and save a file, the quality of the sky is getting worse. So as long as you commented here anyway could you please give me a professional advise what saving options I should use? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, man, you came here, voted only on two nominations out of 60+ nominations , and you want me to believe to you that the image is not an "eye-popper"? --Two+two=4 (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody. In case you have not yet heard I am not 2+2=4. I am a notorious Mbz1 with an absolutely horrible block record. All I wanted was a fresh start, but I guess I cannot have one. I should have been threaded differently like infamous Mbz1 and not as an innocent new user I pretended to be. Please feel free to revoke your "support" votes for this nomination as well as for my other nominations. Please feel free to change you "support" votes to "oppose" votes. BLOCKLOG1 + BLOCKLOG2 + BLOCKLOG3 and --2+2=4
 CommentSigh, well you certainly do your utmost to stir up as much drama as possible instead of pursuing the less dramatic and sensible path which would simply be to link to your previous account and then continue with your fresh start:-( --Slaunger (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of educational value in the image: irridesent fog, reduced visibility due to the fog, the flying geese, the reflection, the visibility of the sun behind the fog. Your mention about so called "similar image" shows that you yourself could have learned a lot from the nominated image. The only semilarity between the images are that they were taken at about the same place, but of course "no wow" cannot be helped .--Mbz1 (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to thank everybody, who supported the image. This nomination was practically killed from the very beginning first by highly unfair oppose reason, and then for even more unfair interrogation. When the nomination has started, the image's creator was happy 2+2=4, who just got out of the cage and was flying free. Now the nomination is about to end, and the image's creator was put back to the cage with the broken wings. I've done nothing wrong to deserve it. According to Commons's policies I had all the rights in the world for a fresh start, but... I would also like to thank lycaon for two reasons. The first one is that he said "sorry" in the end of his oppose reason. That "sorry" meant a lot to me. The second reason I'd like to thank lycaon for is that kindly he has never taken a part in the interrogation himself. My special thanks is going to diliff. I laughed out loud at his way too serious response to my joke about dust spots. Sometimes it gets really funny to deal with people who're lacking sense of humor, or at least whose sense of humor is very different from mine own. Thanks, diliff, you made me laugh. The nomination still has 3+ hours to go, but no matter if the image is promoted or not, I will always remember your supports for that very special for me nomination . --Mbz1 (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks and morning fog

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Korall (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 04:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket
I am already glad I've nominated the image. To get "support" from you most of all now means a lot to me! The crop could have been better, but imagine, we were driving highway, when I saw the fire. I asked my husband to stop, but he said: "Why, have you never seen a fire yet or what?" He was right. Living in California we have seen quite a few wildfires. Besides with wildfires one never knows when highway you're driving at would get closed. So we kept going, and then I saw the helicopter, which we have never seen before. I had a very little time to grab my camera and to take few fast shots.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this image is very good, the only thing that bothers me is that small bit of electrical transmission tower. kallerna 18:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bust of Carcalla
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 06:07:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chapel in Andelsbuch

* Oppose per Alvaro. Will support if its cropped away or fixed in some other way because i like this image.

 Support--Korall (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 18:45:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baron Münchhausen Underwater
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 04:33:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Baron Münchhausen with a half-horse.jpg
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 13:14:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape of Pag Island, Croatia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 11:22:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Beautiful? Yes. Encyclopedic? I am not so sure.--2+2=4 (talk) 13:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Wikipedia. -- JovanCormac 14:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, however I am not sure what is the purpose of this artist's conception of the Milky Way galaxy. IMO the artist's conception looks strikingly similar to any spiral galaxy like this one for example File:Messier51 sRGB.jpg. BTW looks like this particular image was used to make the artist's conception of the Milky Way galaxy.--2+2=4 (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 8 Sep 2009 at 22:53:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A woman stretching
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 20:11:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Feodor Chaliapin as Mephisto
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period ends on 7 Sep 2009 at 08:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy
edit

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 03:04:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago White Sox pitcher Ed Walsh, the MLB career leader in earned run average.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 13:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 17:53:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

This is a photograph of a beach on the Island of St. Johns in the US Virgin Islands
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 13:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ant walking under a specie of Orchidaceae at Sanjay Gandhi National Park Mumbai. Ant
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colias croceus

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2009 at 17:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Papilio cresphontes


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 13:51:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vocalist Corey Taylor
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 00:36:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common Loon
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Please do not add FPXes when there are already support votes. --Aqwis (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 17:29:23 (UTC)
Helgoland at sunset

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 12:35:30 (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 for the following reason: it exists at a ludicrous resolution. 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 07:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Caelifera sp.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 17:32:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 18:33:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An Italian surfer
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 14:21:35 (UTC)
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Could you explain why you must remain neutral? ;) MartinD (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble explaining that to myself... I just cannot figure out what is missing. Sorry I can't be of any help. --Relic38 (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 00:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

African Grey Parrot - macro
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 10 Sep 2009 at 21:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brugge (Belgium): the Carmelites bridge
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 21:56:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicken Pizza!
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Danaus plexippus

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 14:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exotic lepidoptera

 Comment I guess this picture was taken at some kind of butterfly zoo and to me (but I am no biologist) i looks like some kind of Heliconius (Because of the shape of the butterfly but also because I know they are bred in captivity) but to narrow it down further is kind of hard because there are many species and also hybrids between species. I think the best way to know for sure would be going to the butterfly zoo, be polite and ask some who works there which species they have. --Korall (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 17:41:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Attacus atlas
 Comment It might be a male/female difference?--Korall (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 11 Sep 2009 at 13:05:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longhorn cowfish (Lactoria cornuta) taken in an aquarium in the Natural History Museum of Vienna
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 08:02:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 10:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Group Passage, Hautecombe Nights, 2008.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 09:21:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 11:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Araneus diadematus
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomisidae sp. in a flower.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:40:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomisidae sp. in a flower.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomisidae sp. in a flower.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 09:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 04:39:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Thanks Olivier Jaulent!--Paris 16 (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 07:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mexican fireleg birdeater
  •  Info all by George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC) -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Walking Mexican fireleg birdeater Brachypelma boehmei. Adult female
  •  Support -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. I don't like the setup of your spider shots too much. IMO the all suffer from too high contrast. The shadows are too dark, as is the spider, the contours of the spider are lost in the shadow. The perspective is probably useful, but nothing more (no artistic component). And the technical quality of this image is not particularly good (lacks sharpness). You should consider using a fill flash from a very low angle to bring some light below the spider. --Dschwen (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose In general, I like to try to look at animals from the same level as they are at. I think a shot from ground level would make the spider more interesting because thats how I imagine that spiders look at other spiders. I prefer something like File:Oryctes_nasicornis_front.JPG (which I took without looking in the viewfinder and has too shallow DOF to be really good) to File:Oryctes_nasicornis_side.JPG beacuse the first one gives me the feeling of looking at something very small from the perspective of being someone/something very small. So, well, shortly, I find the perspective kind of boring and the quality less than outstanding. --Korall (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 19:26:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Australian painted on yellow flower.

 Comment Could you please put the file in a proper category and add the scientific name to the description? Is it Vanessa cardui or is it a different species only found in Australia? -Korall (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Marsa Lahminal (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 18:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vernet's Castle, in Vernet-les-Bains municipality, France.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 17:00:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama from Ettelsberg
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 07:56:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 06:34:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Otepää church, Estonia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 19:52:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Indian Peafowl head
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 05:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Guided missile cruiser "Moskva"
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 08:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants#Fungi

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 22:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Whistlejacket, oil on canvas, 292 cm × 246.4 cm
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 23:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Kansas City Royals pitcher Zack Greinke in the act of pitching.
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:54:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Thassos 8- Koningspage Iphiclides podalirius (5).JPG --Aqwis (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 9 Sep 2009 at 17:55:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 12:57:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

New church in Kochanowice (Upper Silesia). Main altar
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 12:35:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 11:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Voting period ends on 12 Sep 2009 at 12:36:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Yann (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 10:44:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 19:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Russell Falls in Mt Field National Park
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tiptoety talk 03:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 15:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Natrix natrix
Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 22:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Auto wreck, Maryland, 1923
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 21:06:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Belgian F-16 Fighting Falcon
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 00:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 09:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Side altar in church in Olesno (Rosenberg)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 13 Sep 2009 at 12:39:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 10:39:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Majestat Batlló. Policromatic, 12th century, romanic crucifix.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 08:37:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

front aspect of Schwerin Castle, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 07:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 15:00:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pieris napi

 I withdraw my nomination

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 22:28:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Earwax on swab

{{FPC-results-reviewed|support=14|oppose=7|neutral=0|featured=no|category=|sig=[[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC))}}

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Others

Voting period ends on 14 Sep 2009 at 18:39:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

International Maritime Museum in Hamburg
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 11:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Immature red billed gull
I thought the composition was quite nice :-). The whites are very bright, but surprisingly very little is over exposed, its a choice between bright whites and noisy greys. A tweak to the beak with an unsharp mask might be what you want. Oh well I thought FPC needs a few more bird nominations, as there aren't any others here ... I'll find some more :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brugge (Belgium): the Augustijnen bridge
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:32:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Pier of Blankenberge, Belgium
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 18:54:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Head of European Hornet
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 04:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Early morning scene in Misquamicut Beach, Rhode Island
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 11:20:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Syndey Opera House and Bridge
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:36:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thomisidae sp.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:16:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cruiser breaks through a wave
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 18:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Descendants of slaves of the Pettway plantation

 I withdraw my nomination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 22:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Girl at Gees Bend, Alabama, USA.

 I withdraw my nomination I don't understand people supporting military hardware, and who can't even see the most basic symbolism... Yann (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pity you withdrew. Many people had supported already, and the vote was far from over even with the "roman style" opposes in the end. I think that the reason some people don't see the symbolism of the contrast between the clean world propagated by the newspaper and the girl's poor living conditions is that they simply don't look at the image in full size (where the Cellophane ad becomes more prominent) - which is a shame, but unless voters decide to take the time to do so there's nothing that can be done about it. -- JovanCormac 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 17:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Plague Commons in Kremnica, Slovakia

 I withdraw my nomination -- Pudelek (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 20:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stow Lake with pagoda, pigeons and the Moon
  •  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - This image lacks the "wow" factor for me needed for FPs, though I do think it is an interesting shot. Also, the birds and the moon are a bit blurry, making them somewhat distracting. That as well as the small piece of branch on the right hand side make the crop not the best (could be easily fixed though). Lastly the dark shadowing in the lower right hand corner make it hard to tell what you are looking at. Tiptoety talk 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  The flying birds are blurry a lot, and it what makes the image interesting at least for me

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 06:03:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A strawberry falling into a glass of water

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 15:10:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

African dwarf goat eating a leaf.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 14:32:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 18:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 17:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Excavation at Uriconium by en:Francis Bedford
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 12:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 18:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

HH-65C image
As for the crop: IMHO the tight crop adds to the tension of the image, so I'd rather keep it as it is.
Btw, it seems that the Wikimedia thumbnail creation software isn't able to deal with the embedded AdobeRGB profile - the thumbnails look rather pale. Is this a known issue? -- H005 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment-- I fixed the first and third issue. It seems as if the image made it onto the site before we changed the rules here about the names of things. If anyone can move the image, than that would be great, but since I cannot do so, this works for now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I've added a rename tag and trust that a bot will one day deal with the name issue. -- H005 (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 14:08:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic picture of the main nave of the Berlin Cathedral.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 14:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Common toad in grass
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 20:25:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

surfer
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

Voting period ends on 15 Sep 2009 at 10:03:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Detail of Derwent Water
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 09:54:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Alpine ibex (capra ibex)
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Alpine Ibex

Result: 8 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.

Voting period ends on 16 Sep 2009 at 10:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Alpine Ibex (capra ibex)
Good, please do not forget to support it --Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Alpine Ibex

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 22:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Propaganda picture from the US government, 1942.
Agree!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

edit

Propaganda picture from the US government, 1942.

Of course only one image will be FP. The other is nominated as alternative. The image that gets more supports and/or less opposes will be promoted.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 02:39:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Colosseum in Rome
Not featured as an edited version is already featured. Lycaon (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 12:42:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red Arrows formation
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 16:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 08:01:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Granman Jankoeso of the Saramkaner Maroon with his captains in the garden of the "Gouvernementsgebouw" in Paramaribo. This picture has been restored in anticipation of a collection by the Royal Institute for the Tropics / Tropenmuseum. This picture is now officially uploaded in a low resolution [File:Tropenmuseum Royal Tropical Institute Objectnumber 60008914 Granman Jankoeso van de Saramakanersp.jpg here]. This represents the practice where pictures may be provided to us in a high resolution when we are willing to restore them..
  •  Info created by J.E. (Julius Eduard) Muller (Fotograaf/photographer). - uploaded by Durova - nominated by GerardM


Granman Jankoeso of the Saramkaner Maroon with his captains in the garden of the "Gouvernementsgebouw" in Paramaribo. This picture has been restored in anticipation of a collection by the Royal Institute for the Tropics / Tropenmuseum. This picture is now officially uploaded in a low resolution here. This represents the practice where pictures may be provided to us in a high resolution when we are willing to restore them.. -- GerardM (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Durova (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Something went awry with the restoration process IMO. It looks as if a raster pattern was introduced (or half-toning amplified??) by the restoration. Moreover, while certainly valuable as a historical document, as a photograph it has some shortcomings (such as the crop on the right). Lycaon (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThis picture was selected for a press release about the cooperation between the Tropenmuseum and the Wikimedia Foundation. The picture was digitised at high resolution to make a restoration possible. The granman can be understood to be on the same level as a president. The tiff that was created is available for your information so you can see for yourself what the starting material is.
This is important material and, it is even important for Commons one other reason why it deserves consideration as a featured picture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that side info, but that doesn't address any of my concerns. Lycaon (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was definitely not a halftoned original. Perhaps Lycaon misidentifies the print surface texture that was picked up during rephotography? Durova (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Agree with Lycaon. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Often, people complain about missing metadata (e.g. species id) of candidates. Here, not even the year in which this was taken is given. Since by today's standards, the quality is quite bad, it matters whether the picture is from 1880 or from 1930, that latter being "oppose" territory as we know that much higher quality was possible even then. The restoration is good as usual, of course, but the composition and crop are unimpressive. I'll just abstain for now. -- JovanCormac 07:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 15:00:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sichuan pepper (Zanthoxylum piperitum) fruits
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

360° Panorama Zitterklapfen

Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period ends on 17 Sep 2009 at 09:22:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Alipio facade door of San Mark Basilika of Venice (XIIIth century).
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 02:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Armed forces firing gun
I reduced some noise File:Casing edit1.jpg.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sharp boundaries between the noisy and denoised areas in your version look kind of weird to me. Also, the shadow areas remain quite noticeable noisy. I suspect it might be better to just denoise everything, or at least be more careful with the blending. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the noise, I ask that reviewers remember FP standards which state: "A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph." Cheers, Tiptoety talk 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 22:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Large-scale illuminated calligraphic piece.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 19:17:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

State Library of Victoria, La Trobe reading room
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 09:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 20:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Most of the subject is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 20:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Demolition shears
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 11:46:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chris Cassidy works near the JEF
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 12:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pelecanus crispus at Beijing zoo
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 06:51:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Central Bearded Dragon
 Comment Yes, I agree if it is to be a close-up then a crop of just the head perhaps --Tony Wills (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Well, let it not a close up. If i change the description, the image will not changed. This photo is cut off to good show some thorns on a head and a trunk of a lizard. A tail is long and not so interesting. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Just call it a tradition, people at FPC don't like little unimportant bits chopped off their animals, even the odd toe or ear tip gets them upset :-). It's either a complete picture of the animal, or a closeup highlighting some feature. Humour us and show us what the tail looks like (of course if you chopped off the tail with an axe, then show us the stump and we will use it as an example of animal cruelty ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 20:00:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Railway station Puchenau-West (Upper Austria)
I know there's some noise but imho composition, atmosphere and colors look great and compensate the minor lack at this late evening picture. So I  Support my work. -- Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info It is of course retouched a little bit (if you will call it retouched), but I think it falls within the guidelines above (Digital manipulations). Do you think I should describe the corrections (rotated and afterwards cropped a little bit, contrast and colors a bit higher, removed lens reflection in the sky) in the image text? --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 18:45:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boeing 737-400

 Albertus teolog (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 18 Sep 2009 at 22:16:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ellis Island
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:01:28 (UTC)

Ellis Island
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 16:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ernesto Cardenal reads his own poems in La Chascona (Santiago, Chile)
 Info I cleaned up the background, left some texture -- Tony Wills (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 18:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lodalen, a valley in Norway
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 04:20:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Yellow lemon cut in half
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 05:46:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Houston Police memorial
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 19:22:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Is there any Holocaust Memorial image featured? Could you please provide a link to the Holocaust Memorial image that is FP? And btw, if we are to talk about similarity, I mean really to talk about similarity, how about dragonflies, flies, butterflies and so on?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust Memorial is certainly a subject worth a FP, but the sun light is too strong for me here. Yann (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Yann. As I have explained bellow IMO there should have been something really special to show the place. The rays over the Memorial were special. I also took this image . It is a refraction of the Memorial ia dew drop, which to me was as a refraction of the Memorial in a tear. The thing is that the memorial was built in a rather strange place and some find it an "unexpected intrusion on the view, and an unfriendly reminder to one of the most significant genocides of the 20th century." So let's say I wanted my image also to be "an unfriendly reminder to one of the most significant genocides of the 20th century" to continue with the artist idea. Anyway thanks for the comment versus oppose. It was kind of you! :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That picture is really interesting, much more than the current nomination, IMO. Yann (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Yann. I thought about nominating of that other image, but the thing is that without knowing what this image is about, a reader will not be able to understand it IMO. In other words to understand that image a reader will have to read the description and see the other images of the Memorial. There's nothing wrong with this of course, but just another reason to oppose the image. This Memorial is full of symbolism. For example one could find ""Christ-like" figure in the assemblage, reflecting on the Jewishness of Jesus, as well as a woman holding an apple, a reflection on the idea of original sin and the biblical connection between Jews and Christians, and raising the question of this relationship during the Holocaust." With my images I kind of hoped to continue with that symbolism. Looks like I failed :( --Mbz1 (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking the pictures on the Memorial, I see that there are plenty of possibilities of great symbolic pictures, so please try again. But I agree that many Commons users are not very open to symbolism and feelings. Yann (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@H005. Yes, the image is overexposed in very few spots, but I hope you do agree that it was all, but impossible to show the rays and the memorial in the same shot with no overexposure. IMO overexposure in this particular image is rather a way to show the memorial in a different light. IMO this image has a great symbolic meaning. It was like the sun and the fog created the memorial over the memorial! I am surprised and dissapointed nobody sees it. You said you could "hardly see the monument". IMO the readers could see everything there is to see - the dead bodies in a shadow and the only man standing in the light. You said you felt blinded. Maybe me as the photographer wanted to create rather strong, and not necessarily pleasant feelings in the people looking at the image. I am glad I succeeded in doing this! This memorial is very special, and IMO a simple good quality shot would not have been good enough to show it. Thank you very much for stating out your opinion about similarity! You are right. There were no similar images ever nominated.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

Alternative, withdrawn

edit

 

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 08:32:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The "Tribute in Light" memorial is in remembrance of the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
edit

Alternative version with tilt and perspective correction

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bürstegg and Biberkopf

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Alternative version with tonal value correction

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 18:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

baroque sculpture on Venus island at Schloss Nordkirchen
difficult to take a picture of the sculpture withou the trees
The debate about licensing is imo displaced in the review of a single picture, many of our best photographers use GFDL 1.2 or similar licenses and they have reasons to do so. We can discuss that but the review of a single picture is not the right place to do so. And I'm sorry, I'm a little bit disappointed, that Kallerna uses this way directly after I critizised this kind of debate concerning a QI picture of another Wikipedian, where Kallerna opposed because he wanted to change our policies for QI. That looks like a sort of revenge.
The discussion of licensing can be very distructive, we have this kind of partially aggressive debates on German Wikipedia since about a year. My main reason to use GFDL 1.2 is the changing of licensing without asking me as an author. Some people say that I could opt out, but in fact that is difficult, because I have thousands of pictures on this server and the gallery of my works mix own pictures with pictures I retouched during my work on categories like «Images for cleanup». For me the license I gave to a picture is a kind of contract between me and the project and I think that that contract cannot be changed without prior agreement. Please leave this statement concerning licenses without comment, because we should discuss that on the right place and that is not the review of a picture. best regards --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vote wasn't a revenge, I don't have anything against you or any other user. And the main reason to my vote was that tree on bottom right. kallerna 18:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nice to read that, thx --Mbdortmund (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm fine with the licence and the trees, but the image is, despite its extraordinary technical quality (really great!), not special enough - no wow!, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:35:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 15:20:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium).
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 19 Sep 2009 at 18:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

N* Info c/u by noodle snacks nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 14:17:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young Squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in sunset
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 19:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 21:14:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Menger Sponge after four iterations
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Menger Sponge after four iterations

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Menger Sponge after four iterations (PNG)

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 04:52:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 21 Sep 2009 at 15:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Universal joint
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 09:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Sep 2009 at 00:40:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 15:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Anax imperator eclosion
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 09:47:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Euplectes orix
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 08:22:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horseshoe Falls, Tasmania
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural_phenomena

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 12:15:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Shuttle Mission Imagery
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 06:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 17:36:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Peacock mite (Tuckerella sp.) a beautiful but important pest on citrus in the tropics is shown on a tea stem.
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 06:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 15:02:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Attack on Beijing Castle during the Boxer Rebellion
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 17:21:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue Angeles
Guidelines never say the image should be "too sharp", just that the image should be sharp and the nominated image is not "too sharp", but it is sharp enough --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 10:47:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Microwave tower at dawn
Natural colours, only post processing was to rotate it slightly for those who think engineers never build things on a slant, and gravity always points straight down :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is all about light, soft and pleasant, a mood shot, cold overcast dawn at the moment the sun was above the horizon but below the clouds, sharp edges aren't wanted :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 21:53:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Skoda Superb II
If it is the work of a commercial photographer I wold have thought OTRS was a pretty standard requirement as proof of validity of uploaders licensing claims (tineye shows it has been published quite bit). --Tony Wills (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without some declaration on the image page, this is masquerading as an action shot. We are talking about commons:FP criteria, I don't think en:wp sets much precedent, a rather different process and criteria, apples and oranges really ;-). Would you care to ask the photographer about the making-of this image, so that the image page complies with FPC criteria and we're not setting a precedent for undisclosed manipulations as being quite ok? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, what are you talking about? I am referring to Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Michele_Merkin_1.jpg, please do not modify my posts in a confusing way. Yes I planned on writing him another mail. --Dschwen (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, I wrote en and commons. So forget about en then. --Dschwen (talk) 22:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'll forget about en :-). Sorry, the way it was formatted on my screen I didn' see the commons ref too. See what a difference adding a link makes :-). I will start a general discussion on FPC talk --Tony Wills (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 08:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 12:29:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fluorite crystals (blue) with Pyrite (gold-coloured)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 22:57:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Ninth Wave by Ivan Aivazovsky
We can in this case, because this shot made by Hermitage museum contributors. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 00:02:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Black swan
I thought the evening lighting and the angle of the head made it interesting. More interesting than the classical simple profile shot normally seen as in this picture of the only non-white swan featured. The original uncropped image is there, feel free to suggest a more attractive crop :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the lighting is nice. Also, in regards to the angle, I actually prefer the profile shot you linked to. That said, looking at the uncropped one, having the reflection of the swans head on the water adds quite a lot to the image IMO. Not sure if you or others would agree though. Tiptoety talk 02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 10:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 17:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jastrabia veža
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 10:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 12:51:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castles of Oswaldo Cruz Foundation.

 Info new version --Econt (talk) 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 23:12:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Beautiful example of dwarf galleries on the façade of the Cathedral in Pisa (Italy)
I also do not like, where nobody votes on my nominations. So, here's my opinion. Your image is a very good QI image with some great and interesting details. It is also valued image. IMO the composition is not good enough for FP. Maybe a panorama would have been better? May I please suggest you to take a look at some works of other Commons photographers, who's taking images of architectural objects, for example user:Diliff. Please do not get discouraged by my comment :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 10:32:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Yann (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 18:09:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resultion is below 2MP /Daniel78 (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Sep 2009 at 14:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs
The frogs were behind the glass in a very dark tank, and the flash was used. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I read that I thought you had found them in the back yard, and I wondered at the skill of having the flash isolate the subject without any distracting background showing up! Just as well the glass was clean :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 06:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

:Waxy Monkey Tree Frogs

Since when? I mean you yourself have quite a few FP of quite of few organisms photographed in a very "unnatural endearment" [5], [6] and so on. The environment of the nominated image is actually a very natural one (at least California Academy of Sciences tried to do their best ), if we're to assume for example that the image was taken at night. I'd like to thank you for finding the technical quality OK. I mean, if even lycaon finds quality of Mbz1 image OK it means something ... You rebuked a prior review for me, and it was very nice of you --Mbz1 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. –blurpeace (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 08:32:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crayons
 Comment I consider this an invalid reason to oppose, shall I strike it out ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider all you like, it's not currently listed as one of the "invalid reasons" in the rule which is precisely why we decided to list all invalid reasons rather than the valid ones. -- JovanCormac 11:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is this royal 'we' :-) I think the vote on the whole idea needs to be revisited. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It came out 5-1, not counting my own vote. By contrast, the new "Well documented" requirement for artworks (which I'm still not sure I agree on) was introduced without any vote at all... -- JovanCormac 13:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I'd like to point out one aspect in which thi picture is IMO superior: it is the lack of symmetry which gives it an artistic touch, justified with such a joyful, colourful image. Airwolf (talk) 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 14:23:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Rana temporaria
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 10:33:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apollo 11 crew members
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 15:30:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Amethyst - Guerrero Mexico - (12x12cm)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 00:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

South Korean presidential residence garden, Blue House (Cheongwadae) in Seoul South Korea
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 07:00:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Watchtower of the Mogoşoaia Palace, near Bucharest, Romania
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 12:15:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red Arrows formation
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 18:38:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /blurpeace (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 12:27:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dead chick
FPC needs more bird nominations, a dead one is better than none (good educational value (just in case you're a en:FPC addict ;-)) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've experimented a bit, but if I crop that out then the overall composition is too tight, I like to have a bit of space around the edge of the subject. --Tony Wills (talk) 07:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were you seeing the big shadow on the original upload, or the small shadow left in the second version - I just noticed that the image page was showing the original upload version, rather than my crop uploaded over top. I have now purged that and it should show the correct crop now. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info On all my recent uploads I have tried to upload the original unedited photo first, then my best cropped/retouched version over-top. That way people can work with the original if they want to make improvements. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen many dead animals but this is striking in that it is complete, not half eaten, not fly blown, not decomposing nor squashed road kill. Looks as though it died suddenly - head is thrown back, maybe a broken neck after falling from a nest. It tells of a life cut short before it had the chance to open its eyes and see the world - I think it is a wee bit special :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course some are hatched with feathers, but I like the way you can see through the transparent skin and see the developing feathers before they emerge --Tony Wills (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 23 Sep 2009 at 23:10:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dead chick
That is probably better (although colours look a bit washed out in that corner). But I just noticed that the image page was showing the original upload version, rather than my crop uploaded over top. I have now purged that and it should show the correct crop now - I could see why there were objections to the large shadow in the original :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 08:43:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boletus in Finnish forest
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 19:01:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dune Efa
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /JovanCormac 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 00:08:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emma, Lady Hamilton
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Sep 2009 at 06:29:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 06:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media/Computer-generated

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Sep 2009 at 17:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 11:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Sep 2009 at 17:30:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The green shield bug (Palomena prasina) on Viburnum fruit
 Question What image quality are you complaining about at thumbnail level, do you mean the artifacts around the antenna caused by the wiki scaling software? --Tony Wills (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 03:44:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A red apple.
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Sep 2009 at 16:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Royal College of Music in London, England
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 20:05:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Okay, I fixed something, and don't even think telling me that it was not the one . Daniel, if I fixed a wrong one, may I please ask you to be so kind and to put a note at the error you mean. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was the one. Could you please log out and then log back in and see, if you still see it. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I see an attempt at masking the error :). But there still is a slightly visible stitch seam and the levels of the horizon left and right of the seem are different. --Dschwen (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I tried one more time, but I am afraid my monitor and/or my eyes :( are not good enough to see the difference between my two last atempts. So, I'd say it is the best I could get, and now you tell me: if you did not know there was an error befoe, would you have noticed it now? --Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that'll have to do it. Not perfect, but good enough. --Dschwen (talk) 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is all you could say "Not perfect, but good enough"? If I only knew that you would just cross out your oppose, but never support the image, I would have never ever, ever, ever spent my time correcting the error . Daniel, I hope you do share my sence of humor. Please do feel free to tell me, if sometimes it is too rough for you. :). Thanks for finding the error.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be the cue for a totally inappropriate adult-joke... ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Support --S23678 (talk) 07:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)--Mbz1 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /JovanCormac 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 11:15:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bahram Gur hunting
$ jpeginfo -c Bahram_Gur_hunting.jpg
Bahram_Gur_hunting.jpg 3396 x 4470 24bit JFIF N 5802637 [OK]
… and it looks ok here also (only tried Opera though) /Daniel78 (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I also started a test at browsershots.org, and actually 5 out of the 47 currently tested browsers displays this image in cyan, but they are all firefox or versions of firefox so I guess it has a bug. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The rub is that those browsers are not exotic ones or beta versions, but rather the very latest, stable public releases of the second most popular browser in the world. So whatever the problem is, it's our problem as well, sadly. The average user won't give a rat's behind whether it's a browser bug or not - for him or her, it's just a miscolored image. -- JovanCormac 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, no point waiting for a fix in firefox if something can be done about it here. Sometimes just a simple resave in some image software can solve such issues, or converting it a lossless format and then go back to jpeg. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination I will submit it again with a different color profile. Yann (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 04:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Diagram of the Budgerigar
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 01:49:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hippie Market
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 18:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lake Geneva with Voirons and Salève in the background.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 02:33:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Butterfly Nebula taken by Hubble's new en:WFC3 instrument
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2009 at 02:02:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Francisco Church
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underwater roots of Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) in River Cabrera, León (Spain)
  • Underwater roots of Black Alder (Alnus glutinosa) in River Cabrera, León (Spain).
  • Raíces sumergidas de (Alnus glutinosa) en el río Cabrera, León (España).
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:22:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cygnet, by Böhringer
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 16:15:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

LCAC
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Sep 2009 at 11:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 21:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Wave by William-Adolphe Bouguereau
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Mbz1 (talk) 02:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 00:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vatican - Spiral Staircase
 Comment I like the fact you can see the base of both spirals, all the way up to that detail of the banister. Your photo has a lot going for it, and it is a difficult subject - the version I linked to was made up of 6 photos stitched together but that wasn't perfect. Without stitching I think the only way to portray it is with a super wide angle lens. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

edit

:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped


The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 03:34:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Elderly woman is leaving after feeding pigeons
there's nothing wrong with the colors, normal colors of an early sunny morning. The only edit to the image was auto contrast.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was not cropped at the bottom. There were pigeons everywhere there, no matter how the image was taken, some would have been cropped anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, AngMoKio, I am afraid you did not get the idea. What I am going to say next is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the the truth. So here it is: When I am taking images of the people (not my usual subject) I am thinking: AngMoKio said that Commons has not enough people featured, when I am taking a long exposures shots (not my usual subject either) I am thinking: AngMoKio says he likes long exposure shots. So as I could see I am doing everything to please you, and after all my efforts oppose again --Mbz1 (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't expect that my comments have such a big impact on your life. But all you said about me here is true....but this doesnt mean i support any people or long exposure shot. If you have a convincing pic I am happy to support as I did before. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not on my life, it is an overstatement, only on some of my subjects --Mbz1 (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 09:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Elderly woman is leaving after feeding pigeons

What quality is not sufficient for FP? You means the blured pigeons? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the blurred/moving pigeons are what makes the pictures so nicely alive! What I mean is: especially in the upper picture the plants in the background are blurred an the small patch of sky is overexposed. In the lower picture some parts of the background look like they have been sharpened, but there are still blurry parts. This doesn't mean I don't think these are good pictures, they are just not perfect enough for FP IMO. --NEUROtiker  15:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. In this particular image one should keep in mind, that if some parts of the background seem to be blured, it only means that a pigeon flashed over it. This is a single image, and IMO it is not possible to have some parts of the background blured and otheres sharp.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 24 Sep 2009 at 21:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Sea at Le Havre, 1868.
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 11:13:00 (UTC)
The Sea at Le Havre, 1868.

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 10:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2009 at 07:20:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory.
All text objects is Grouping with graph object.Asybaris01 (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alignment is ok now.Asybaris01 (talk) 08:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ungroup them, then. Ctrl+U in Inkscape (repeat if neccessary) and the group is split into its parts. -- JovanCormac 10:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected all problems.Asybaris01 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All except for the text being paths, which as Sting pointed out is the biggest one. -- JovanCormac 16:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose –Giving here only a technical opinion: well bellow what one can expect from a SVG file and a map. The colored areas don't fill the whole document at the borders; the boundary between the two areas at the extreme left is a straight line while it should follow the Danube; almost the same problem at the right where there is missing a triangular section of the light green area along the “Dnistr”... which should be spelled “Dniester” as it's a map in English; same for the “Tisa” (en:Tisza) and maybe others (I didn't check); in the compass rose the West should be shown by a “W”, not a “V”; no indication (except when reading the whole legend) of the period covered by the map: neither in the file name, nor in the description page and no title in the map. For the SVG, everything is in one layer and as nothing is name-specified in the XML tree, making modifications will be quiet time-consuming; and maybe the worst: all the text have been transformed into paths making it impossible to translate it directly (the purpose of a SVG-map here is also to be easily used in the projects in other languages), which will need to retype all the labels searching the right font-type and size. Sting (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The colored areas don't fill the whole document at the borders - ok
    • in the compass rose the West should be shown by a “W”, not a “V” - ok
      • The edit you made replacing "V" with "W" messed up the image even more. It's plainly visible that the letter is not of the same font as the others, and not even of the same color. This is precisely why one must never convert text objects to paths. -- JovanCormac 20:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my own experience, if I don't convert the text into path, the text will appear deformed in the browser and also any multiple blank (spaces) between letters or words will dissapear, compressing the text or word (ex: "L a n d o f J o h n" will be displayed as "L a n d o f J o h n"). I have not yet managed to find a solution other than converting the text into path, if you happen to be more familiar with InkScape, please, by all means, lend a hand.Asybaris01 (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, MediaWiki is really a scrap when rendering text. The solution I found is to copy those texts, transform them into paths as you did which will serve for the display and hide the original texts in a layer bellow the map. This way you keep a clean display as well as the power of the SVG format for easy translation with the hidden labels. The file size will be a bit heavier but I think it's a small counterpart. Sting (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Original Text" - LAYER created
    • at the right where there is missing a triangular section - ok
    • no indication (except when reading the whole legend) of the period covered by the map: neither in the file name, nor in the description page and no title in the map - indication in the description page - ok
    • “Dniester” as it's a map in English; same for the “Tisa” (en:Tisza) and maybe others (I didn't check) - checked, ok.
    • For the SVG, everything is in one layer and as nothing is name-specified in the XML tree, making modifications will be quiet time-consuming - layers created - ok
    • the boundary between the two areas at the extreme left is a straight line while it should follow the Danube - ok

I my opinion the map is ok now. Asybaris01 (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe my Inkscape (v.0.46) doesn't understand all the code of this file because I still only have one layer (root), except if I look in the XML tree where nothing is named and where paths are mixed with texts. I don't oppose anymore because the most obvious problems have been corrected and I didn't check the whole map in details, but I still believe this SVG has been very badly conceived from the start, making it difficult to modify due to a lack of organization. Sting (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Yann (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 27 Sep 2009 at 00:14:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /blurpeace (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2009 at 20:49:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

San Francisco, Golden Gate Bridge and the fog
  •  Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Last night, when I took the image nominated just below, Golden Gate Bridge was completely covered by fog. Today in the morning it showed up a little bit, so I went for more complete panorama of the scenery. I am not sure, which image you like better, if I should nominate this one as alternative to the nomination below or do not nominate this one at all. Of course the images are similar although the light and the fog were very different. In any case I am oppened to suggestions. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Here I would cut the right part which is not sharp, and keep the left part with the fog. That would make a quite different picture, which could be nominated independently of the one below. Yann (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much you believe the right part should be cut off? Could you add a note please? Thanks.(I would not like to loose Bay Bridge). If it is really unsharp, maybe I should do another panorama from a different set of the images.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is better to have a smaller image, but which is good everywhere, that a big image which is good on one part, and not so good on the other part. Yann (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your vote and your comment. The thing is that not only the light was different. What was more important to me that the fog was different. The idea was to capture a panorama from Golden Gate Bridge to Bay Bridge. The light between the bridges was changing rather drasticly. The scenery was really beautiful and I am sorry I could not capture that beauty with my camera.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Daniel, I cannot tell tell you how much I missed you opposing and commenting on my images. I am glad you are back on them . I stitched the image with Adobe cs3. When I used Hugin the horizont looked better I guess, but... could you please take a look at the image and tell me what you think? I really like to get that panorama right, not even for FP for myself! Thank you for your vote, your comment and your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a step in the right direction. But honestly, I've said it so many times, users should be forced to learn about vertical guide point pairs in hugin. They should be strapped to a chair until they understand them an use them, they should be banned from uploading pictures until they mastered them (and they should be refused water, food and sunlight!). ;-). Seriously, guys, and girls, do not do it for me, do it for yourselves. Your images will be even better, you will save a lot of headaches, and ultimately you will save work!. Naaahhhrrggghhh! --Dschwen (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A step in the right direction, but still not good enough? :( "refused water, food and sunlight" !!! Now, it ia a torture! Of course it is not half as bad as being blocked or being banned from uploading pictures :) --Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Not good enough, given how easy it is to get it right... ...using vertical guides. --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: you seem to lack sky in the left and right ends of the picture. And you downsampled quite a bit. Why? --Dschwen (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you're asking why I downsampled the image??? Of course I did because I would not have liked User:Dschwen to be able to see all the stitching errors I have . To tell you the truth I did downsample it, but not so much. The thing is that I cannot open big images with my Internet explorer, which means I cannot check it myself.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your what? --Dschwen (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, when you left click on an image and select "open with" and then from pop-up menu select "Internet Explorer". It provides me the view that I will see, when an image is actually uploaded. Am I doing something wrong again???--Mbz1 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I just didn't know that "image viewer". Are you already busy exploring the vertical guide point feature in hugin? ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, you the meanest guy in the world, , I'm still trying to fix hard to see stitching error from my other image that I thought has been fixed already.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any better?--Mbz1 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This time it's a clear no. The downtown buildings (and the Bay Bridge) are still all leaning left. Use vertical guides on them! --Dschwen (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I did, I did.I mean I could bear no food, no water, no sunlight, I would not complain about being strapped to my chair, but you know I cannot bear being banned from uploading my images to Commons, don't you, Daniel? BTW it reminds me something. One diver said: "If I am going to run out of air or of film, let it be air." Anyway... I selected two the same images, and added two more points for the same building, one point was added to the top of the building and other to the bottom. Then I hit "add", and re-stitched the panorama. Have I done something wrong?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I hope you didn't withdraw the nomination for this one, too. I really like it, please let me know, when you uploaded the final version. --NEUROtiker  20:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not withdraw this one, It does not deppend on me anymore. Daniel is working with my images now, and I just emailed to him that his final result will be more his image than mine because he's the one, who is going to do all the hard work. It will be up to him what to do with the image and the nomination. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being so gosh darn humble. You are making the rest of us feel bad ;-). Ok, I uploaded the new version over your file. I realized too late that you cropped off more on the right than me. But I am kind of in love with the warm glare there, and IMO it adds to the composition. The new version has the full resolution now, and the source material is worth it! Which working on the pano I got lost in the image and its details. Of course I  Support this. IMO the horizon is a straight as can be now. All buildings are vertical. The remaining bending is probably an illusion due to the curved appearance of the rolling fog. --Dschwen (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Great! I really love the trichotomy of the fog, the illuminated buildings on the hill and the city in the background shrouded by haze. And of course a good deal of the tribute has to be paid to the photographer. --NEUROtiker  06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alt 1 cropped as Yann suggested

edit

San Francisco, Golden Gate Bridge and the fog

Okay I cut off the right. Did I cut off too much ot too little or just right? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly it seems that it is to me too, but I never could tell for sure . Could you please tell me what do you think about the original? Do you believe it is bowed there also? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]