Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

File:28-090504-black-headed-bunting-at-first-layby.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 11:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A black headed bunting
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mars S. Jobling - uploaded by MJOBLING - nominated by Flawmore -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Flawmore (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Useful, good quality, no disturbing background : bravo ! Trace (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great ! --ianaré (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition.  fetchcomms☛ 01:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Avenue (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - valuable located wild origin photo - MPF (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background a bit noisy. --Eusebius (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good quality, background noise is negligible. DOF is a bit on the low side and the actual resolution on the bird could be higher. --Dschwen (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support works for me --AngMoKio (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- It works for me too. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iadrian yu (talk) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File: Lower Manhatten from ESB.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 01:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's very small, reading the guidelines before submitting might have helped. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:bluebeardtongue.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 20:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue Beard Tongue in natural prairie environment
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: most part of the subject it is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Molybdenum crystaline fragment and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element molybdenum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High EV, nice quality --George Chernilevsky talk 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trace (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love Alchemist-hp's white background shots. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Whites are blown, greys are posterized. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • They are indeed and I still can't understand why... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Are we looking at the same image? I see no more "posterization" (by which I assume you mean color banding) than is pretty much inevitable in an 8-bits-per-channel image, and only a few direct reflections of the lights (about 0.1% of all pixels) exceed the dynamic range. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is what I mean. In this case I very much doubt it is inevitable as the tone difference between adjacent bands is quite large. I wonder if the original picture shows the same effect. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • @Alvesgaspar: "greys are posterized": yes, it is a conversion effect: from 16bit TIFF (my RAW format) to 8bit JPG. Only the background is additional "Gaussian blur" corrected. The background looks allways stained if I use focus stacking. I hope the info is helpfull for you. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I still don't understand. The picture has only 5 tones of grey which have the approximate values: 50, 100, 150, 200 and 250. How can that be that a 8 bit image is not capable of a much better tone resolution? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
            • I think I see what you mean now, but you're surely exaggerating the situation. The histogram of the crystal itself is indeed multipeaked, with 5 major peaks at approximately 20, 95, 152, 203 and 248 and smaller ones around 62, 111 and 238 (and at 255 due to clipping). However, many of these peaks are quite broad and have substantial overlap; I assume they simply correspond to different parts of the surrounding scenery reflected by the crystal. (Incidentally, the histogram of the cube is even more clearly peaked, with four peaks around 26, 63, 96 and 126; the lowest mainly corresponds to the top face, the second to the darked part of the front face, the third combines the lighter part of the front face and the darker part of the side face, and the last comes from the lighter part of the side face.) There's nothing artificial about this, it's just a natural consequence of specular reflection combined with a setting with sharp color differences. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
              • @Alvesgaspar: if you are interested then I can linked you the 11 each original images (raw:Canon CR2 = 250MB, or JPG =20MB or 16 bit TIF = 1,5GB.) for the focus stacking job and for your comparison. Please mail me simple. This sample molybdenum looks like in real-life! You see simple a reality sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
                • But I believe in you, just can't understand the reason. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support In this case, blown highlights are called specular reflextions, normal for this type of subject and way out of dynamic range. Nice rendition of tones and texture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems to be unsharp at high resolution (outlines). --Jebulon (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it seems to be unsharp, but it isn't. This molybdenum sample is a high reflective, glossy and greasy lustre item with no realy sharp edges. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Overblown whites aren't really bad in this case - these reflections give it more of a realistic look to it, which is what we want. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 10:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Ostrea edulis 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ostrea edulis cross section of the shell
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose interesting subject, but the lighting and floating in blackness makes the picture confusing. Took me a while to realize that the blurry part is not the front face, but the inside back... --Dschwen (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is not so pleasing (maybe this type of cross section would work better in an isometric view). Top has blown parts and the bottom is a little too dark. You might want to try this with multiple light sources and maybe a focus stack. ZooFari 23:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks to me like a poor picture. Blurred underneath, and presented in such an odd angle that it's not immediately clear what it is. Unhelpful and technically bad. SilkTork (talk) 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for an image with >50% only black. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, but the composition is confusing. It took me a while to work out what this was. Jonathunder (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Wolfram evaporated crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 12:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The chemical element Tungsten
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info the cube isn't dirty or with fingerprints. You see the macrocrystalline structures. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. Composition-wise this is even better than the Molybdenum picture, but it looks like the focus stacking didn't work out quite as well: I see several parts that look slightly unsharp, and in one place there's a weird "halo" around the crystal. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The "halo" around the crystal is corrected. A derivate work with one small step more sharpeness is new uploaded: Tungsten (new). Do you prefer it? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- smial (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Would give my support, but I prefer your sharper alternative :-) -- Ra'ike T C 10:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    The sharper alternative is for me only an artificially alternative, not a reality. It is simple for everybody to sharpen it if needed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    It's more than only an artificially alternative. The higher sharpness emphasizes each detail somewhat more better and shows each elevation, every "crystel crumb" still more vividly. greetings -- Ra'ike T C 11:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another excellent picture of a chemical element. --Tintero (talk) 18:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The other one looks a bit oversharpened to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Elekhh (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /ianaré (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Zarokê karker.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Working child near Batman, Kurdistan, Turkey.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Dûrzan cîrano - uploaded by Dûrzan cîrano - nominated by MikaelF -- MikaelF (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MikaelF (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, just barely under size requirements. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose interesting snapshot but no FP quality and composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as opposers above. --Cayambe (talk) 14:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - also badly off horizontal (needs rotating about 4°CW). Shame as it is otherwise an interesting pic - MPF (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - abri-caverne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground troop shelter. Roppe fortifications.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a particularly distracting peice of trash near the lower left.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The lighting here isn't bad, but these pictures of walls just aren't FP quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A compelling image with considerable depth. The bright trash on lower left adds interest for information about use and abuse of the building. The clarity of the image allows close inspection of the construction technique as well as the damage and decay that the building has suffered. Informative, eye-catching, aesthetically and intellectually engaging. SilkTork (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because of the old plastic bottle--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Regarding the bottle, I might have kicked it away... but on the other hand, it is authentic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose best of the recent nominations, but too similar to the already featured image. --ianaré (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I also prefer the present FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I myself like this one better than the FP linked above, mostly because of the lighting and the fact that it goes all the way down the tunnel, but that's just my opinion. These factors also make the two images different enough from each other as I see it. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roppe fortifications, underground.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the composition doesn't convince me, and the flash is too obvious in this pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There is no flash, only lightpainting. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMoKio. Amada44 (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bland lighting, maybe lightpainting but not as in "painter with easel" but "painter with ladder paint bucket". Subject is not presented in an interesting manner, and completely worn out nomination wise by redundant candidacies. It is frustrating that nothing we write here will stop the nomination flood. --Dschwen (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Fort de Roppe - reseau souterrain (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground, at the Fort de Roppe.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Junniper Springs, FL panorama.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 08:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juniper Springs
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Juniper Springs, a freshwater spring in central Florida. All by -- ianaré (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 08:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fix stitching error in annotation. ZooFari 03:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • i don't see it, can you describe it ? --ianaré (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any stitching error. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nice and correct picture but not special enough to justify featuring. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is not attractive or interesting, and I'm not seeing anything educational here. I haven't quite got the reason for this being nominated. SilkTork (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah there's just TONS of natural springs in the world that have been turned into swimming pools. Completely uninteresting, to be sure, a place like this. No reason at all for it to be called the "jewel of the forest". I wonder why I even went there in the first place, or spent at least an hour waiting for people to jump so I could get a more interesting shot. --ianaré (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only one section of the picture has correct annotation - when I hover over items to left and right it again annotates the centre, and in some views the annotation does say "stitching error". SilkTork (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - in one of the women jumping into the water, there are either stitching errors or some strange shadows. Jonathunder (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • it's a shadow, the water is cold so people generally go in only when the sun is very bright. --ianaré (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think what ianaré said above justifies perfectly its interest. --Tintero (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Happy scene. Swimmers mid-jump is a nice touch. Their shadows look perfectly consistent to me. Well done. --99of9 (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Messier 81 HST.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 06:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The spiral galaxy Messier 81 is tilted at an oblique angle on to our line of sight, giving a "birds-eye view" of the spiral structure
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Tryphon - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The info line above is nonsense. (fixed) Other than that it is just a generic galaxy image. I'm a bit tired of these types of nominations. --Dschwen (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think when Cody saw that he had to fill out 'USERNAME', he just wrote his. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind lots of nominations of space objects, because we do have an astronomy section of FP, and these really are fantastic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. There is so much information here. I don't know about other images of Messier, but this is very detailed. SilkTork (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Actually I'll support this one. It stands out by sheer resolution alone, and the big version is a good find by Cody. Plus it shows off the zoomviewer pretty good ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - wow. Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 11:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mattew666 (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Peacock Flounder Bothus mancus in Kona.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All frames are of the same fish taken few minutes apart. He changed colors to match his surroundings as I watched. In the last frame he buried himself in the sand. Almost nothing, but the eyes are seen.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Do you have the location? --Cephas (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Location is added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. It would be good to add the info above (about it being the same fish, etc) to the image description page. --Avenue (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:Przewalski's colt (head).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Straight-on view is not very good for a FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I doesn't really show the full animal. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for answering. Thats surely why you opposed to this and this...Sometimes FPC project is hard to understand for newbies...--Jebulon (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Cats have a much broader face. A cat picture from the front still tells you a lot. However, a horse's head is long and narrow, so best shown from the side. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor angle, face distorted, too tight crop. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info High Fin Sperm Whale and Alvesgaspar, this file and the File:GunnarSønsteby.jpg are both portrait photographs. A portrait photograph points at the individualistic personality. This is the legitimacy of the necessary portrait photography. The portrait photography is an old genre of the photography and is also ok in the Featured Pictures. I think, it is wrong to say a portrait photograph has a poor angle and a too tight crop. I see in each animal an own personality, therefore I make also portrait photographs from animals. There are also portrait photographs from animals in the Featured Pictures like this. Alvesgaspar, you write: "face distorted". I used the lens Nikon AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 2,8G ED. This high-quality macro- and portrait-lens (90 mm on my D300) makes no distortion. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I'm not talking about artificial ditortion caused by optics but the geometric distortion consisting of closer objects look larger than distant objects. In this case, and due to the relatively short distance, the whole head seems too big relative to the rest of the body and the muzzle looks too large relative to the whole head. That is why a longer focal distance is usually a better choice for portraits. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is a high-quality shot which I think is really not distorted. A 60mm lens is a good portrait lens. The composition is straight-forward and not bad...but for FP it is imho not outstanding enough. In this case a totally centred head might have a been a better choice, bcs then you get a symmetry (sth like this). Here are some animal portraits I like - this, this and also that Btw: The Emu portrait you linked also wouldn't have gotten (correct grammar?!) my support. Sorry.--AngMoKio (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you AngMoKio. I nominate your crop in Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Nice, but not featured. --Steindy (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Please see the Alt 1 with the crop made by AngMoKio. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Veronica spicata 1005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 06:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-Maimbœuf church.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 07:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint-Maimbœuf church
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very good, beautiful picture (single shot, no HDR?), but the photographer is not on the axis of the nave and the picture is not centred. This is slightly disturbing. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info In fact, this is an HDR image. In a church, you can't make a good photo without using HDR method. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very nice. I don't find being slightly to one side disturbing. Jonathunder (talk) 17:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose agree with Eusebius. Furthermore, I see a bad light in the rose window (CA ?), the crop is not symmetrical, and the pic is a bit tilted, or suffers of a little perspective distortion due to the position of the photographer (look at lines on the ground). Enough to oppose with regrets, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- This is a very good photo indeed. But not excellent because of the flaws mentioned above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Solid good quality shot. But the off-center position and the HDR are putting me a bit off. Lighting looks dull and lacks contrast in the lower portion of the image. This seems like a pretty standard church shot. --Dschwen (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.: what software was used for the HDR/tone mapping? --Dschwen (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral That's an eye catching shot, and I think opposing based on slight centering off would be nitpicking, but I also feel it's disturbing on architectural subject, like good care wasn't taken while preparing it. Stained glasse is partly blown out, despite 3 (or more ?) exposures tones mapping. - Benh (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support –It's really difficult, to make this better. It harms that the photo is not in the axle. --Steindy (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Stained glass in Žilina - kraj Žilina.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stained glass in Žilina train station
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- while its a technically proficient image good QI or VI, I prefer to see windows in situ giving context. The bold lines are they part of the window construction of just bars Gnangarra 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's generally possible with stained glass, unless you can get it right at the perfect moment around sunset. Stained glass tends to be much brighter than anything around it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I like very much this stained-glass but am not sure it deserves FP status. If it were larger!... Let's wait and see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File description has no information about when this was made or by whom. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I added information about the date and author --Pudelek (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • A 1950's work - copyright concerns. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
        • train station is a public place in Slovakia --Pudelek (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per comment above. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bottom side is a bit hmm... it is not in a line, but curved. --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:GoldenGateBridge-001.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco, CA at sunset taken from the Marin Headlands.

File:Apikal4D.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

3-D Echocardiogram
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ekko - uploaded by Ekko - nominated by johnnytucf -- 152.6.250.5 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- 152.6.250.5 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very valuable despite the low resolution. (Please document the animal - I assume it is human, but can't be sure.) --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- For now (according to rule #1 of my guidelines...), as it is not clear for me what's going on. I'll wait for a physical doctor to come and confirm this is close to the best one can achieve with such technology. Then, I may change my vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MattiPaavola. Amada44 (talk) 05:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great work and with a high educational value. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 18:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:Cango Caves-001.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stagactites and stalagmites in the Cango Caves, South Africa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't like the composition, centred on what seems to be the subject (which is static and yet unsharp - tripod and longer exposure needed here). I would have shown more of the left side of the stalagmit, instead of the darker parts on the right side. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Eusebuius -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not only tripod and longer exposure but also DRI is necessary in this case to get a FP. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question DRI? --Eusebius (talk) 11:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
    "Dynamic Range Increase" or "Exposure Blending" some say "HDR" --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Charging Leopard-001.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Charging Leopard in the Rhino and Lion Park, Gauteng, South Africa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice subject, great action shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome pic --ianaré (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect --George Chernilevsky talk 05:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great!!!--Luc Viatour (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MattiPaavola (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like the composition, maybe because it's vertical, maybe because it's too tight for me. Also the focus seems to be slightly ahead of the animal, I don't think that motion is the only reason for the relative lack of sharpness. I do not wish to vote though, it is a rare and impressive picture. --Eusebius (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Kadellar (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
It's categorized as a Panthera pardus and called a leopard (corresponding vernacular name) in the description, I'm not a specialist but it looks reasonably identified. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose correct ID is not needed only for butterflies...Remember the rules...--Jebulon (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment From my memory of the rules, exact scientific ID is NOT a requirement for FP only for QI --Tony Wills (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Smooth_O (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing shot! --Tintero (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - although a zoo animal, the behaviour shown wouldn't be obtainable in the wild (other than extracted from the camera posthumously!). Which subspecies of Leopard is shown would be useful to know, but from the zoo's location, very likely African P. p. pardus. - MPF (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- It is a very interesting photo but it misses the point. There is no feeling of motion, due to the angle and too tight crop. At first sight it looks like the animal is sitted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks very dynamic to me --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support bcs of the slight motion blur. But it is not an easy shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Statue of Liberty, NY.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 14:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Liberty (more formally, Liberty Enlightening the World, and more colloquially, Lady Liberty) is a structure located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, presented to the United States on the centennial of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence as a gift from France. It was designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and gets its green coloring from patination of the outer copper covering. The statue is world-renowned for being the first thing sea-borne visitors, immigrants, and returning Americans see upon entering New York Harbor and has been known as a beacon of freedom to much of the world. It earned UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1984.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Cnidaria Luc Viatour.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

cnideria
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Probably a very difficult photograph, but noisy and unsharp. --Eusebius (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful colors and translucency, sharpness OK (though DOF is a bit low), noise in line with ISO settings. --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find it unsharp at all. And I think what Eusebius says is noise are actually filaments on the jellyfish's body. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
En effet, la "peau" de la méduse est comme granuleuse (désolé pour la réponse en français) --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Translation of above message : Yes, the "skin" of the jellyfish has a granular texture (sorry for answering in French) --ianaré (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info there is a white dead pixel, except this problem who is easy to correct the picture is beautiful, sharp, good colours and interesting composition. --Croucrou (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
corrigé et réduction du bruit apliquée --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now it's perfect, i don't saw any noise, only the texture of the animal --Croucrou (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very nice composition but too much noise, caused by the very high ISO setting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support He had no choice but pushing ISO setting very far, otherwise he would have had to use wide aperture, which would have shallowed DOF. I think that it's a very good compromise overall, and 2800 iso for a D3S probably is much like 400/800 on older cameras such as my venerable 400D... :) Based on that, I guess that's the best we can get today. I've tried same shot at f/2.8, iso1600, and few years ago and don't get this good results (otherwise would have been on commons for loooong already). Here we have two for the same price.- Benh (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The species is not identified. Cnidaria is an animal phylum with over 9000 species. I'd like to support once the species id is given. Might it not be obtained from the Pairi Daiza Park? --Cayambe (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Demande au parc effectuée this is "Aurelia aurita"--Luc Viatour (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support amazing creatures! Amada44 (talk) 17:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Brilliant shot Rastrojo (D•ES) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture of high educational value. --Tintero (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yet another captive... Mais c'est magnifique. Pourrait entrer dans la catégorie "E.T. in space..." --Jebulon (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   • Richard • [®] • 10:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for the species identification. --Cayambe (talk) 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – I don't know, how to make this photo in the dark sea without noise... --Steindy (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Sémhur (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Sandahl (talk) 23:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Panorama of the Whale Galaxy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 15:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the NGC 4631 galaxy.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dendroica pensylvanica MN2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chestnut-sided Warbler
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The shadow is unfortunate but such a close shot of a warbler is difficult. All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 22:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find the shadow that bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good located pic of a wild bird - MPF (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice photo! Amada44 (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose trevlig bild, men jag tycker skuggan stör tillräckligt för att bilden inte ska vara utvald /Ö 22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
According to google this means: nice picture, but I like shadow disturbing enough that the image should not be selected .--Elekhh (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Pretty, but not outstanding. Steven Walling 21:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Moreover, the shadow is not a problem: it adds by giving some relief IMO--Jebulon (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per MPF. Lycaon (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Panorama des Hoechster Mainufers zwischen Bolongaropalast und Ochsenturm von Sueden-20100524.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frankfurt on the Main: Waterside of the district Hoechst as seen from the southern side of the Main
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Panorama of 15 images stitched with Panorama Studio Pro 2
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --патриот8790 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No question, it's a wonderful panorama :-) -- Ra'ike T C 09:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sehr schön - Excellent --George Chernilevsky talk 10:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice detail, good view --ianaré (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support  fetchcomms☛ 12:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question is this pic taken from a curve of the Main ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, take a look at the embedded camera position using e.g. Google Maps. --Mylius (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tintero (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - OK, I can imagine what some might think after seeing my oppose... But the picture feels tilted (but I've checked, and it's not). Also, I just don't feel impressed if we remove the fact it's a huge panorama. Lighting, pale colours, a bit washed out sky... all contribute to no wow to me. Good quality picture ? I think yes. Would I hang this up in my room ? I don't think so. - Benh (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The RAWs used to stitch the image were developed using a colour temperature of 5400 Kelvin which is the „sunny daytime“ standard and even was in the times of analogue photography. No further saturation was added to make the image come as close to the actual colours as possible. Of course colours like e.g. seen here might seem more picturesque than above, but do they reflect reality? I think not. Not trying to convince anyone – just an explanation of my approach to photography. --Mylius (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Swans are overexposed. Just joking (yeah, I'm not funny), I think it is a great photograph and I find it impressive in itself. Could you just have a look at the note I have left on the picture, and either confirm that the antennas look like that on the originals or correct it? No need to restitch the whole thing I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I really envy you for your eyesight. ;-) Especially since I spent hours watching out for stitching errors. The left part of the left antenna actually is a bit skewed, but the more prominent part to the right was an stitching error I've corrected (although via manual retouche in Photoshop since this is a part so small Panorama Studio doesn't even recognize it). Thanks for the hint! --Mylius (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support then. I guess I was just lucky in finding that. --Eusebius (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I also appreciate the very natural colours. --Cayambe (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Not very exciting, but solid quality and good composition, comparing favourably with our featured panoramas. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Joaquim, u are the one who started discussion to raise bar for FP, and to make them exceptional again, and yet u support "not very exciting" images... hmmm ? ;) - Benh (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, because I rationally (the 'head') consider this picture to deserve FP status though emotionally (the 'guts') don't feel very excited. This means, of course, that I have full control of my body and mind... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, this is exactly the difference between an FP (guts + mind) and a QI (mind). I could go over your history, and would find you sometime opposed because bells weren't ringing, but maybe the pictures then also deserved FP. I think this is the point: not being afraid to oppose when you just feel like so. - Benh (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Both my mind and my heart say: undoubtedly FP quality. -- MJJR (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Gulf of Mexico Oil Slick.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oil Spill reaching the Gulf of Mexico
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by すけ - nominated by すけ -- すけ (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- すけ (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question what are those horizontal lines on the spill ? --ianaré (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that is how it takes the images and pastes them. This satellite. --すけ (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting subject, but I really don't like the parallel lines in the sea and the added border lines (state/county limits?). --Eusebius (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentBest is slot image. That satellite will not likely take another photo like that until after decades or perhaps never. That has a heavy weight. --すけ (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I can easily believe it is the best picture of its kind, but it doesn't make it an FP for me. We have sat pictures of significantly better quality. Also, the same raw sat images could be better processed to form a better image, so I don't really have any second thoughts about my opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - A neat picture, but it's not a particularly informative illustration of the oil spill itself. At the top of the Gulf, it is difficult to differentiate between what is oil and merely opaque water. There is also a deceptive large glare toward the bottom of the image, which is not part of the spill, according to this map for May 18, the day this satellite picture was taken. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View from Lummus Park of Miami Beach, Florida. All by -- ianaré (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - good technical quality, but not a terribly interesting looking place, just a load of rather dreary skyscrapers - MPF (talk) 08:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • it is what it is ... though if you look closely, you'll see that there are in fact several architectural styles represented, from art deco style of the 1940s to modern designs. Not my type of vacation either, but people from all over the world do go there (and spend ridiculous sums of money). This is also the the biggest and most famous beach in the area. --ianaré (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, because of the former comment. --Tintero (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - For aesthetical reasons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Strong support Per author, it is what it is, we can`t delete the skyscrapers :-). Iadrian yu (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture! Gives a good impression of what the place really is. Reflects the atmosphere of the spot also very well, as far I remember from a short visit over there some years ago (where I did not spend ridiculous sums of money at all...). Technically well done - except a few stitching flaws in the sky, which can easily be resolved - and good encyclopedic value. -- MJJR (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Show a lot of details. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Miami Beach, FL - Panorama (2).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info View from Lummus Park of Miami Beach, Florida. Panorama with feet wet. -- ianaré (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Don't really see any educational value here, and it seems overexposed to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, I thought this one was more educational, as the perspective offers a broader and more detailed view of the buildings (Miami Beach is a pretty famous city, very popular with tourists - and this is the main beach). It also shows many more people, a mix of tourists and locals. Technically it is also much more challenging, due to the many movements to be expected during its realization. I do think the other is more aesthetically pleasing, which is why I nominated both. --ianaré (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, because of the former comment. --Tintero (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I marked a stitching error. Furthermore I need to see some of the girls on the right in a higher resolution to be able to review the image. ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed stitch error, thanks. I actually waited for those girls to get in field of view ;-) --ianaré (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer that one, and like composition. I thought I was alone, but AngMoKio proved me wrong: I scrutinized the pic very closely, but spent a bit more time on right part. I think it was a bit challenging to take because of moving people. I feel the horizon is curved, but if so, I believe this improves the picture. Very nice overall ! - Benh (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the seaweed band caps off the composition. The only negative thing I can say is that the flag is flying the wrong way :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- For aesthetical reasons, I don't like the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • kind of a cheap oppose, don't you think ? What specifically don't you like about it ? --ianaré (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, here it goes (applies to both pictures). First of all, both pictures are more or less symmetrical, which is aesthetically boring. This is a common flaw in landscape panoramas. The coloring is also uninteresting, with extensive areas of sand and sky and no warm tones (reds, yellows). Finally the distortion is disturbing. In particular, the horizon if very curved, especially in the second picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • thank you for your helpful critique. --ianaré (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Additional to Alvesgaspar, the clientel on the beach are not of the most aesthetically attractive cross-section of humanity . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
a) I'm sure they would beg to differ. b) I'm surprised you missed out on an opportunity to support an image showing so many wild H. sapiens, in a group activity very representative of this species. --ianaré (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice place.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Alvesgaspar --Karel (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Oryctolagus cuniculus Tasmania 2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 21:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Tyrannus tyrannus MN3.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Kingbird
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Typical posture of the Eastern Kingbird standing proudly on a top of some dead branches in the open. All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good located pic of a wild bird - MPF (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose somehow the image is too normal. difficult to say what it exactly is. Probably a colorful bird would make it much more interesting. The other nominated image (above) is very good and a FP in my opinion. Amada44 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment is it possible that the bird is slightly underexposed? --AngMoKio (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Sunlight was somewhat diffuse and the bird is not colorfull. Although I increased the color, the result still kind of plain. I like the composition though. --Cephas (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Iditarod Ceremonial start in Anchorage, Alaska.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceremonial start of the Iditarod dog sled race
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Frank Kovalchek - uploaded by Smooth_O - nominated by Smooth_O -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Smooth_O (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose very noisy, on all dogs. --Eusebius (talk) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Well of course it's noisy, packs of dogs always are! MPF (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great action shot, unfortunately, very noisy at ISO 1000.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it's noisy, but I love the composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great composition, but the noise is just too much. Steven Walling 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to kaʁstn - MPF (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per kaʁstn, and due to one dog's compelling blue eyes. --Avenue (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good action shot, but there is too much noise, almost everywhere. --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having in mind the conditions.., very nice work.Iadrian yu (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise? Oh, I didn't notice cause pic looks so cool. --Lošmi (talk) 01:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Could you please all review according (among other things) to the technical guidelines? The image is beautiful but the noise is visible even on the 800px-wide thumbnail. This image wouldn't even get a QI status. --Eusebius (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    Can you clarify what you mean? Dogs by their inherent nature are noisy, though you can't actually hear it on a photo. There is also of course a lot of white spots from snow kicked up, is that what you're referring to? That apart, the lead dogs are clear and in decent focus. I can't see what your problem is. MPF (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    No, I'm talking about the prominent electronic noise coming from the camera sensor, amplified by the 1000 ISO. --Eusebius (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    This is an action shot, you can't compare it with a bowl of oranges for which you can choose conditions. Of course that one should try to avoid noise as much as possible but in some cases it's inevitable. Nevertheless the same guidelines says: "Given sufficient “wow factor” and mitigating circumstances, a featured picture is permitted to fall short on technical quality". --Lošmi (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Still can't see what you mean. What does this "electronic noise" look like? I can't see anything "hiding the details of the picture" - MPF (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(indent reset) Open the picture at 100% and look at the top left corner (for instance). Over the background, you can see snow flakes (larger white spots), and a multitude of pixel-size coloured spots, making an orthogonal lattice (image of the photosite lattice on the sensor). Here it is really very bad, showing local patterns (coloured vertical or horizontal lines). On a better image, it could look more like the grain of a photographic film. If you look at the head of the first dog, you can see that the edge of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the teeth, the texture of the tongue... are somehow hidden by this noise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Can see what you mean now, but don't think it is enough to have a serious adverse effect on the photo. Maybe some people are more sensitive to it than others? - MPF (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality, too tight framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I love huskies but per Alves   • Richard • [®] • 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Walkway Over the Hudson 2010-05-31.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge in New York, United States, after years of misuse and neglect, was transformed into a pedestrian walkway in 2009 and spans the Hudson River.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no WoW, no significant details in the image, people's clothes are very bright.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Diaa. This doesn't have much educational value either, since it show the bridge very poorly. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination - Sometimes I feel like this is a guessing game... but thanks for the comments everyone... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 17:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troilus and Cressida
Gray contrast test image.svg
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - dull and over-dark - MPF (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • The thumbnailer makes it a little darker at lower resolutions - due pretty much to how engravings make shades of grey using black ink and white paper - but this engraving does make heavy use of chiaroscuro, with Cressida in the light, scaling back to the problems awaiting her in the darkness Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks just fine at full res, shows artistic use of chiaroscuro. NativeForeigner (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Iadrian yu (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as co-restorer/nominator.  f o x  13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah. Had invited him to join me, but missed his agreement, and so presumed he wasn't interested. Oops! Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

--Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Al-capone-cell.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An inside, high-resolution picture of Al Capone's cell as it exists today at Eastern State Penitentiary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thesab - uploaded by Thesab - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, The bottom of the furniture is cut off without reason. --99of9 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don' t know why this is a problem. Thank you very much, --патриот8790 (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support in order to get rid of the strange oppose reason (FPX). In my opinion all essential parts of the cell are visible and the cut off parts of the furniture are likely not very interesting. bamse (talk) 10:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Agree with Bamse about the FPX template, I was going to do the same thing. Still, I would like to see the bottom of the furniture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Thanks Bamse for the FPX removal; I am neutral about this picture, because its quality is not wonderful, yet I think it has a great educational value. About the legs of the furniture... I can imagine one has to snap a shot of this cell from a corridor, maybe through a window, and it's not feasible to have the whole furniture on one shot, unless using a wide angle, which in turn would've distorted the whole scene (just guessing). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fair enough, the FPX was probably too harsh. Sorry. But I strongly believe this is not featurable. If a static scene is not complete, why would you call it your finest? We expect high technical standards for static scenes, and our composition standards should be equally high. --99of9 (talk) 13:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – Beautiful lighting. --Steindy (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ 99of9: I'm respectfully sorry, but what you expect in FPC is not necessarily what I expect in FPC. Your "We expect" is maybe excessive a little, I'm afraid. For example, in my opinion, a FP is not a QI++ (if it is, then the word "featured" is maybe not appropriate, if I can say that as a non English native speaker), and this one shows something very "special" enough to be featured, maybe... Furthermore, it looks like if the nominator or the creator were not members of this "we". Sorry if I'm wrong, nothing personal here, but that's what I think... --Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • FP is not QI++, but the same standards do apply - unless there is a mitigating reason. For exemple the leopard pic, the focus is a little off, but the strong visual impact and difficulty of the shot is a mitigating reason for me. I don't see a mitigating reason here, this shot could be easily duplicated and made better. --ianaré (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Antennae, Hubble images.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 01:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Two galaxies are squaring off in Corvus and here are the latest pictures. When two galaxies collide, however, the stars that compose them usually do not. This is because galaxies are mostly empty space and, however bright, stars only take up only a small amount of that space. During the slow, hundred million year collision, however, one galaxy can rip the other apart gravitationally, and dust and gas common to both galaxies does collide. In the above clash of the titans, dark dust pillars mark massive molecular clouds are being compressed during the galactic encounter, causing the rapid birth of millions of stars, some of which are gravitationally bound together in massive star clusters.

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Arothron hispidus is being cleaned by Hawaiian cleaner wrasses, Labroides phthirophagus.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 04:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse
Could you please be more specific about low quality? The details of the very small cleaner fish are seen clearly. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I find about everything unsharp. I am certain that I would be totally unable to take this picture, but I've obviously seen better underwater pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto to Eusebius; the centre is sharp enough, but there is bad spherical aberration out to the four corners which spoils the pic a bit - MPF (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1[edit]

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
If it is another candidate I think you should open another candidate page, but it's only my opinion and I often find local FP traditions curious. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the idea is that since only one picture of a given subject can be the finest, they ought not both be promoted. So if they both achieve the requirements, the one with less support is not promoted. --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The second image is added as alternative and not as a separate nomination. Of course only one of them will be promoted. It is an usual practice with alternatives.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:Astronaut-EVA.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 15:19:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Views of the extravehicular activity during STS 41-B
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Bricktop - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Previously nominated over two years ago and failed. The image hasn't gotten any better and our standards have even risen since then. --Dschwen (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because of no geocode. (a funny joke, isn't it ?). Nevertheless, noisy and unsharp at high resolution. Sorry for Mr Mc Candless.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but it's a bit noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, why doesn't that surprise me? --Dschwen (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • sniff..sniff...I smell sth --AngMoKio (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:Astronaut-EVA edit2.jpg may be better. It's cropped a bit, though. However, looking through the EVA category, it does appear this one has particularly unusually good composition, so I do think that it's worth seriously considering some version of this. Symbol support vote.svg Support, therefore, as iconic and not easily replaceable. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen. Interesting? Yes, but not featured quality. Steven Walling 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Adam Cuerden. --Lošmi (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Doesn't strike me as particularly impressive photography.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bordeaux place de la bourse with tram.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 18:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bordeaux, place de la bourse with tram. In front: miroir d´eau
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Barun (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Promising in low size, but slightly deceptive in full res (sharpness, dynamic range...) --MAURILBERT (discuter) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy, but nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Tilted, technical deficits. Subject looks great and shows clear potential for an FP. But this is not it. --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great!--Luc Viatour (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Technical problems, per Dschwen. Steven Walling 21:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Per Maurilbert, he said exactly what I think--Jebulon (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Building on the left is sharp; maybe effects of distortion by thermal convection currents in the rest of the scene? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - a daytime shot would be much nicer - MPF (talk) 11:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very poor quality. Fortunately it is possible to do much better even under these difficult conditions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful use of two strong, opposing colour-sets. 71.130.1.218 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Please log-in to vote --AngMoKio (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - There seems little reason to oppose this nomination for me. To say 'a daytime shot would have been nicer' hardly constitutes a reason. Still I suppose its largely personal preferences.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dent STS 1881.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 05:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tooth of Australopithecus africanus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Rare view, Very high scientific, educational and encyclopedic values, emotional testimony of very far ancestors (hmm not so far of some I know...). Perfect photographical technics (details, light, composition, background). It honors the FP project, IMHumbleO. Thanks ! Sure, that's not flooding !! --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good example for an attractive kind of scientific documentation. --Mbdortmund (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to Mbdortmund - MPF (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support interesting view with the black reflective background. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm reading about these 'guys' now, so of particular interest to me. The image is exceptionally well detailed imo. --ianaré (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's very nice at thumbnail and even full screen size, but looks strange to me at full size. I see some fringing beside contrasting light and dark features, and the texture seems odd in places (e.g. around the dark "z" on the upper surface). I suspect it's a bit overprocessed, which seems a shame. I can't bring myself to oppose it though.--Avenue (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not so sharp, I see some noise and maybe some posterization. I second Avenue's remarks and I find quality not sufficient for a FP studio shot. --Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture. Great work. Per Jebulon. Iadrian yu (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support Nice picture , scientific , but I wonder what it IS
  • no anonymous votes. It's a fossil tooth, BTW. --ianaré (talk) 06:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Lynx lynx (Linnaeus 1758).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 20:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lynx lynx
<div style="display:none--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC);">
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Beautiful picture, but DOF probably too shallow, and the part in focus is not so sharp. --Eusebius (talk) 21:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Seems focused enough for me. Steven Walling 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- As Eusebius -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it a little disturbing that the eyes are in the center of the image. I find that this doesn't make it a very good composition. Amada44 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose background very noisy. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • No, the background isn't noisy or very noisy. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Michael Gäbler, the image is not grainy.. and the quality of the image should be judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc.. Ggia (talk) 22:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry. I may be wrong, but I think the background is noisy. All the images here are judged, looking closely, trying to find the noise etc... I think it's good. It's the rule in FPC, isn't it ? I may say too that for me, it's not focused enough. But I agree: it's only my opinion. Nothing personal here--Jebulon (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The image is well focused, at least the interesting parts of the image are focused. I don't see much noise either. I find more disturbing that the eyes that are in the center of the image, and I think that it is more fruitful comment about the discussion. Talking about noisy photographs, ie. looking closely to the images of Sebastião Salgado you will see a lot of noise (due to the use of Tri-X 400ASA black & white film). If the photographs of this photographer were in a free license and they we uploaded here.. and if one of them was a candidate as a featured picture we will comment that it is low quality according to FPC rule (because of the grain)? Ggia (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Zoo animal, and too much of a posed portrait to look realistic. Looks like those pics one sees of businessmen looking artificial with a plastic smile. Sorry! - MPF (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info No, the Eurasian Lynx is not smiling, he is yawning. Therefore this is no posed portrait. Did you ever see a pic of a yawning businessman? Face-smile.svg By the way the Wisentgehege Springe game park is no zoo, it is under the Habitats Directive a Natura 2000 natural habitat with wild fauna and flora. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "natural habitat with wild fauna" - so this animal is unconstrained, free to leave the park if it wishes, even to go to Germany or France without hindrance, and gets all its food by its own hunting, not provided by man? I have my doubts!! From the literature I have, Lynx lynx is long extinct as a wild animal in the Netherlands. If it is reintroduced, where from, and how many generations ago? In general, reintroduced animal populations are required to show at least 2-3 generations of survival without human assistance before they can be considered wild again (e.g., in Britain, reintroduced Haliaeetus albicilla were only officially accepted as re-established in the wild 28 years after reintroduction commenced). If this animal doesn't meet those requirements, it is as far as I'm concerned, a zoo animal. - MPF (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Rana clamitans MN.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 19:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

North American Green Frog, female.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cephas (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 22:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mattew666 (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Harsh lighting, poor DOF, not the best angle, The existing FP of this genus are generally much better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - MPF (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. Good photo, but the bar in this subject is higher than this. - Keta (talk) 08:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good but not fantastic --ianaré (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:Przewalski's colt running.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Poor framing. What is the subject: the horse or the trees? Reminds me of those family shots with the monument behind. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar, poor composition. --Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Alvesgaspar and Eusebius, please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory. Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image. This image point up the little Przewalski's colt in his large German lebensraum. This German lebensraum is not the initially habitat of the Przewalski's horses. This has been the steppe in Eurasia. In some years the Przewalski colt will be reintegrated in the steppe of Mongolia. The open countyside in the image is the habitat of the Przewalski's horses in the Wisentgehege Springe game park. The image indicate this with many pieces of horse dung on the meadow. The Przewalski's colt is very little in the large image, this emphasizes his smallness. The image shows on the left side the shadow of the colt and on the right side the open way to his mother. I like the frozen moving in this image: the colt seems to dance on one feet during he is running to his mother. Important is the contrast of the sunny colt and the shady wood. There is a way from the sunny meadow into the dark wood. This way into the dark wood may remember Germans to the Fairy tale Hänsel und Gretel. In bygone times such a way into dark woods had been menacing. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Alvesgaspar explained what I meant by "poor composition": by looking at the picture, it is not clear why so much background is part of it (and also, the animal is strangely centred). "Poor framing" or "poor composition" is not "defamatory", it is a negative (and somehow subjective) value judgment over one's work. If you don't want your work to be evaluated in a negative way (which I can totally understand), then maybe you shouldn't submit it for reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry if my evaluation was too harsh by no offense was meant, of course. 'Poor' is very often used here when assessing pictures, instead of 'bad'. I personally prefer that the evaluations of my images are straight and clear because I learn more from them, but people are different. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hi, we three are working together for the good future of FP. You participate in the discussion Careless reviews. I myself support the FP mostly with images. I think you misapprehended my sentence „Please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory.” The word “poor” has different meanings in the English language. It is not only used in the meanings „not good“ and „meagre“. It is also used in the meanings „pitiful, pitiable“, „wretched“, „woefully“. Therefore the word „poor“ can be understood as a defamatory word. The adjective of the german translation “arm” is today used to offend or insult somebody with words like “armer Irrer” (= “poor foul”), “armes Schwein”, “arme Sau”. I think it would be better for the good future of FP to find another way to describe the lack of quality in images of FPC. I wrote: “Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image.” Maybe you can find in the English language a harmless word instead of "poor..." to describe the lack of quality in an image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh please... When using a word in a sentence, it is not required that all its meanings apply at the same time, let alone that all the meanings of its possible translations in another language hold. I didn't mean that the image needed better funding, if I need to clarify. The second meaning of "poor" in the Oxford English dictionary (just after the money-related sense) is "of a low or inferior standard or quality", which is exactly what is meant here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose another high quality shot. But to me the composition seems a bit random. The background really is a bit distracting. I'd prefer a tighter crop, sth like this --AngMoKio (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your stimulus. I made a crop. Please see Alt 1. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ack Eusebius. --Steindy (talk) 10:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I made a new crop. I hope it is a better framing now. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Please leave the old nomination and make a new subsection with the new -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

File:The Sunday at Home 1880 - Psalm 23.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 23:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Psalm 23
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Joseph Martin Kronheim (?) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This was scanned at 800 dpi. The original is about 6-8" wide, at full size, my monitor makes this about 6 FEET wide. This is great for reproduction of the work, but you may prefer a less extreme view for evaluating it as art. Dschwen's Javascript viewer, while not perfect (it tends to look very slightly blurred at lower zooms), will help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info An interesting bit of ephemera, representative, though better quality than the vast majority, of things you may have seen a lot if you were raised in the American fundamentalist evangelical tradition like I was. Unlike those, this is freely licensed, and (although I'm still seeking confirmation of this, initial enquiries have been positive in the identification) by a reasonably notable creator of such materials. Also illustrative of a Victorian publishing house, the Religious Tract Society, which we have precious little else from.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support That is wide... Very interesting, well done restoration. NativeForeigner (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question on the files page there is also a link to the original scan. I compared the original scan with the nominated version and I think that the contrast in the nomination is too high which results in lost details. And I think an important criteria of judging restorations is that details don't get lost. Correct me if I am wrong...I am for sure not an expert concerning restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Scans rarely come out with accurate colours. Since I own the original, I adjusted it to get as near to that as possible. I've looked at it again, and discovered a way to make it slightly more like the original: Kronheim uses a reflective bronze-colour ink, which scans differently than it looks to the eye. Once I realised that, I could selectively desaturate red in that area, leading to the currently-uploading version, which, to my eyes, looks as identical to the original as you can get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent quality... and convincing explanations given by the uploader/nominator. --Cayambe (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Cayambe. --Avenue (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:The birth of the Mantid 0521.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 23:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Buteo magnirostris Goias Brazil-8 branches retouched.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Roadside Hawk (Buteo magnirostris) perched in a tree in Goiás, Brazil.
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: a better version of this picture is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Eagle Harbor Lighthouse Sideview.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 17:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eagle Harbor Lighthouse in Michigan, USA
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JovianEye (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice but not outstanding. QI but not FP.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the shadow of the tree at the lighthouse ... Please take a photo with the visible tree. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Richard and Alchemist --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Richard and Alchemist. The shadow of the tree makes you want to see more. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – all said --Steindy (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree, nice, but not outstanding. And yes it would be better without the shadow and with or without the tree. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 15:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg JovianEye (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Leaf Scorpionfish in Kona.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leaf scorpionfish
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Here's the story about the image. I was swimming over the coral reefs, when I suddenly noticed a strange leaf. The only thing that made me to stop and take another look was that the "leaf" was kind of out of place there. It took me about 10 minutes to realize I was looking at a fish. I've never seen such fish before, and never heard of him either. What was amazing that the fish really behaved as a dead leaf that got stacked in the corals, and is rocking back and forth by the will of the currents. The nominated image is a composite of four frames that IMO show not only the fish, but his behavior as well.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Always same dilemma with you Mila... I feel it's valuable, rather unique over here, and that one has to catch it. But I oppose mainly for quality reason. And the fact this is underwater is now no longer mitigating to me (it's possible to take good quality underwater pictures at little cost). - Benh (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The quality is good. It is how the fish really looks. The blotches on the skin are natural, and the shape is not really sharp. Besides you really cannot judge all underwater photography the same. It is much easier to take underwater images, when diving because you could stand still. I was snorkeling in the strong currents. To take those images I should have been diving and working my legs and arms to stay under long enough to take the image. I could have uploaded a single image or the two last frames only, where the quality is better a bit, but I believed it was important to show how the shape of this amazing fish is changing. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As Benh. Image quality and lighting are really not good enough -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support after thinking about it... mitigating reasons... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - the individual frames are good, but the four together don't look good; in particular the bottom right frame is disproportionately green-toned compared to the other three more blue/red-toned frames. I'd think it would be improved by some sort of border (e.g. a white line) separating the frames. - MPF (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problems --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Just can't see the main object good enough. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 21:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the idea of the "main object" not to be seen good enough :) On the other hand I did get enough :), and that is why Pictogram voting delete.svg --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Full Opera by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 16:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The new Opera House in Oslo.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Krakers - uploaded by Krakers - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice shot, unfortunately quite noisy in some areas. Why not chose an earlier time of the day to have more light thus being able to use a smaller iso? Did you do some selective noise-reduction? Some areas have heavy noise while others are more or less noise-free. Maybe some experts here can help you to get a better noise reduction, it would be worth a try. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but noisy at full res. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture ! Iadrian yu (talk) 19:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - all the lights (most obvious with the small background lights top left) are double, presumably due to camera shake. Agree with AngMoKio, a daytime shot would be better. PS looks a shocking place for safety, do people wheel their prams up to the top of the roof, then let them roll back down into the water? 8-) - MPF (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice, but noisy in dark areas. Looks it was taken at 800 iso, and subsequently level adjusted. I wouldn't say it would be better at daytime, but here a tripod would have helped for sure - Benh (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Technically not perfect, yet one of the best pictures of this building presently on Commons. Very interesting lighting. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Sharpness, noise. --Steindy (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture but noise ruins it. --Aktron (talk) 12:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, I'd say the lighting is good and I don't have a problem with any noise.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose quality issues (noise, blurryness) --ianaré (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Paradisiac beach in Bretagne.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A paradise beach in Bretagne
Dialog-warning.svg
 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 quality is poor (unsharpness, chromatic noise, lack of detail) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Ferenc Ilyes (HUN), Artur Siodmiak (POL).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 10:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ferenc Ilyés), hungarian Handball-Player, blocked with foul by Artur Siódmiak (Poland
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Steindy (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - this captures the confrontation as well as the ball; action photos like these of important matches are rare on commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice handball pic. Rastrojo (D•ES) 13:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor image quality, the head in foreground ruins the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
With this kind of reasoning, FP nominations will continue to be dominated by endless rows of images of plants, stones, engravings, statues, and astronomical objects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Cayambe (talk) 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a very good and "live" handball pic. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - surely you mean 'foul', not 'handball'? None of the players is touching the ball with a hand, but a foul (shove in the face) is being committed - MPF (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good action shot... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good and funny shot :) --Einstein2 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good action shot indeed. The head in the foreground is not completely random either. --Dschwen (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jackhynes - uploaded by Jackhynes - nominated by Jackhynes -- Jack (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Jack (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - no location or status (wild or zoo, etc.) information. May change if this info can be obtained. - MPF (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Added location and status information. Jack (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is a tad tight, but it's a high quality photo of a rare species. Steven Walling 21:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor framing and composition. It shoudn't be too difficult to re-shoot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alves. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cute, relevant and decent photo... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ack Alvesgaspar. --Steindy (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Cute animals, but framing too tight, pole in the background disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose pole is distracting, they look like zoo animals. --ianaré (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 11:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surcouf
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Eusebius (Guillaume Piolle) - nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice composition, nice quality --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing very special; copyright concern: when did the sculptor die? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    1917. --Eusebius (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That red fence doesn't look good. It's much better when the image is cropped above it IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Correct picture but nothing extraordinary justifying FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many tiny disturbing things: the random cropped fence, the edge of the fort covering up the headland, the hand pointing into the upper-left corner (neighter the horizon nor the sea). --Elekhh (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:Wörtherseestadion beim Endspiel im ÖFB-Cup 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 08:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view in the Wörtherseestadion in Klagenfurt (Austria) with 28.000 spectators during the final of the Austrian Cup 2009–10 SC Magna Wiener Neustadt vs. SK Sturm Graz 0:1 (0:0) at 2010-05-16.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Steindy - uploaded by Steindy - nominated by Steindy -- Steindy (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Steindy (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Weak support I don't like the chromatic aberration and the overexposed sky, but I like the view, the scene and the sharpness --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Maybe a valuable picture but I don't see anything extraordinary mitigating the technical flaws and justifying the FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Jacktd (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strong CA on the metallic structure--Jebulon (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Temple in Alishan.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longyin Temple of Chukou Village in Alishan National Scenic Area.
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is severely overexposed (all white) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Tursiops truncatus 01.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 00:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bottlenose Dolphin - Tursiops truncatus A dolphin surfs the wake of a research boat on the Banana River - near the Kennedy Space Center.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Solipsist - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very useful, but too much noise next to the eye and the mouth. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's not a bad picture by any means, and technically it's fine. I just don't find it that exceptional in terms of difficulty of capture, composition, and rarity - given the photographer probably sees this scene on a weekly basis (get the mangroves in the shot, or get it when he's leaping clear out, etc ...). I would be more likely to support if it were the work of a commoner. --ianaré (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral – A professional work should be without errors. --Steindy (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - ditto to Mbz1, the noise isn't obvious to me. Wild and located, makes it much more valuable than pics from dolphinariums - MPF (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Valuable but too noisy in water areas. ----Chrumps (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - Agree with MPF that being in its natural habitat is a good thing, but the composition is just awkward. Is it an action shot or a still shot? –Juliancolton | Talk 11:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I think the composition is just fine, but the lighting is a tad too bright for me. Just not quite there, technically. Steven Walling 21:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - For me this is a nobrainer Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:Falkland Islands Penguins 49.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ben Tubby (flickr) - uploaded by Überraschungsbilder - nominated by Amada44 -- Amada44 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Amada44 (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support beautiful, sharp --Croucrou (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Panasonic1 (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I prefer a photo of the whole Penguin. --Steindy (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good portrait, wild and located - MPF (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good detail, like the composition. --Elekhh (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Original and very nice one - Benh (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aktron (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition. --Avenue (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Kadellar (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 21:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition! --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Awesome! Pity the photo is a bit soft! Diti the penguin — 13:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Beautiful Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral and thinking about an other vote. I've got a Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: I saw some kind of halo around the beak reminding me the result of oversharpening, additionally, the plumage on the shoulder is not only "a little bit soft" but noticeably blurry. Was the picture indeed oversharpened? And what's about the strange focal length of 1250mm shown on the Flickr page, could the softness come from a motion blur? Grand-Duc (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Balaton Hungary Landscape.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 16:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape at Lake Balaton, Hungary.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by txd - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening, oversaturation. If not me, someone else will probably FPX this picture... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, the oversaturation is part of the tone mapping effect and I'm sure there are lots of people who like that on Commons. As for the rest of the problems, I suspect they are all caused by overcompression. --Aqwis (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, I have to agree that some people will appreciate this kind of Flickr kitsch and that a number of them won't even bother to open the picture in full size. Well, I'll keep trying anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad tone mapping and oversharped --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose BBB Face-smile.svg --17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, --mathias K 17:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice subject, but oversaturated. --Cayambe (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Berthold Werner and Cayambe. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening and oversaturation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Hubble Ultra Deep Field, Hubble images, 2003-2004.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 00:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Galaxies, galaxies everywhere - as far as the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope can see. This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, this galaxy-studded view represents a "deep" core sample of the universe, cutting across billions of light-years.

The snapshot includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colours. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, may be among the most distant known, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old. The nearest galaxies - the larger, brighter, well-defined spirals and ellipticals - thrived about 1 billion years ago, when the cosmos was 13 billion years old.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field diagram
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this version is already featured. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Children of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brother and sister in the street of Qala-i-Shada, Kabul, Afghanistan. An amazing picture by the same author of this other one, a serious competitor of POTY2009. Created and uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:28, 31 May 2010
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support lovely portrait, interesting lighting/background --ianaré (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm starting to think that this is sort of too easy, and that the hard conditions these people live in make them very photogenic. But that picture sure feels nice, and there a few from Afghanistan over here... Certainly less than panoramas and insects...:). Ack ianaré for lighting. Also friendly support since Paulrudd was my classmate in highschool ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I think that the strongest points of this picture have nothing to do with poverty or exoticism. I'm referring especially to composition, lighting (this is a 'contre-jour') and the expression of the children -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I agreed for lighting too. But I believe expressions of the children contribute to make this pic great, hence my comment. This does come from the conditions they live in; I don't mean exoticism but I meant poverty and hard conditions. Don't get me wrong though: Alexis (author's name) did large part of the job by framing and exposing it right in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
        • why do you think that these children live in poverty? --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I feel you ask this as if it was shocking that I think so (sorry if I'm wrong). But I answer anyways : I can only assume, yes, but have good reasons, among them : Dirty clothes, one of the kid missing a shoe, skin looking like having hard time and Afghanistan having low HDI and low per capita income. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
            • No I am not shocked. I just sometimes have the feeling that people from western or "rich" countries (me included) easily think that people from other cultures are poor or even suffer. By western standards those kids might be poor and still I think that such a pic can trick you. That girls other shoe could just be around the corner because it took it off for what ever reason (I often see children that get rid of various pieces of clothing just for fun). The children's clothes might be dirty because they were playing in the dirt or the mother just gave them some old clothes because they were about to play outside. Even my mother had some older clothes for me when I went playing in the forest. Those kids look well fed and not unhappy, just interested in the photographer. Of course I might be wrong and those kids are really poor, even for Afghan standards, but I just think it is interesting how we (myself included) quickly come to the conclusion that people from far away countries and different cultures have to be poor or suffering. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
              • I understand this point of view an partly agree with it. I never said that these children are unhappy, but that they are poor and live in hard condition, and that I'm likely right given all element we have so far. (we could as well think as disguisement or whatever but this would go very far !). some hard conditions to me that explain the skin : not spending days in air conditioned building but spending days outside under hard sun, not having shower everyday with shampoo etc. And I don't always wait to have all elements before coming to a conclusion, otherwise, I wouldn't often have opinion... would I ? :)- Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
                • Of course I understand your point of view and the way you get to your conclusion. It was not my aim to question your vote or opinion. I just had some deeper thougts on how photos might trick us and felt the need to talk about it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ianaré. --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice photo with the shadows on the ground --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I showed this photo to my dad, who lived in Afghanistan for some time. He says "I believe these children are Azarahs, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Descendants of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan". --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not so keen on the centred composition still a really good photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – I'm really uncertain whether not only the exotically working and sweet children and the surrounding field make the photo unusual. Sorry, but I don't see anything, which makes this photo technical better than other photos with sweet children. --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Ianaré. Although subjects are centered, the wall on the left gives some dynamism to the picture. It would be very different without the wall. --Cephas (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I would consider this an average portrait. It is attractive and they are photogenic, but I find the crop too loose and the viewpoint too high, which prevent this photo from standing above others. IMO, not a good enough portrait for FP. As a side note, I'm wondering why you quoted the author and his work. I thought this was about judging individual photos. Were you trying to justify or inflate the value of this photo just because the author had a finalist at POTY2009? Really a bad move on your part, Alvesgaspar. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I really don't believe the value of this photo needs to be inflated by the kind of expedient you are accusing me of using. My only purpose was to call the attention of the community to the talent of this creator (who should be persuaded to contribute to this forum). FPC reviewers are not stupid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't try to turn this into something else, this is not about reviewers but about the words you used. If that was your only intention, it wasn't the best place nor the best wording, and the more I read it the more it looks like what I said, that's the impression I get at least. - Keta (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I have already explained what my intentions were and consider your insinuations inappropriate, so say the minimum. Yes, this forum is often used for raising and discussing side issues, as you should konw if you were more acquainted with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" --AngMoKio (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • That's very correct AngMoKio, I'll have it in mind the next time. - Keta (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral @Alvesgaspar it is an average portrait (but not a bad one). these kind of pictures are best shooted in black & white film. I partially agree with Keta comments.. Ggia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not Alvesgaspar, but would like to comment on this. Why would this be best B&W ? This is subjective issue, but I personally think as B&W as (most of the time) a cheap and easy way to turn a regular picture into something that looks to "stand above others", since this unconsciously remind old times when photography was much more art and unaccessible than it is now - Benh (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Nor am I (!!), but I regard b&w as a relict of history which has no place in modern photography - colour is now possible, and removal of colour to make b&w is removal of data & information, and therefore unjustifiable - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I must object here strongly. A really good b/w picture doesn't work as a colour photo. For example this is a great work of art, but in colour it wouldn't work. Many really good portraits only really work in b/w - and I don't mean just to convert a colour pic to a greyscale pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I just explained why I am voting neutral in that photo. And I said that I would prefer this photo shooted using b&w film (not digital)! Not converting a color photo to b&w. My pov is that b&w film, grain, analog capture works better in pictures/subjects like this one.. here. ie. I don't like much that the viewpoint too high (as Keta mentioned). BTW.. If you like the photo support it. Ggia (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I did ;) but that has nothing to do with the picture itself and I was just giving my point of view as well. Again, I find it strange to rely on grain or whatever... but just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I Agree that sometimes, B&W can be of good use, that's why I said that most of the time I feel that people use it as "art" label" rather than a way to really give another meaning to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I look to much down on people... - Benh (talk)
*Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WOW!, this discussion about b&w is really ridiculous. Photography is not about either color or gray scales, they are elements of photography. It is foolish to state that b&w is a thing of the past, or to say that color is the only thing. While yes, a regular color photograph can be made "more interesting" by converting it to b&w, color could mask defficiencies on the photograph also. Reality is that some photographs work better in b&w and some work better in color. And get this, as much as the digital camp thinks that digital photography is better than analog, well, I have news for you, that is not necessarily true, from the potographic perspective. Digital photography, with all its good things, cannot compete with tonal graduations, dynamic range or many other valuable visual attributes of analog photography. To think that digital cameras produce better photographs is like saying that synthetic brushes create better paintings. The art resides on the eye, knowledge and experience of the photographer and not necessarily on his camera, or the painter´s brushes. A camera does not make a photographer, or creates a good photograph. Digital imagery, from cameras to computers, have only produced more people taking and manipulating pictures, and not necessarily better photographers. One thing is for sure, the mix of technology and photography has produced a lot of people who think that they are photographers... so far from the truth. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Did the parents of these two children give their permission to have this photograph taken? Snowmanradio (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - nice pic, but can't quite bring myself to vote for it. - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Superb Rastrojo (D•ES) 22:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Haliaeetus leucocephalus LC0196.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 20:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on a bird show on the castle Augustusburg, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by LC-de - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a nice image, but not feature-worthy IMO. Number one, I'm not a huge fan of the lighting; the bird is in a shadow, which detracts from the details on the bird's already dark body against the bright lighting in the back. Second, the bird has a tag on its leg; I don't oppose images solely based on the fact that the bird is in captivity, but in this case, it's far too obvious and the tag makes the bird look too "un-nature like," if you get what I'm saying. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – An unlucky and unnaturally moment. The Bald eagle is in the shadow. The ring on his leg shows, that he's prisoner. --Steindy (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ditto to Kevin and Steindy - MPF (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bird in shadow. --Elekhh (talk) 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A bit dark over the birds body. The image documentation explains the image adequately. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I am the biggest sucker for anything animals but unfortunately the lighting is all wrong for spotlighting this image. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 23:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Maffei 1 and 2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 11:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maffei 1 and 2
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/WISE Team, uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoA mosaic of images from WISE in the constellation of Cassiopeia. This region contains a large star forming nebula within the Milky Way called IC 1805 (sometimes called the Heart Nebula), a portion of which is seen at the right of the image.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First WISE FP. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - awkward image dimensions, and parts of Heart Nebula cropped off. Why is it 1.6 by 4.5 degrees? Couldn't it have been made e.g. 2 by 4 degrees, removing low relevance plain starfield from the left, and increasing the height to bring in the rest of the nebula? - MPF (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Unfortunate display format. I believe that this photo shows the Heart Nebula better. --Steindy (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing special or all that impressive.Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nice shot but not unique. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I strongly disagree that it's "nothing special", but the image resolution is far too high for the level of detail present in the picture. --Aqwis (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Rolleiflex SL 35 E.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 12:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The SL 35 E is a camera to use 35 mm film by german manufacturer en:Rollei produced from 1978 in Singapore. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol support vote.svg Support but would like to see the information expanded (date & place of manufacture; whether film or digital, etc., etc. - no doubt a camera buff can tell immediately at a glance, but I can't, and I'd guess many others can't either) - MPF (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Sorry, but the camera and the objective are full with dust. --Steindy (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nothing extraordinary, subject or technical quality, justifying promotion. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ideal to illustrate the camera. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose standard product shot, unfortunately with a dusty subject. But I don't see anything extraordinary here either. --Dschwen (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen. --Elekhh (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Agree great promotional shot. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sonnenblume Helianthus 2.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SunflowerThe sunflower (Helianthus annuus) is an annual plant in the family Asteraceae and native to the Americas, with a large flowering head (inflorescence).
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:papaver alpinum bud.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 23:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Jebulon -- Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Jebulon (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The background is too distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find it unfortunate that the DOF is so reduced that only the top of the stem and "back" of the bud are sharp, and the hair on the foremost part of the bud are already even so slightly blurry. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too busy composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I really tried to pull out a neutral here but, foreground to background focal issues. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 20:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

** Please sign your vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Heart and Soul nebulae.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heart and Soul nebulae are seen in this infrared mosaic from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE. Also visible near the bottom of this image are two galaxies, Maffei 1 and Maffei 2. Maffei 1 is the bluish elliptical object and Maffei 2 is the spiral galaxy.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Originalwana - nominated by me -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support First WISE FP. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – Yes, this is the very much better version of this nebulae. --Steindy (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Gorgeous, and very informative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice, as Adam Cuerden points, informative. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Avenue (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question -- This is a false colour depiction of an infrared original (one of many possible, I imagine). What is the meaning of the colours? In my opinion 'being beautiful' shouldn't be enough to promote pictures with scientific content, like this one. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please see the additional information (above the license box) for the colour representation Originalwana (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Was going to nom this one anyway Originalwana (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - After the information was supplied. Gorgeous and educational picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Living statue, Miami Beach, FL.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 19:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info A living statue performing in Miami Beach, FL. Also a study in white. All by ianaré (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- ianaré (talk) 19:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - may be good technical quality, but I don't find it attractive - MPF (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Good technical quality. By the bright background the statue stands out too little. --Steindy (talk) 21:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • the alternative was a busy sidewalk. In any case, I think it actually adds to the composition. Maybe I can change it though. --ianaré (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It wasn't until the third time that I skimmed through the list of candidates that I noticed that it was actually a person. Anyway, its a support from me. I wish that the clothing wasn't cut off at the left, but it's not a big deal in my view. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The bright background makes it a FP. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Neither the theme nor the image quality justifies, in my opinion, FP status. Maybe a picture of the whole woman, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Does not look impressive to me. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 20:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find it attractive, but it's a good shot. The background works, and I think it's arresting enough to be an FP. --Avenue (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's the facial expression which wins it for me. --Elekhh (talk) 05:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but borderline. I might support a different crop more. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very interesting Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:NASA Space Shuttle Atlantis landing (STS-110) (19 April 2002).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by Duffman - nominated by Parker1297 -- Parker1297 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Parker1297 (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think that the composition could be better - the birds are distracting from the main subject, and so is the grass. There also seems to be a tilt. In addition, the sky is quite noisy. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The noise isn't that bad, and I think the birds are interesting, and I like the composition. The tilt is unmissable though. I will have another version ready in a minute. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alt 1[edit]

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thanks that's better. Parker1297 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose better does not automatically mean excellent. --Dschwen (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Birds are interesting but randomly positioned, unfortunately. --Elekhh (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Elekhh. It could be a dramatic shot with the larger bird in contrast to the shuttle, but the smaller bird is a distraction. Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - it would be easy to clone out the ibis if desired. - MPF (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Nothing special here Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 22:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Przewalski's colt (head) edit amk.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Przewalski's colt running edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Also here I tend to pro, but also still have to think about it. Technically this photo is really good. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral - I understand the dilemma: either you preserve the shadow and end up with an unbalanced composition; or you sacrifice the shadow and give some more space ahead of the horse, making the composition more natural. I think I prefer the 2nd option. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Hofkirche bei Nacht (Dresden).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hofkirche in Dresden by night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I wouldn't go as far as to say that it's much better than this one. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Not enough foreground. Trees and lights are distracting. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a wider angle would be a better composition. Those cut-off trees and this cut-off orange thing in the lower left corner are disturbing. And maybe it is also better to take this picture in daytime, because then you don't have those annoying lights in the view. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Composition. Even with improved composition it would still be a fairly ordinary shot. No reason to do it at night either. --Dschwen (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMoKio. --Elekhh (talk) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Unfortunate picture composition. What makes the photo in the dawn better than with daylight? --Steindy (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, great light and the tree aren't really disturbing. --Aqwis (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportMtaylor848 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Omg,"no reason to do it at night" the world of art is so uncontrolled. This is a great picture taken at a great time of the day. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 21:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ...art... ?! --Dschwen (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because I think that oppose opinions are non relevant here, useable for comments every picture you won't to promote, and because I like this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • So you are basically saying Screw you opposers, your opinions are not relevant, I'll rather support without giving any reasons at all? How is crappy composition not relevant? Sounds awfully like this nom is used as a soap box for a fairly general debate about FPC. --Dschwen (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Multilingual distractions by Dschwen, Jebulon, and others

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment

    • You voted and explained why. I voted and explained why. Full point. I don't care with your "bad guy" game, like others I understand that it's only a game and a "posture", and I'm absolutely not afraid, just only bored a bit with this "soap opera". Oh yes, I know its easier (and maybe more funny) than to be kind. I don't want to continue this "discussion". Furthermore, your comment ...art...?! is unacceptable. But:
      • Enough foreground. To me, trees and light add.
      • I like the original angle and composition. I disagree with the general opinion about "non day-light" pictures, because it sounds "fundamentalist" to me (yes I have read the guidelines, I disagree with this special point)
      • In my opinion, nobody (even you) can say that another shot would still be a fairly ordinary shot. I don't know the English words for "procès d'intention", but it's exactly what you do. It IS contemptuous, and I have here an answer to a question asked somewhere else about patronizing (a formal answer in QIC page is now useless, thank you). I think the choice of the photographer is a sufficient reason to do it at night, even you may (and have the right to) dislike it.--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm really sorry, but you have to support here what I "basically say" (so do I with you). If not, leave.
      • According to the (ancient and new) rules, I have no to explain why I support, but I do.
      • Without giving reasons at all. The reason was and is: I like this picture. It's enough.
      • J'adore me péter par écrit en Anglais avec quelqu'un, je trouve ça marrant !
      • Be happy, summer is coming soon ! (in the northern hemisphere of course). Drink fresh, make love, life is beautiful, in Dresden by night too !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, péter is a very fitting term, I must say. Anyhow, don't get all worked up if someone calls you up on calling other peoples opinions non relevant. --Dschwen (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentNobody is playing bad guy here. We are just giving our own opinions to the nominations. The aim of FPC is on the one hand to promote very good pictures, but in my opinion the most important aim of FPC is that people improve their photo skills - and no one learns anything when you just "play nice guy" and always tell people how great their pictures are. (If you have the time you should have a look on the FPC on the German wikipedia) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- I’m with Dschwen on this one, FPC is an open forum and all opinions (and votes) are considered equally relevant here. As for the flatulent comment (se péter en Anglais), it has two main components: (i) it is a vulgarity, considered by many (I included) as bad manners but occasionally used by some when short of logical arguments and moderately tolerated here; (ii) it is an attempt of using this forum to 'make a point' (the so-called POV, in Wikipedia’s jargon) and considered by many users as a serious fault . I don’t give a s* (sorry) damn for this peccadillo though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPatronizing n°2 ? Please don't give me lessons about french slang. Here, "se péter" is not flatulent, but means " to have a (hard) quarrel with somebody ". Not to be confused with "il se la pète" which means "he is patronizing a lot". "Péter la gueule" is litteraly "to break the face", and generally, "péter" is "to break". But OK, it's slang and not very elegant. And no, FPC is not an open forum : it's impossible to have a divergent opinion without to be harshly humiliated. --Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Let me start with the minor issue. Because I'm no expert in French slang, I went to the 'Larousse de Poche' where I found 'Pet' = Gaz qui sort du fondement avec bruit; 'Péter = faire un pet, se briser (fam.). The same meaning can be found by other users in other dictionaries, as Dschwen did. Now for the serious issue. Nobody here is trying to humiliate nobody and the object of all opinions are the pictures, not the creators or the nominators. Yes, the evaluations are often direct and harsh, though their tone have somehow softened in the last times. Most users understand and accept the criticisms and find them to be a valuable way of improving on their work (that is clearly my case). Very few, who don't accept the evaluations, consider the reviewers not competent enough to asses their pictures or the guidelines to be flawed, react negatively, sometimes with violent personal attacks. Fortunately they are a very small minority. There are no VIP or leaders here. The influence of each user's opinions is usually a function of the quality and consistence of his/her work here (as a reviewer, a creator, an organizer or a general contributor) and is not dictated (obviously) by his will, the loudness of his voice or the length of his comments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentTraduttore, traditore. Or convertitori, sovertitori...--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, it's a multilingual project. So you either are at the mercy of "google translate", or the foreign language skills of the people who read your comments, or your own proficiency in a foreign language should you choose to use it. Ich haette auch nix dagegen hier in meiner Muttersprache zu diskutieren, aber es bringt einfach nix rumzulamentieren darueber, dass Englisch hier der de facto standard ist. Alle varienten, die ich oben aufgefuehrt habe haben ihr Fuer und Wider. So und jetzt noch ein schlecht zu uebersetzendes Wort: Popelnase! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Entschuldigung, ich verstehe nicht was "de facto" bedeutet...Face-smile.svg--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry I'm compacting this, as this has nothing to do any more with this particular FPC. --Elekhh (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with compacting, but I disagree with where you began your crop...--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Niobium crystals and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 22:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element and metal "Niobium"
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

File:River Thames and the London Eye-31May2008.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 19:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: River Thames and the London Eye on a cloudy day, London, England.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by რობერტ (Robert) - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: as nominator. -- Snowmanradio (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Ok, I'm the last one who always wants to see clear blue sky in all pictures, but this light situation is detrimental to the subject. Most interesting parts are just underexposed. Also, boring 50:50 composition. --Dschwen (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I think the composition lacks a clear focus. --Elekhh (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition / lighting Ggia (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Composition, darkness. --Steindy (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing distinguishing this from a million tourist pics on Flickr or elsewhere, unless the idea is to show how the sky "in its typical English color, that of a rancid dishrag", as Douglas Adams once put it, can make a striking view mundane. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot, however the light is questionable. There are hundreds of images of the Thames at this point on commons, some probably with a better light and composition (there is a little too much river and a little too much land, although I won't argue with it being centred and have never understood why this is detrimental to a photograph).89.243.246.89 11:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Focke-Wulf Fw 190 050602-F-1234P-005.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 02:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Highway 401 Night Lapse Busy.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 23:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night lapse of the 401. Even at 9:30pm, the route is still very busy.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Schwarzenfels, Sinntal.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 06:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I would rather see it with either the entire tree shown or with a slightly different angle where it isn't visible. Though I was overly harsh perhaps. --ianaré (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I wish all my rural landscapes should turn out this well. Daniel Case (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, oversharpened. --Aqwis (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm not fond of the nearly symmetrical composition. Also as Aqwis, concerning the too obvious halos. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 18:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversharpened, partial tree. --Avenue (talk) 10:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is not FP quality (elements cropped out et cetera) and it's oversharp. Pretty, but doesn't do a great job of balancing the desire for a wide perspective with a strong educational focus on the subject, in my opinion. Steven Walling 20:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mylius (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jujutacular T · C 14:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Clarendon Building, Oxford, England - May 2010.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 19:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Clarendon Building, Oxford
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Diliff, nominated by Maedin
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Latest from Iball Ilash I-beam Iliff, ;-) Maedin\talk 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Outstanding, of course. Jujutacular T · C 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support provided stitching error noted on pic is fixed - MPF (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent quality, good lighting, context, human scale - all there. --Elekhh (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose due to stitching error. Will support if it is fixed. --JovianEye (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per the stitching error. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Several stitching error on upper and bottom left sides of the building, plus only half bike visible on left... but really an excellent picture otherwise and this is a clear conditional support. Also sharp on left and right borders despite the projection used. - Benh (talk) 05:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The other half of the bike is actually hidden behind one of the pillars of the fence, if you were referring to it being a stitching error. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 14:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Thanks, guys, how did I miss those?! David is away until Monday so I'll ask him to fix the errors then. Will re-nominate next week. Maedin\talk 05:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Anvil shaped cumulus panorama edit crop.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 20:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cumulonimbus capillatus incus floating over Swifts Creek, Victoria in Australia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke am Mittag-20100424.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the city at noon with Alter Bruecke (Old Bridge), Cathedral and skyline as seen from Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke (Ignatz Bubis Bridge)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Frankfurt on the Main: City at noon with Alter Bruecke (Old Bridge), Cathedral and skyline as seen from Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke (Ignatz Bubis Bridge)
  • Panorama of 10 images taken with Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM at f8, stitched with PanoramaStudio 2 Pro
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mylius (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but only just - would be nicer without the cranes - MPF (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Technically very good, natural colours, interesting place and camera location... if only there were no cranes :-( :-) --Cayambe (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The cranes will be a dominant part of Frankfurt skyline for the next few years, therefore I intentionally didn't retouche them for documentary reasons. As a part of the old town is going to be reconstructed in front of the cathedral, this image depicts a state of history never to return. --Mylius (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good framing, the cranes add an extra layer of dynamism... --Elekhh (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MartinD (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support solid work --AngMoKio (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You can even see that the clock's time on the left church tower matches the EXIF exactly. Maedin\talk 07:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Stilke Hermann Anton - Joan of Arc's Death at the Stake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 18:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joan of Arc's Death at the Stake
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Hermann Stilke - uploaded by Olpl - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, No strong mitigating reasons for the low resolution (1.5MP, therefore way below the minimum 2MP) --Dschwen (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, seriously? --Dschwen (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen --ianaré (talk) 05:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ditto to Dschwen - MPF (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Dschwen --mathias K 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- The supporting vote of LuisArmandoRasteletti is dangeroulsy close to a trolling action. Please explain why do you think that this small reprodution deserves FP status. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Assume good faith, Alvesgaspar. --Aqwis (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, there is a difference between good faith and closing both eyes. Take a look at that guy's voting record. It is quite striking, especially in light of the careless review section on the FPC talk page. --Dschwen (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, Dschwen, we decided not to make Alvesgaspar's guidelines a rule. Also, he's obviously an inexperienced user who has not read that page. Unless you want to close FPC to non-experienced users, we are bound to get a few votes that disagree with the hivemind's rules once in a while. Instead of assuming bad faith, educate him. He's obviously not a malicious user, and if you think he is, you take FPC too seriously. --Aqwis (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Dude, a) chill! b) read again what people wrote. c) realize that nowhere neither Alvesgaspar nor me said that LAR is a malicious user, d) easy on terms like hivemind please. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Those few votes defying the hive mind’s rules could indeed represent an enrichment to our forum if they had some constructive purpose behind and were explained to us all (in Spanish, if necessary). Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case with this particular user, who never produced any kind of explanation for his (apparently contestant) votes. A quick look at his talk pages and edit story strongly confirms this is not a common user, in the sense that he never established any kind of dialogue with others. Assuming good faith is a golden rule, I agree. But I also endorse Daniel’s opinion that we shouldn’t keep our eyes closed. All regulars here will confirm that I have always defended that this forum should be inclusive and that a newbie’s vote has exactly the same value and importance as a vet’s. But I’m not naïve either and consider that any attempt to use FPC to make some obscure point should be stopped. Yes, it is possible that I’m being unfair and that this user is just a child, or someone too shy to communicate. Please go ahead and put a message in Spanish in his talk page (I don't speak Spanish). I’ll be glad to retract and apologize if it is proven that I’m wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Alvesgaspar accused him of being a borderline troll. A troll is a malicious user. I do agree that he should probably explain his votes; however, it's better to put a message on his talk page before accusing him of being a "borderline troll". --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • @Aqwis -- Please be more precise in what you say. I didn't accuse him of being a "borderline troll". I said that his vote was dangerously close to a trolling action (the FPX template was deleted, BTW) and asked him to explain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Dragomen Eating, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two Arab dragomen enjoying a meal. Picture taken approx. 1889 A.D. and reveals the traditions related to cuisine and clothing at late 19th century in the Levant.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Trancèdre Dumas - uploaded by Banzoo - nominated and restored by Banzoo -- Banzoo (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Banzoo (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I'm afraid being old is not enough for FP status. Nothing extraordinary that I see either in the theme or picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Nothing extraordinaire, awful quality. --Steindy (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Although it's a 120-yo photo, its quality surpass some of your 2MP pictures that you yourself have uploaded using recent technologies. Maybe nothing may seem extraordinary to you, but it should be noted that it's rather rare to find historical photos from the 19th century about cuisine traditions in the Levant.--Banzoo (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Photography, and a photograph, can be a social document of great value. Photographs, with time, become windows into the past, bringing into today events, depictions of people or places that can be rich documents of knowledge. Whether we recognize their value or not does not diminish their value, but rather, points more to our lack of sensitivity or lack of knowledge. This picture, from the photographic perspective alone, and considering the time it was taken, tells us about a competent photographer that while the subjects seemed too posed, took care to record important cultural elements into account and preserved them for us, with very good photographic technique and equipment available at that time. Photography has changed with time and technology, but there are core elements within the media that remain stable, such as photography as a recorder of reality, conditions, etc., and in this case, this photograph is a frozen moment from the past. Even in its time, considering that most people were unable to withness different ethnic groups, this picture surely served as the television of their time, allowing people to see people from far off places, etc. If I analize this photograph from a perspective that does not take into account history and the notion of photography as a social document, well, some people may consider it bad. In my personal point of view, this picture is featurable because a) It is a good photograph from its time, b) good composition; c)good photographic technique; d) good darkroom technique; and most important, e) a valuable historical document. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now. It looks like parts are overexposed (ie right man's hand), If it's from the import process then it should be fixed first. --ianaré (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – ditto to Alvesgaspar. And bad crop at the top right, with part of that whatever-it-is the man is looking at, cut off. - MPF (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The man is looking at the ceiling, it's the normal thing to do when you drink water that way. --Banzoo (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question A rethorical question, Would the Mona Lisa lose its value because the paint is cracked? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    It isn't for sale, so we can't know ;-) . . . but I wouldn't automatically make it a Featured Picture just because it is famous . . . I've never cared for it myself, so would probably vote against featuring it, but not just because the paint is cracked . . . so there you are ;-)) MPF (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Great information, so,so image. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 21:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 14:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nicrophorus vespilloides
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by V-wolf - uploaded by V-wolf - nominated by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - V-wolf (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - located, wild origin. - MPF (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrecked by harsh flash.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Flash lighting not terrible. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- As Richard. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Interesting subject, well captured... but unfortunate, harsh flash reflection. --Cayambe (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Just interesting enough to break the tie. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 17:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting shot yes, but the lighting ruins it. Also a wider crop with the whole rodent would give a much more interesting scene imo. --mathias K 14:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great shot compositionally and educationally, but the lighting is too harsh to be FP quality. Steven Walling 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment flash reduced image uploaded. Is that one to prefer? --V-wolf (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Chrysaora Colorata.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Picture of a "Purple-striped Jelly" (Chrysaora Colorata) taken at Montery Bay Aquarium, Monterey, California, USA.
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject is not complete, tentacles have been cropped. There is also too much noise (ISO 1600 !) and much of the animal is OOF. --ianaré (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Tu-154-crash-in-smolensk-20100410-08.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 10:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Russian military, accompanied by a policeman twists bulbs in the signal lights to the landing strip airfield Smolensk-North. Several hours after the crash of Tu-154 Kaczynski
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: quality and composition problems as outlined above --ianaré (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:2009-01-21 Eibsee.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Foggy winter day at the Eibsee
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Athmosphere at a foggy winterday at the frozen Eibsee, Bavaria, Germany Llez (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hum... not much to see here, but maybe that's the point anyway ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Good mood but uninteresting composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Somehow the picture exudes the peculiar charm of an handy cam. Nonetheless the mood is nice but it has a composition which isn't convincing me.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol support vote.svg Support - Wow, I love this picture. Reminds me of a painting I did, Thank you :-) Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar & Richard --mathias K 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral per Maurilbert. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 05:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alves --AngMoKio (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | Talk 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Amsel Weibchen aufgeplustert edit2 clone.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blackbird female
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by User:Dschwen - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral A very nice photo, but what is that band of noise in the front arcing to the left over the tail? Grass in the way? Steven Walling 03:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The band of noise is a twig or a grass in front of the bird. Common Blackbird is indeed a common bird and a better picture than this can be done. Sorry. --Cephas (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very unfortunate obstruction. Jujutacular T · C 14:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Curculio nucum 01 (MK).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Curculio nucum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Leviathan1983 - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good pic; located. MPF (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good work. - Darius Baužys → talk 08:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Too tight crop. Excellent QI but no FP. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What happened with the left forefoot ? Is he wearing a ghost prosthesis :-)   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 12:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nothing grabbed me here, interesting animal though. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral & Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've just seen this here, first of all thanks for the nomination! I would'nt have nominate this pic mostly because of the problem with the left forefood that Richard allready mentioned. No he is'nt wearing a ghost prosthesis. Face-smile.svg This pic is the first focus stack test of a living insect by myself and the "ghostfood" is cause of a leaf between my lens and the bug that I've seen to late. In fact at home at the desktop. :-( I like the result pretty much for the first try, but a FP? So thanks again and we will see. Best regards mathias K 03:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a huge fan of the perspective and there is major fuzziness going on in the bottom portion. Steven Walling 20:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the first rule of photography: get closer! This applies even more to educational photographs. --Aqwis (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Props on the focus stack test, pretty neat. But yea, the "ghost foot" detracts. Jujutacular T · C 18:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Dew on spider web Luc Viatour.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spider web at sunrise
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Lviatour - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm very sorry and it's a pitty. But the background is very noisy, most of the pic is OoF, there are some spots...--Jebulon (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – I'm sorry, but I can't understand the oppose. I find it's a very fine and nice photo with wonderful reflections in the drips. --Steindy (talk) 10:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- as Jebulon, nothing extraordinary. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I too don't understand the opposes, yes not "extraordinary", but nice to look at. And the landscape in the droplets is interesting. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 16:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Well, I wouldn't like to patronize but did you care to read the guidelines? To 'look nice' is not enough for reaching FP status! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An explanation of my vote : IT IS an extraordinary picture. Yes the reflections in the droplets are wonderful, and the landscape too, I agree. As others, I am perfectly able to feel the "wow" effect, and it's the case here. But I'm disappointed by my very careful review. At high resolution, you could see what I mean. And I'm terribly sorry, because I'm sure I do not have the capacity to take such a picture.--Jebulon (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jebulon, and for double web lines towards lower left. Looks very nice in thumbnail, but not FP quality, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 09:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice composition and subject, but quality isn't quite there. Jujutacular T · C 14:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not FP quality, per previous opposes. Steven Walling 18:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Great Barracuda, corals, sea urchin and Caustic (optics) in Kona, Hawaii 2009.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 18:05:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Caustic in nature
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everythingby Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The scope of the nomination is w:Caustic (optics)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- No strong mitigating reasons for the small size and less-than-optimal quality. Might be a good VIC though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
What is the problem with the quality? Not only caustic, but the barracuda are depicted quite well. Besides underwater image, shallow water, shiny camera in my hand, and barracauda are metigating factors. Please trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You know better than that. Or you should by now, anyway. It is not enough for a picture to have good quality or encyclopaedic value to become FP. It must be extraordinary in some way. And the present one is not. Featured pictures are the best Commons has to offer. 'Quite well' is not good enough and the camera, or the shooting conditions, are not supposed to be mitigating factors. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The quality isn't bad, but the reflections of the surface light make it hard to see the barracuda on first glance. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The image is not of a barracuda, the image is of w:Caustic (optics) (the very reflections you complain about) The barracuda just adds to the exitement.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if this pic is or is not a FP (according to opinions of few VIP here), but wait a moment, Mbz1, and somebody will say "oaoaoh, yes, but, indeed, the "caustic" is well shown, but the barracuda is disturbing..."...--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
ha-ha-ha. I'd say The High Fin Sperm Whale maybe missed on the scope of the nomination, and I am not even going to comment on alves review. It speaks for itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You know what ? I came here this night (it's night now in France) to nominate another view, but after reading this review, I've given up. IMO, that's not the end, that's not the beginning of the end, but, maybe, that's the end of the beginning, when unhappy-fews (newbies) are giving up... I've decided to let them play together for the time, because every time I come here, I leave with something like a feel of disgust and anger.--Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Jebulon, honestly, I am about to give up myself, but I would ask you not to. The thing is that FPC is a great place to share one images. I'm taking pictures to share them with as many people as possible, that's what keeps me going in spite of everything, but I kind of starting to understand what Tomas meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I missed the scope, but even so, I would still oppose because it is small, low quality, and it is not hard to get pictures in this scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
In you first review you said "The quality isn't bad", now you said "low quality". The image is 2 mega pixels, and no it is not easy to get such shots in the nature with such patterns of caustics, with corals and barracuda for more wow. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | Talk 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pelé 1960.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The great footballer Pelé dribbling past a defender
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by AFP/SCANPIX - uploaded by Bonkers - nominated by Bonkers -- Bonkers (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Bonkers (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image Mtaylor848 (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, valuable image, but the size is too low and the quality is not good --Cesco77 (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose – Too small and moderate quality. --Steindy (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reasons Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Zygaena lonicerae caterpillar.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 07:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young caterpillar of Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet. Photo taken on strand of lake Žiaunė.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded & nominated by Darius Baužys → talk 07:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Darius Baužys → talk 07:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Looks very good in thumbnail, but oversharpened and poor details in full view. For photoprint maybe ok but for studying purposes it's insufficient.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 12:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Oversharpened, but OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy (talk) 10:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- BBB (below the bug bar) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Great picture but unfortunately very noisy --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not hard to look at (as implied) Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one. More than good quality iMO. Furthermore, I have a Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question: is an oppose review explained only by letters "BBB" (what is a "bug", here ?) sufficient ? Isn't it too badly depreciative and contemptuous for the nominator ? My English is not very good...--Jebulon (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It appears I'm being a victim of my own process... Good sign. But no need for fundamentalisms. The level of the present insect ('bug') bar can be easily preceived by quicky browsing the FP gallery. No, I'm not being depreciative or contemptuous. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You, Alvesgaspar, a victim ??? Face-smile.svg...Anyway, thanks for answering. No worries. And I'm very sorry to be an idiot : a quickly browsing was not enough to me for perceiving easily the bad level of this image. I'll try to improve.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose really, really sorry, cause the composition is so good and nice that it really hurts me to oppose! But as Richard allready said, the full view not so nice anymore. Its a pitty that nearly all of your pics are so heavy sharped. greetings mathias K 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, composition-wise this is "ABB", but it's just a little too unsharp in my opinion. --Aqwis (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good composition, but not quite up to snuff on the the technical side. Steven Walling 20:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:La rocca malatestiana di Cesena.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 15:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Rocca Malatestiana di Cesena
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /–Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Deepwater Horizon oil spill - May 24, 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 04:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Sunlight illuminated the lingering oil slick off the Mississippi Delta on May 24, 2010. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this image the same day."
  • why is it 'obviously' false color ? --ianaré (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Because the sea is not black and the oil is not white in daylight. Thus, this must be some kind of infrared (IR) image with light warm areas (the oil) and dark colder areas (the sea). This is because the quantity of IR radiation emitted by any body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law). This property allows IR satellite imagery to be used for mapping the temperature of the surface. Concerning the present case it is a well known fact that spilled oil is usually warmer than the water because it heats faster with the sun's radiation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added the full description from NASA. They explain how the smooth surface of the slick can lead to brighter reflections than rough sea water (at least in the sunglint area, explained further here), but they don't say whether this image is intended to approximate natural colours. It doesn't look far off to me (comparing against this "photo-like" image), although it appears very different to this image from a few days before, which is not affected by sunglint. Here is a false colour image highlighting the slick. --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, the explanation makes sense and I was wrong. Anyway, I think that we should be more carefull in chosing and preparing images to be nominated to FPC. I'm also a bit annoyed by this continuous spamming of NASA pictures. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite_images

File:Tantalum single crystal and 1cm3 cube.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A high purity (99.999 %) tantalum single crystal, made by the floating zone process, some single crystalline fragments of Tantalum, as well as a high purity (99,99 % = 4N) 1 cm3 tantalum cube for comparison.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created and uploaded by Alchemist-hp - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 07:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 20:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course. --Mylius (talk) 23:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I was not to review this kind of images, because I do not find this recurrent thema very interesting (only my personnal opinion), but a support of course sounds strange to me. Why "of course" ? It's for me the occasion to say this. Maybe the technical method used to obtain this metallic sample is rare or hard to use. Maybe the subject or the object are rare. Maybe it has a high educationnal value, but I'm sorry, and I know here that I'm not politically correct, and that I will maybe break a taboo, but I have to oppose because of two reasons : I do not see a real difficulty to take such studio pictures (ware it so difficult, we wouldn't have always two (sometimes three) current nominations of metallic samples here). Furthermore, may I say that I don't feel here any "wow" effect, as usually said here ? If I have an "of course" to say, it is : of course, the work of the scientist and photographer is very conscientious and has (as far as I'm able to judge) a real scientific value, and is very respectable. But I think that, maybe, and respectfully, all of these productions are not FP. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm, :-( OK, your opinion. But try to think about the following: you can say it for all the macros, panos and so on images. My images have a high resolution, the not simple focus stacking technique, the composition, the rare samples and the high value and education. I take photo for the wikipedia projects. What's missing else??? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Please have a look on your talk page for another explanation. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry Jebulon. This picture has a thought-out composition and a very good lighting. Also focus stacking is not the easiest thing. Are you really sure it is so easy? --AngMoKio (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Maybe not, but now I'm sure that following reviews for this sample (and maybe for nexts...) are more careful...--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ah, forgott my support too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Ra'ike T C 17:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment some technical issues : I see something "brown", is it the natural color of the metal, or a disturbing reflection of the labo ? Furthermore, it seems to me that the "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" one. Would be better if a little of the background could be seeable between them. Then the composition looks not very good IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The tantalum rod is a round and high reflective mirrow. The "brown" area is a reflection. "vertical parallelepiped" sample is too close of the "cubic" --> yes, but I saw it first after my fifth stacking session. It was enough work for me for this sample. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --AngMoKio (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info It looks like this one is going to go through ... There is a new category under objects : Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals. Please place there, thanks. --ianaré (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals

Historical Panorama of Beirut, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 19:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Beirut dating back to the 19th century
Stitched only, without cleaning
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 2nd attempt, created by Bonfils - uploaded, nominated, stitched and restored by Banzoo -- Banzoo (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Banzoo (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very interesting documentary photo, excellent quality.. Ggia (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the clone-job in the left seam misrepresents the mountain skyline. And is therefore misleading. See this image (look straight above the construction crane, the right slope is not nearly as steep as in the faked image above. I'm very skeptical of of this type of image manipulation, especially when real image content is created (rather than dust spots remove in plain blue sky). --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand your concerns. But I wouldn't go as far as calling it 'creating content', it's considered as some type of interpolation (the same as stitching, cleaning dirt and removing stains). The slope was suggested by the stitching procedure which is based on complex mathematical procedure, and by simply comparing the edges of the photographs. Concerning the file, I do not believe, the slope is the one you believe to be above the crane, I suspect it's somewhere behind the left building. Anyway, would you support the original instead? --Banzoo (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fairly sure this is the slope, check the shape of the adjacent mountains, they fit perfectly. And please do not argue with complex mathematical procedures. I know how stitching works. That clone job has nothing to do with that. It was just guesswork. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that the heal function is considered as well as a type of guesswork. It's a type of interpolation, there is no single solution. However, this guess was based on the slopes of the stitched work. You are welcome to provide another solution. Also, I would like to have your opinion on the un-retouched, only stitched work. Thanks! --Banzoo (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Many fine respectful pieces of art and photographs have been "re-furbished". I see no problems here. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 14:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for historical reasons. --ianaré (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Takabeg (talk) 10:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- This is indeed an interesting and valuable picture but I'm not convinced that either of the versions deserves the FP status. I would prefer the original anyway. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Dschwen & Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 10:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I strongly oppose this sort of digital "restoration" being put up a "one of the finest images" on Wiki Commons. How can that possibly be so?
I oppose the level of manipulation that has taken place. While I do not oppose filling in the tear with a suitable background tone, in modern restoration practices (paintings, monuments etc), the "interventions" must be apparent to the naked eye. If you have added a strip where the photo is torn, then a slight difference in texture or tonality ought to be left specifically to inform the viewer that this part is a reconstruction.
It is incomprehensible to me that a black and white version should be preferred and put up for assessment, in preference to the sepia colour of the original! Please take it away, and put up the much more attractive sepia version.
Re Black and White versions. My opinion is that black and white versions are often useful accessories. A much smaller version of the B&W, one which does not jam your browser when you try to load it, is always a useful thing to have, for articles where pics are presented as thumbnails, and a viewer might want to quickly check out the picture in a larger size without any trouble. If that larger size goes beyond the edges of the screen, its a nuisance for rapid viewing.
Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If I knew Commons would not encourage restoration I wouldn't spend much time and effort trying to partially restore and cleaning dirt and stains from this gargantuan panorama (100+ MPixels). But I beg to differ; a quick look at the featured pictures under the History category reveals that restoration was part of a large group of pictures. For instance, you may notice the difference between this original and the restored one. Note that the restored one always link to the original, so that users can be aware of the restoration process.--Banzoo (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The restoration of this image is well done, it doesn't add to nor remove any detail from the original image, (for example there is no mountain that weren't in the original one). Honestly I prefer looking at the restored one than the old one. Restoration is always good, the picture is historical and not political, so it should bring the viewer as close as possible to the environment at that time. Otherwise why the hell would go to the louvre museum to see Monalisa (which was darkened by restorartion) and other paintings. SuperAriel 4:59pm 13 June 2010 (EDT)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Victory Monument Chicago.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 05:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Victory Monument at Bronzeville in Chicago, USA
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

File:790106-0203 Voyager 58M to 31M reduced.gif, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jupiter seen by Voyager 1 probe with blue filter. One image was taken every Jupiter day (approximately 10 hours). These pictures were taken from 01/06 to 02/03, 1979 ; and Voyager 1 flew from 58 million to 31 million kilometers from Jupiter during that time. The small, round, dark spots appearing in some frames are the shadows cast by the moons passing between Jupiter and the Sun, while the small, white flashes around the planet, are the moons themselves.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall gateway by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 16:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall gateway by night (Taipei, Taiwan).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by WikiLaurent - uploaded by WikiLaurent - nominated by WikiLaurent -- WikiLaurent (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- WikiLaurent (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Nice contrasts. Mlpearc pull my chain 'Tribs 17:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice, but noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - would look better in daylight or at least less dark. Blurry people don't help, and certainly not that brightly lit building behind right. This pic is nicer to my mind. - MPF (talk) 22:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- A day shot would have shown a much better detail and image quality. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't mind if we can't see the monument. Let's assume that what we want to know is how the lighting engineers have positioned the lights (a day photograph could not tell that as well). I wish we had some info about what is taking place in the middle of the picture. Is it an exhibition ? I wish we would be told the names of the main buildings shown : those 3 buildings in the background and the name of the building or stairs where the photographer is standing. The picture should be inserted into a night-related category (don't we have anything like night views of Taiwan, or night views of Taipei ?). Teofilo (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Green turtle in Kona 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 22:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green turtle
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything by Mbz1
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's good, but there are better ones already featured. --ianaré (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is different. She swims towards me. none of the three images that are FP now have the same view. They all were taken from the side. This view is rather rare. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC). It is also showing underneeth, as no other image does.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
In my encounters with sea turtles, I have seen their undersides a few times, though usually on my way up (ie decompression stop). Then again, one generally looks at the sea floor. In any case, the image is good and not identical to other FPs, this is why I did not oppose. Aesthetically, I find the others to be better (notably this one), this is why I didn't support. If it was a different species ... --ianaré (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The image you refer to is only 2 mega pixels. No matter how many green turtle images are featured, there never will be as many as the images of same bees, dragonflies and so on, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not nearly as good as the FP mentioned above. I don't like the angle and there are sharpness issues. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If a million bug and flower pictures can be FP, this can definitely be. It is a good, solid photograph with encyclopaedic value. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You forgot the metal samples...--Jebulon (talk) 00:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Fine by me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 05:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - same species (same animal?) already got this FP. And this one. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ggia (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Truely amazing photo. --Gilisa (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Did anyone notice the clumsy cloning job near the bottom right corner (please see note)? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hold on a thief! Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - sorry, found another rather obvious clone patch! (see pic notes) - MPF (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry but that clone job is really a no-go. I have no problem, if we already have a FP of that species. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment could you please add more info about the picture ? When was the picture taken (you probably wrote it somewhere, but I can't find it in the |date= field of the information template) ? Where ? Would it be possible to use Commons:Geotagging or how far from the coast ? or how shallow is the water ? The link to w:Kona is a disambiguation page. The picture should be inserted in a location category. Any idea whether this is a baby turtle or a mom or a dad ? I can't find a dictionary or a glossary explaining what "manual cloning" means en:Cloning (disambiguation) has no photography related link. Where has the camera EXIF gone ? Or was that an argentic photo ? Teofilo (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I added some of the info you requested including Commons:Geotagging. I do not know the sex of the turtle, but they was not a baby. EXIF data was gone in the process of cloning. Original image is lost, that's why I cannot add the info. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it OK if I add "English: Green turtle, Chelonia mydas in Keauhou bay, w:Kona District, Hawaii" in the description ? This is because your geotagging provides me with [this map. But only you can tell if the geotagging was so precise that the location is exactly that bay rather than some other nearby area. Anyway, my vote is Symbol support vote.svg Support. Teofilo (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry but what is this with cloning and lost files?--Sylvy d'Acoz (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There are a lot of FP, and this one is very very good. If there is more than one picture of the same topic there can be a period of time between the dates of presentation in the main page. Kooritza (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:Benjamin Franklin - Join or Die.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 05:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Join, or Die
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Benjamin Franklin - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Obviously, I'm not nominating this for its artistic merit: This image was a rallying point for the American Revolution, as well as - well, have a read of en:Join, or Die for the whole story. =) I estimate the original size at between 3-6", probably towards the lower end. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This image was used in Insurgents flags too, if I'm not wrong. But where does this print come from, please ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I just read the article, and I've got the answer now, sorry !--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral at dusk (reduced grain), corrected perspective.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 07:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Chowells - uploaded by Chowells - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 07:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, I think this is a very good shot of the subject. My only regret is that the altar and cross are almost hidden in darkness ; yet this is part of the design of the cathedral, and not a shortcoming of this picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Quality is not the best. A day shot would have shown better detail. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar - MPF (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it --Llorenzi (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is more than good, for this picture featured in the english wikipedia. A day shot would not have shown better details, for example the very nice light through the stained glass windows above. --Jebulon (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - great atmosphere (which is what this image is about, IMO), good details and sharpness. — Yerpo Eh? 20:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice. -- Laitche (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No information template (I am considering to vote "oppose" for that reason). No creator templates for the architects (requires an analysis of each work done by each architect and finding out how many architects did the features that are seen on this view). Perhaps a creator template for the stained glass artist would not be superfluous either. Could it be possible to mention in simple words the location of the photographer (taken from South ? North ? West ? East? ) in addition to the Geotagging ? I can't find out the date when the pic was taken (was that 70 years ago ?). Where has the camera EXIF gone ? Or was it an argentic picture ? But it is a beautiful picture, if that's what you want to hear. Teofilo (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Spider Tetragnatha praedonia 1006 .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 08:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall - Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vauxhall Gardens
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Thomas Rowlandson, Robert Pollard, and Aquatinto by Francis Jukes (1745-1812). Restoration by Durova and User:Adam Cuerden, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden-- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Re-nomination, only just missed quorum last time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality, very well detailed picture. WikiLaurent (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great restauration effort. --Mylius (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Why does this deserve to be much bigger than the default for the nominations page? --99of9 (talk) 03:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • This allows at least some of the details to be made out. The original is extremely large, and at this size you can, for example, just make out Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, and the like, which you could not in the smaller. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 06:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very well done, high educational value. --Cayambe (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a FP, IMO. Please notice that annotations are not the exactly the same here and on the file page. A visit to this file page would be very interesting because of the very well-documented explanations. High (english) historical value.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral bad file name. Unless the purpose of "03193u" is convincingly explained, I find it "noisy". The true title of the artwork should be provided. In that case it seems to be Vaux-Hall with a hyphen. So the File should be called [[:File:Vaux-Hall.jpg]] or [[:File:Vaux-Hall by Thomas Rowlandson.jpg]] or [[:File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall.jpg]](in a similar fashion with File:George Romney - Portrait de l'artiste.jpg) . A Creator template should be used. The date information should be provided in a less ambiguous manner, mentionning that 28 June 1785 is not the date when the event took place or the date when the painting was completed but the publishing date. Category:Engravings is a crowded category and no file should be included directly into it. Instead it should be included into a more detailed "by century" or even "by decade" or "by year" category and a "by country" category. Perhaps a template adapted from {{Painting}} should be created for engravings. I not sure if one should understand that it was "drawn by" Rowlandson, as a painting was mentioned. Should we no write "painted by" instead ? Teofilo (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Teofilo. One obvious effect of the filename's 0- prefix is to place it at the top of any category page it is in, making it more conspicuous, very sneaky . . . On the pic itself, yes, high quality and so on, but it doesn't have the 'wow' factor that makes a pic special. The subject matter I find decidedly boring. MPF (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right. I've actually been meaning to move it for some time, but it's used enough places that it's going to be slightly disruptive. Long story short, that was the filename on my computer; the 03193u is the Library of Congress file name, which makes it a little easier for me to find the right page again when it comes time to link the image. Unfortunately, when I sent my work to Durova, she uploaded without changing the name, and there was no easy way to move files until fairly recently. It's moved now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort to change for a better name. I still disagree with your keeping of "Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al." within the file name. I think File names should not be more complicated than "<artist name> - <artwork title>". For example, I find the dates too noisy in File:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg but I am glad that it is not named [[:File:Leonardo da Vinci - The Last Supper - Jesus, Peter, John et al.jpg]]. Anyway your effort is probably worth that I change my "oppose" into "neutral". Teofilo (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Estádio Luís Perissinoto - Paulínia.jpg, not featured[edit]

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Edit CN: changed colours and contrast

Municipal Stadium of Paulínia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Richard Melo da Silva RmSilva pode falar! 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support RmSilva pode falar! 14:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it, but it's tilted and overexposed. If that would be corrected I think I would support. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, even with the tilt fixed, the exposure is too much in the upper left area, and the composition isn't the best in my opinion. It's a nice photo, though. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 14:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition is far away from excellent. Blue channel ist clipped in the sky. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unlucky crop, and composition. --mathias K 18:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lack of a corner--Jebulon (talk) 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Κατά not the best quality. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 10:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Corner cut off. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Joseph Martin Kronheim - The Sunday at Home 1880 - Revelation 22-17.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Revelation 22:17 (KJV)
Well it looks beautiful. I am no expert on this kind of litterature or printing process, so in case my vote might have any value, it is Symbol support vote.svg Support. For my curiosity, is that really taken from a book with a page number ? I would have thought this kind of picture would be selled as a single poster so that people can hang it on the wall or if it is very small (I forgot to ask you to write down the actual size) use it as a bookmark in a prayer book. Teofilo (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It's from a collected volume of a weekly magazine. It wouldn't surprise me if the original publication had people cut it out. As for size - I scanned it at 800dpi, so, including the small border I included as the sides are not perfectly straight, it's about 6.5" x 8.5", or 16cm x 22.5 cm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

File:Minaret mosquee paris orage.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 22:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minaret mosquee paris orage.jpg
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The minaret of the Great Mosque of Paris, under a natural stormy evening light, (fresh out of my camera)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Jebulon (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition doesn't convince me. The slightly off-center minaret is not a good idea, through that the composition seems random. Also the tree doesn't really fit in. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC) You're right, but... was taken from the balcony of my flat... No other choice...--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the composition and the light, but camera shake is easily visible (look at full res on the spike at the top). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC) You're right too... Well, the light was really very nice...--Jebulon (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Moraine Lake.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moraine Lake, Alberta
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mike Boehmer- uploaded by Fetchcomms - nominated by Fetchcomms --  fetchcomms☛ 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --  fetchcomms☛ 02:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To express how much I like this, it's my new desktop background. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversatured flickr kitsch! --mathias K 03:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 05:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Waaay oversaturated. That kind of photo manipulation interferes with real educational value, and isn't really an acceptable style for featured-level work on Commons. Steven Walling 06:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, it doesn't really have the typical Flickr HDR look, apart from the dark border on the mountains, but it is definitely oversaturated.--Aqwis (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unrealistic, oversaturated scenery. --Cayambe (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Per mathias: oversatured flickr kitsch! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please no joke nominations! --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling & mathias. Shame, because it could have been a useful photo if it hadn't been mucked about with. Tried to see if I could repair it in photoshop, but it didn't work. - MPF (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose oversaturated - non-real colors Ggia (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated Diti the penguin — 09:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per mathias. Completely inappropriate for this site. --Dschwen (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per mathias --AngMoKio (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated --Elekhh (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per mathias--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Sandstorm.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 05:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A massive dust storm cloud (haboob) is close to enveloping a military camp as it rolls over Al Asad, Iraq, just before nightfall on April 27, 2005.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the U.S. Marine Corps - uploaded by Carlosar - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Anrie (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Valuable but not FP. Quality and composition are on the poor side. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Alvesgaspar; slightly off-level (needs rotating slightly CCW), and rather sordid set of military hardware in the foreground makes it less attractive than a pic with natural landscape ahead of a sandstorm - MPF (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The sandstorm is impressive indeed but the elements in the foreground are distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alves --AngMoKio (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Carina Nebula shows star birth in the extreme.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this version is already a featured picture -- G.A.S (talk · contributions) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:4th FW Strike Eagles assist shuttle launch.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 07:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plume from Space Shuttle Atlantis
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by U.S. Air Force/Capt. John Peltier - uploaded by Anrie (talk) - nominated by Anrie (talk) -- Anrie (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Many of my astronomy-related nominations aren't always well received, so I'm going out on a limb with this one, hoping that the unique circumstances of the photo make up for any other small shortcomings. Besides this being a rather unique vantage point of a launching space shuttle, I believe the image is further enhanced by the fact that the shuttle (albeit small and blurry) plus the ground site are both in view, the dramatic shadow of the plume over the ocean, the two cloud layers and the Strike Eagle in the foreground. Anrie (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For wowness and educational value (I didn’t know a shuttle liftoff wasn’t vertical). A pity the quality isn’t better, but it’s a rather unique photo. Diti the penguin — 09:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support The quality isn't too bad, and this is really special. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per High Fin. --Cephas (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. --121.98.129.67 23:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - interesting pic, but needs nearly 5°CW rotation to make the horizon level; though rotating that much would make the crop very tight, so won't be easily done. - MPF (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- A rare picture and an 'inspired' composition, quality good enough. I prefer to see the aircraft levelled rather than the horizon. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    Actually, the plane is also about 4 or 5° off horizontal ;-) MPF (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dustspot, granularity. f/16 ?! --Mile (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    what about f/16? --AngMoKio (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - very high educational value compensates for the technical issues, and the overall composition works despite the horizon line at an angle. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avenue (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Unique viewpoint of exhaust plume and good size contrast between F15 and shuttle. --Jatkins (talk) 13:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Flying Falcon.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flying Red Kite
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jürgen - uploaded by FlickrLickr - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - zoo animal, with ugly straps trailing from feet. Also filename needs correcting, it's a Red Kite Milvus milvus, not a falcon. - MPF (talk) 08:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shadow is distracting --ianaré (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per ianaré --Cephas (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Khajoo-Bridge.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 23:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Khaju Bridge in Isfahan
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Sohrab b.m - uploaded by Sohrab b.m - nominated by Ladsgroup -- Amir (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Amir (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Interesting, but unfortunately not up to the standards, technically speaking. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "not up to the standards", then only oppose is possible. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is tilted and the compostion seems a bit random. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per AngMo. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose tilted, not so nice composition and way to dark imo --mathias K 09:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above --Elekhh (talk) 05:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Red eyed tree frog edit2.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red-eyed Tree Frog (Agalychnis callidryas), photographed near Playa Jaco in Costa Rica
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:Boletus erythropus 2010 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 06:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dotted Stem Bolete Boletus erythropus
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Dotted Stem Bolete Boletus erythropus. Yellow color become blue very quickly on cutting (after few seconds).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting, and nice colours, but the blurry grass blade in front of the stump is distracting. The composition seems unnecessarily wide too. --Avenue (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jafeluv (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Haifa BW 4.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 13:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice pano, but I'm not so happy with the composition (the croped Bahá'í Garden) and the sharpness. Could it be that the fokuspoint was set too close in the foreground? Cause this is nicely sharp and the city looks a little blurry. bg mathias K 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice panorama PogoEngel (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per comments by mathias. Main portion of the image is out of focus. Jujutacular T · C 14:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pano Baalbek 1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 10:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great court of Baalbek temple complex (Lebanon)
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:20080406165033!V-22 Osprey refueling edit1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crew members refuel an A V-22 Osprey before a night mission in central Iraq
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the US army - uploaded by Mfield - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - No explanation of anything (what are the green rings in the air? what are the red and blue-green glows?), and also people are blurred. - MPF (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cesco77 (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Image quality and composition (with the blurred foreground) not the best. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow you two are a piece of work. Blurred people on a long exposure shot ? How strange !! - BTW this effect is commonly used in night shots, to contrast with the immobility of the scene, as here. Nice composition : good framing & some lead-in is present, the blurred foreground adds depth to the image. It could be cropped, though I prefer it there (also dimensions make it suitable for desktop wallpaper). Quality is good for a night shot. -- ianaré (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the blurred people are an issue (they could have been asked to hold steady for the photo!), but the lack of information is much more why I opposed. The info won't be easily available either, as the photographer isn't a Commons contributor who can be asked for more detail - MPF (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I like it, but I think it needs an explication about the blue and red glows and why there are some green rings. --Llorenzi (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very interesting. The green rings are lights on the ends of the propeller blades, time-lapsed. Jujutacular T · C 14:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Persons aren't sharp, but other is OK to me. --Mile (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. The description given is simply inadequate. There has been inconclusive speculation about what we're seeing on the image's talk page for more than a year. I agree with Ianare about the blurred people and foreground, and the good general image quality. I would support if a convincing description of the interesting lighting effects was given. --Avenue (talk) 09:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 20:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Ampulex compressa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ampulex compressa, commonly called Emerald Cockroach Wasp. Pictured in Dar es salaam, Tanzania.
  • FPX is only to be used when there are no existing support votes. --Aqwis (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, did'nt read carefully enough... --mathias K 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Dolomite-Magnésite- Navarre.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 21:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dolomite and magnesite - Azcárate Quarry, Eugui, Esteribar, Navarre, Spain - (10.2x6.7cm)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals

File:Suzuka 300km Endurance - Qualifying 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 18:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suzuka 300km endurance race - Qualifying
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:" Fontana de Trevi ".jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 23:50:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fontana de Trevi
Dialog-warning.svg
 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 quality is very poor -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Anax imperator exuvia2.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 20:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exuvia of an Emperor dragonfly, photo taken at ponds near Vrhnika, Slovenia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Yerpo -- — Yerpo Eh? 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- — Yerpo Eh? 20:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --xJaM (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- BBB: Too shallow dof, noisy, dust spots, less-than-optimal composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cloned out the one dust spot that I could find and despeckled the sky. Better now? — Yerpo Eh? 15:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jujutacular T · C 14:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alves, the composition would be better when the branch on the left side would'nt be there and maybe with a slightly other point of view to show more from the exuvia sharp. As it is now, the DOF is to low. --mathias K 17:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alves --Böhringer (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for an immobile subject, I would expect some form of focus stacking or much higher DOF to make FP. --ianaré (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Chestnutbandedplover.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 20:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photograph of the Near-threatened Chestnut-banded Plover from Botswana
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Prashanthns - uploaded by Prashanthns - nominated by Prashanthns -- Prashanthns (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Prashanthns (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - strong blue cast. I'll edit it to correct the colour balance, and then re-think whether to support. - MPF (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. This may not be the best possible edit, if anyone else can do better, please give it another go from the first upload - MPF (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cut wings and much too warm WB. The underside of the bird should to be white! --mathias K 10:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to get it white, but couldn't without also losing the sandy upperpart colour. As mentioned above, anyone who can edit the original blue version better is very welcome to give it a go - MPF (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Anand Karthik Sarma is an author, not Prashanthns (uploader) - change it, pls. Source: Photograph by Anand Karthik Sarma (rudolfsarma AT yahoo.com) Przykuta → [edit] 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not up to FP standards. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment beyond the geotagging, which is fine, the picture should be inserted into a location-related category. The exact location should be mentioned in English in the |description= field of the information template too. It should not be inside Category:Nests as there is a subcategory : Category:Bird nests. It should also be included into a suitable subcategory of Category:Eggs. As a bird displaying "threat display" it might be suitable for inclusion into a subcategory of Category:Animal behavior. Do we have any idea whether it is a male or a female (I mean the parent, not the baby inside the egg) ? Where has the EXIF gone ? I miss the picture date. Especially I wish I knew in which season this is : spring? summer? autumn? winter? (I am close to voting "oppose" because of the absence of any date). The File name is a bad name (it should be renamed with a space between "Chestnutbanded" and "Plover". Teofilo (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I humbly withdraw the nom from FP. A very hasty nom on my part, perhaps. Another time maybe....Thanks Teofilo for the comments. I have made all the cat changes. Regarding EXIF I am not sure what happened. I'll try and figure out a way of uploading the EXIF data from my computer, if that is possible with the date. Thanks again! Prashanthns (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Kirche Wirdum 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 15:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The church of Wirdum 2010
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It' really very nice, a high quality picture, but I don't see anything which may permit to consider this image as a "Featured picture".--Jebulon (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • even the "high" quality and maybe also the composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry imo the composition isn't very interisting (cut tree on the right side, bicycle is laying around, cut bench on the left side, trees on the left side too close to the border) and the church, especially the gable, looks heavily distorted. --mathias K 09:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the description page looks fine (good category, geotagging, image description). I would prefer you would take 4 ugly pictures (North South East West) of that building rather than only one beautiful picture, but I have to admit that this picture is beautiful. Teofilo (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Girl on Beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikebaird/ Nominated by Barun
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Barun (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture with a nice composition but I don't see the reason to promote it as one of the best pictures on commons. bg mathias K 16:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mathias. --Cayambe (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture but I fail to even remotely see a encyclopaedic value. --Mylius (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    encyclopaedic value is not necessary for a FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Encyclopedic value or not, we just don't have many 'people pictures'. Especially ones which capture moments.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral really a nice composition. But somehow i am still missing sth..i am not sure what it is. maybe the picture should be a bit brighter and maybe a bit of the front part of the girl should be visible. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose holiday snapshot, no value - MPF (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mathias. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Just an ordinary snapshot, can easily be re-shot. It's also very unencyclopedic. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
    encyclopaedic value (whatever that is) is not necessary for a FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Great clean action shot with really nice composition. The lighting is a little dull, but I think I would still support if only the watermark was removed (noting the authors terms "Except for clearly identified derivative works, removal of my copyright notice or watermark by manipulation or cropping is not permitted."). Finally, it would be nice if the uploader could categorize it better. --99of9 (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for now per 99of9. EV not needed here. I'd support if the watermark is removed. --Avenue (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Seems pretty dark to me overall. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Image has watermark in lower left corner! --JovianEye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- After some levels adjustements and de-noising. This is a wonderful composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Image has watermark in lower left corner! --JovianEye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done - Watermark removed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For the same reason I opposed last time. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Better levels and watermark removed. 99of9 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Alves did a good job, the picture looks much better now and yes, we have not enough FP from persons like this one here. Need to think about and maybe I will support cause the composition is really nice. --mathias K 10:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice edit Alvesgaspar! Amada44 (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - same as last time, ditto to THFSW - MPF (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - attribution removed from image, license on image has been changed from cc-by-2.0 at source to cc-by-3.0 here Gnangarra 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 20:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality problem with the sharpness --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 09:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice image but nothing that makes me think it is featurable. --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen 2010.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 15:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. The twin mills (Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen) of Greetsiel, East Frisia, Germany, seen form west in the evening.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as nominator --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neutral colours, good composition. --Mylius (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good pic, useful, located MPF (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful, informative. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are three dust spots in the sky, two at the upper right and one other at the left of the red hub. I'm willing to support once they are removed. --Cayambe (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Always those three... Thanks for this information. When I'm back at home in the evening, I will correct them --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a new version without dust spots. Please check if I removed all. If you find someones please mark me them with the Image Annotator. Thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. --Cayambe (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Missing the wow! Lighting could be better. I've been there and know that this image does not do justice to the impressive lighting these mills can have. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that's right, the picture was taken in the evening. Of course the lightning isn't like a midday photo. But imo the atmosphere is better than a 12'clock shot. And a wow by landscape photos is always not easy ;) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice Picture. Shows the object from a good angle. --Alofok (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Kanitz-Kyawsche Gruft in Hainewalde HDR.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

= English: The Kanitz-Kyaw tomb in Hainewalde. Deutsch: Die Kanitz-Kyawsche Gruft auf dem Friedhof in Hainewalde
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Ingo Jähne - uploaded by Moritz Wickendorf - nominated by Moritz Wickendorf -- Moritz Wickendorf (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Moritz Wickendorf (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversatured flickr kitsch --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice place, nice capture... but unfortunately oversaturated. --Cayambe (talk) 15:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Berthold, Oversatured flickr kitsch!! --mathias K 16:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope this won't become a trend... second one in 2 days. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nice place, nice capture...but ktischy HDR --AngMoKio (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Oversaturated Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - nasty dirty grey problems in most of sky, foreground oversaturated - MPF (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per all other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flickr HDR kitsch. Diti the penguin — 11:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support it is not oversaturaded, it is an HDR image.. And a great one in my opinion. --Jeses (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A jpeg image with 8 bit per channel cannot be a HDR picture. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- HDR or not, the image quality is poor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It looks too unrealistic, like a screenshot from a videogame. Laurent (talk) 20:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposes.--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, might make a nice album cover though. Daniel Case (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Or a cover to a new edition of Poe's 'The Fall of the House of Usher' ! --
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Supermarine Spitfire Mk XVI NR.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 08:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supermarine Spitfire XVI at Duxford, September 2006.
CA = chromatic aberration, which mostly shows as violet and green fringes. --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any CA. The whole thing looks nice and smooth to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - amazingly sharp on the propellors despite high rotation speed - MPF (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support; can't see virtually any CA either and the sharpness is amazing. — Yerpo Eh? 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Minor CA is acceptable, but the composition doesn't sit well with me. An FP should make me feel comfortable looking at the image; this particular photo instead gives me the feeling that the craft is about to fly right off the file. In other words, the framing is not ideal for me. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Mangga Dua Jakarta's Chinatown.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 17:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chinese paifang (archway) at Mangga Dua Square, in Jakarta's Mangga Dua district
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jakob Montrasio - uploaded by Midori - nominated by Arsonal -- Arsonal (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Arsonal (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose strange black corners, noisy and strange-blue sky, blurry at the left, perspective distortion, chromatic aberration. The composition is interesting. But the image isn't featured at all --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Oversatured Flickr kitsch! --mathias K 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To remove inappropriate FPX explanation. --Lošmi (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inappropriate submission. The FPX explanation was matter-of-fact. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Flickr kitsch. Diti the penguin — 08:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose cheap special effects ruin it --ianaré (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. Strong vignetting in the corners. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, how the hell is this flickr kitsch? It's not HDR and the colours are perfectly natural. The perspective is due to the use of an ultra-wide lens. No, I won't support it; it's just not interesting enough in my opinion, and the vignetted corners don't look very good. But you can't just slap the label "flickr kitsch" onto everything you don't like. --Aqwis (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The colours are perfectly natural?? Is that a joke? In my opinion it don't need to be HDR to be Oversatured (what this pic is) Flickr (thats where the pic came from) Kitsch (thats what the pic look for me). But that is just my opinion, that dont need to be true as User:Lošmi allready showed.
      • Newsflash, strong colours exist in reality. The only oversaturated part of the picture is possibly the sky, but that might be because the picture is a little bit underexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 15:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
        • What? Strong colours in real life? Can't believe! I allways think and see b/w. Face-smile.svg As a compromiss: In future I will be more carefull with the using of Oversatured Flickr Kitsch. I promise! bg mathias K 15:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, for the reasons stated above. --Aqwis (talk) 15:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for all reasons given above, and because maybe this one will persuade an admin to put this one out of its misery. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Chicago night pano.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 21:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago skyline by night
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info at approx. 100 megapixels, large range of light intensities and color temperatures, long exposure times, the technically most difficult panoramic shot I've taken so far. It shows a few buildings displaying messages to congratulate the Stanley Cup win of the Chicago Hockey team Blackhawks. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dschwen (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fantastic work, wow! But I'd like to see less water and more sky. Do you have some of the latter left to add? -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even at low resolution, stitchlines are kind of obvious in the water. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality - I don't see stitching problems. Ggia (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the stitching on the water is ok though you can easily find if you look and there are few points it occurs, I highlighted two but hey its water which moves considering the time need to compose each shot its not an issue as they dont disrupt any reflection. I would like to see the right edge cropped as that last frame is totally out of focus Gnangarra 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment these are minor stitching problems. the most important part is the urban landscape, not the water where in general the water in the photo can be blurry etc. Ggia (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Not minor for a FP candidate but relatively easy to fix. Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination Will re-nominate when I had time to fix, which will be in three weeks earliest. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

*Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Impressive panorama. I haven't noticed the stitching issues. Laurent (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- Nomination was withdrawn -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

File:La proue de l'épave.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 21:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The bow of a wooden shipwreck
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by -- Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the bow of an old wooden shipwreck, with a play between shadow and reflect, an evening on a beach in Brittany, in France, low tide.
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry to oppose also this one but this piece of wood is right in the middle of the pic which makes it a quite boring composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good quality, but the crop it too tight next to the corner. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting ancient shipwreck. High quality photo --George Chernilevsky talk 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Subject is interesting, but can't you work out a more aesthetic picture - better composition - with it? (maybe a low level angle in early morning or evening with reflection in water) --Cephas (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per AngMo --mathias K 09:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shame! I would really like to support but the composition needs some improvement. can you give it an other try? Amada44 (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 01:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A-10, F-86, P-38 & P-51 Heritage formation.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 01:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

(From left) An A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-86 Sabre, P-38 Lightning and P-51 Mustang fly in a heritage flight formation during an air show at Langley Air Force Base, Va., on May 21. The formation displayed four generations of Air Force fighters.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Delphinus delphis 02.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 04:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dolphin Frescoe in Knossos
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Llez (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 06:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - is it a genuine Minoan original, or a modern reconstruction / restoration? - MPF (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - This Dolphin frescoe at Knossos is a replica of a minoan frescoe. The original was found fragmentary in Knossos, restored by the Artist Piet de Jong between 1922 and 1930, and is now in the Heraklion Archaeological Museum.Llez (talk) 18:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Jellyfish aqurium.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea Nettle (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) Jellyfish in captivity in the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Kraftwerk Walheim 2010.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 18:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Walheim power plant, Germany
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Felix Koenig, nominated by Felix Koenig -- Felix König ✉ 18:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Felix König ✉ 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very useful and informative picture, the shsrpness of the main motive is okay, nice colours. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Carschten. Nice use of the rule of thirds. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, solid shot. but the the sharpness is far away from featured status and I see nothing extraordinary here what will price this picture as one of the best on commons. --mathias K 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Misleading titling. I don't see Ralf or Florian anywhere in the picture. Just kidding. Daniel Case (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • ?? Kraftwerk is the German translation of power plant. -- Felix König ✉ 17:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not enough sharpness. --A.Ceta (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture. --Alofok (talk) 18:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good quality, but not outstanding. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:US Navy 040925-N-0295M-066 Kent Shockley and his jet truck ShockWave, race Gene Soucy^rsquo,s Showcat biplane.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Naval Air Station Oceana, Va. (Sept. 25, 2004) - Kent Shockley and his jet truck “ShockWave,” race Gene Soucy’s “Showcat” biplane at the 2004 "In Pursuit of Liberty," Naval Air Station Oceana Air Show. ShockWave is powered by three afterburning jet engines that can produce 36,000 horsepower. The air show, held Sept. 24-26, showcased civilian and military aircraft from the Nation's armed forces, which provided numerous flight demonstrations and static displays. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain (RELEASED)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by US Navy - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by me -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - most particularly because of dull background, and distracting 'Fuel > 4' sign in foreground - MPF (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per MPF, in terms of the unfortuate dark background and overall lighting. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Truck "ShockWave" vs. "Showcat" biplane.jpg

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brightnes/contrast, crop, truck and plane sharpened a bit. --Lošmi (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think a little crop of the sky will be good. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great improvement for the sky/foreground, enough for a support. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hooray for oversaturation! Makes every dull picture much better.. ...not --Dschwen (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - better than the above, but sorry, still don't think it makes for Featured quality - MPF (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Dschwen --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Jennette McCurdy at the Kids' Choice Awards.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 21:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Jennette McCurdy
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I withdraw the candidacy. Pretty clear this won't pass. Sincerely, Blurpeace 11:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 14:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waterlily House, Kew
  • Unfortunately, after further review, I must Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per my above comment. This anomaly is really quite distracting and unfortunate. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - don't care for the fish-eye effect on the shape of th--Karel (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)e roof (straight frames appearing curved), and also ditto to Juliancolton on the hanging basket - MPF (talk) 22:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Uhh, the roof is curved. --Aqwis (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • From left to right, yes. But from the far side of the room to the near side I doubt it was curved. Jujutacular T · C 13:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The only way to avoid that would be to use a rectilinear projection, in which case the sides would look horribly dragged-out. --Aqwis (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 19:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Aqwis (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful image, nice composition. I'm fine with the wide angle. Jujutacular T · C 13:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I like much of it and I'm fine with the wide-angle effects, but I don't like the dark hanging basket and some other distracting detail. Jonathunder (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support great picture!! Amada44 (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Jujutacular. Nikopol (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice image. –BruTe Talk 10:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting image but I agree with the opposes. --Herby talk thyme 16:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I dont like the basket hanging from the centre. --JovianEye (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Image:Rocca Malatestiana Cesena 2006 pano.png, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Rocca Malatestiana in Cesena
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Marcok - uploaded by Marcok - nominated by Uomodis08 -- Uomodis08 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Uomodis08 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality is not sufficient for this shot to be featured. Not really sharp, esp. considering it's a static, well lit subject in a location allowing the use of a tripod if requested. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Caserma NATO sul monte Palon.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old barracks on the Palon mountain, near the Grappa mountains
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality (noise, lack of detail, colouring) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Dandelion Ripe 1.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 01:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A ripe dandelion ready to disperse it's seeds.
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's really, really blurry. 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.

--MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Erysimum rhaeticum.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 01:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Noisy, not sharp, dull light and/or underexposed. --ianaré (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:2010 FIFA World Cup Fans .jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 09:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fans of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Audrey & Patrick Scales - uploaded by Octagon - nominated by Jeses -- Jeses (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great picture, nice composition; sharpness, colors, etc. are perfect -- Jeses (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I guess that there was a third person, or something else, which has been removed from the photo (white part which can be seen through girl's hair). Also, her hair looks blurred on the right, and few cloning errors are obvious. --Lošmi (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're right with the cloning errors... but the white color you can see through her hair is also above her head. So looks like there is some kind of white structure there in the wall behind her... --Jeses (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right about that. --Lošmi (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lošmi is right, this picture has been modified and it is not stated in the description. It is unfortunate because it is a nice picture. --Cephas (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is the name of the file important for a FP ? This pic was taken in may 2007, and I see two faces with the south-african flag, but nothing to do with the FIFA WC in 2010. Maybe are there fan of the Springboks rugby-union team, are fans of... South-Africa ? Furthermore, the little crop of the summit of the head of the left person is a pity, and was unnecessary for the compo, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Great expression and color, but the cloning errors lead me to oppose for FP. Jonathunder (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture should be inserted into a subcategory of Category:Facepainting. Category:Supporters at FIFA World Cup 2010 sounds like the picture was taken in 2010 during the world cup, but this is a picture taken in 2007. Can't we have a more precise location ? Is it in a small village or a big city ? Any information about the make-up artist ? Was the picture taken in a public place or at a photographer's studio, or in any other private place ? Was that during a public event involving many people ? How can we be sure that they are soccer fans, or only models pretending to be soccer fans ? Are they models paid for that job ? Have they been interviewed ? Are they supporters with an experience of buying a ticket to see their national team ? The informative value of this picture remains a bit fuzzy. The author information is not precise enough. Who is the person who pressed the shutter Audrey Scales or Patrick Scales ? We need a permission E-mail, as the uploader is not necessarily the author. We need a confirmation that the author and the uploader agree with each other about the decision to release the picture as a free licenced picture. Teofilo (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment by the author: The picture was taken in South Africa 2007. It was shot in the open against a wall and has not been modified. The people on this photo are no paid models, but true supporters of the Bafana Bafana team and proudly South Africans. The young lady on the left side later took part in the opening ceremony in soccer city Johannesburg 2010 as a Capoeira Artist and in the closing ceremony as a dancer with Shakira. Octagon (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Brooms mexico.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 21:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded,nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An example of photographic texture -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support COMPOSITION! Face-smile.svg Really nice piece of photographic technic and a prime example for photographic texture. Great! --mathias K 10:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice shot, but I dislike how the left is cropped. Would be closer to best work on Commons if the composition was more balanced in that way. Steven Walling 02:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am close to nominating this picture for deletion as an out of COM:SCOPE artistic photo without informative purpose. We would need some info about the manufacturer, or the materials used : to which biological species do the vegetal materials belong ? Where is the picture located ? In a shop ? In which city or village in Mexico ? Teofilo (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Out of scope? It's a detailed picture of a common subject that could definitely be of educational value. Hardly out of scope. Being beautiful or artistic doesn't mean it's not edifying, and the artistic elements of composition in no way obscure the subject and its qualities. Steven Walling 20:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
We are unable to write a caption for this picture in a Wikipedia article. Are these brooms still used in Mexico today, or some brooms in a museum showing how brooms were manufactured a hundred years ago ? We are unable to provide reliable information about these brooms. Teofilo (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
While it is always better to have more than less info about a picture it is still not necessary that a picture has encyclopaedic value or that it is helpful for a wikipedia article. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice --Sylvy d'Acoz (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Teofilo, relax. -- deerstop. 22:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • No double voting, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment unstruck I see nothing in the history to indicate that User:Deerstop has edited this page more than once, there is no indication of other more serious actions in relation to account User:Deerstop. Gnangarra 01:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I like it and we could use it as a depiction of DOF. However, it could be nice to see a little more on the left side. Maybe I´ll nevertheless support later on. Nikopol (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the idea its good but for me the subject should have been shot from a level perspective reather than an elevated perspective that would remove the distraction of the handles in the foreground Gnangarra 01:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Mila –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strange crop, pretty shallow DOF for my taste. Also, I whould have shot from a slightly lower altitude, I feel like there's too much angle, which breaks the possible perspective effect. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose; Per Teofilo opinion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Deerstop. --Lošmi (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for the composition, though I agree more info should be given, the city and to verify these are new brooms in a shop. Name of plant used would also be very useful. --ianaré (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It does not show the full length of a broom. I think that this image is not very informative. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Old Japanese Train in Alishan.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 17:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old Japanese train on the Zhushan Line of Alishan, Taiwan
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded and nominated by Laurent 17:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Laurent (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems tilted, and a geotag would be nice. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Good points - I've added the geotag and made the image straight. I've also slightly adjusted the levels and saturation. Laurent (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blue channel is clipped in the sky. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Not really - that was just the sky color. Laurent (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Green sky? Strange! 718smiley-jonathan.svg. Seriously: 7,8% of the pixels have a value of 255 for the blue channel, this a stronge indication for clipping. It's not your fault, it's a limitation of today cameras and the jpeg format. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment hardly within COM:SCOPE until someone finds out exactly which train model this is. Pictures of random old trains, unidentified old trains are hardly needed within Wikimedia projects. The picture should be kept, though, because it is highly probable that someone knowledgeable in Japanese trains will find out. But right now it is too soon to consider this picture as a featured picture Wikimedia should be proud of having. Teofilo (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well it's not exactly an unidentified train - I put in the caption that it's the Japanese train on the Zhushan Line of Alishan (Taiwan). There's only one on that line so it could not be more identified than that :) I agree that it would be even better if the model was indicated though. I will try to find it out. Laurent (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the category to the same cat as all the other pics (16 of them!) of this engine . . . no doubt one of the other pics will already have this info on (ooops, they're not all the same engine, just similar, but different engine numbers ;-) MPF (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The German Wikipedia says "Betrieben werden die Züge mit kleinen Stangendieselloks von Mitsubishi, die eigens für diesen Betrieb hergestellt wurden und teilweise mit Cummins-Dieselmotoren von ca. 750 PS ausgerüstet sind." : de:Alishan Forest Railway which seems to mean they are custom-made locomotives made by Mitsubishi, so that the category should be Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi ?? Teofilo (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
By the way, how did you find out that it was a Japanese train ? Teofilo (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
On categories, it'd make more sense to put Category:Diesel locomotives of Alishan Forest Railway into Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi, rather than the individual photo(s) (assuming they're all Mitsubishi-made) - MPF (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes I think MPF's suggestion would make sense. I knew it was a Japanese train because I went there so I guess I heard it from someone or I read it somewhere. Laurent (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
✓ Done as MPF says. Teofilo (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support unique railstock, beautiful picture. Teofilo (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left part is really distracting. --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The contrast between green and red is beautiful, therefore, for artistic purposes which have nothing to do on Wikimedia websites (my apologies to the Wikimedia donators for spilling their money here), the left part is necessary to the general harmony of the picture. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I just happen to disagree with that: I can live with the colour, but the "modern" and quite common design of the tents (I don't know the specific work in English) does not really contribute to the harmony of the image. Also, it hides part of the train and is cropped in a definitely unsightly way. My opinion, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Bath from alexandra park.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

200MP version of the gigapixel image of Bath, UK
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by wjh31 - uploaded by wjh31 - nominated by wjh31 -- Wjh31 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral -- Wjh31 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Image quality (noise, lack od detail, washed out colours) and composition (out-of-focus) foreground) way below the present pano bar. Pretty obvious and clumsy clone job between the horizon and sky. Geometric distortion (buildings not vertical) quickly growing towards the margins. On the brim of FPX, really. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Divers luminosité, qualité hétérogène pour un panorama banal.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:St Marien ceiling.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Marien church ceiling in Osnabrück, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Zambezi Flood Plain, Namibia (EO-1).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zambezi Flood Plain, Namibia
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the NASA EO-1 team - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info True-colour satellite image of the eastern edge of the Zambezi floodplain.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment could it not be geotagged ? Teofilo (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what geotag would one apply? Centre of the pic, or one of the corners? Centre would be more meaningful, but less easy to catch accurately from google earth than the corners. The centre is roughly 17°44'27"S 25°02'20"E. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added that geotagging with "rough estimate" wording. Teofilo (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this could use {{Overlay}} ? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the geotagging for the precise one of Kasane airport: I think it is better than a rough estimate. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- deerstop. 22:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I see nothing within the guidelines that makes this an FP the ~4000x3000 px image doesnt reveal any detail, the composition is lacking any impact this no different to any of the 1,000s of satelite photographs that are around. Gnangarra 01:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I'm with Gnangarra on this one and don't understand what makes this picture extraordinary. Whas it some particular flood? And when did it occur? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes it is a shame that nobody pointed out the absence of date until you did. ✓ Done added date. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Gnangarra. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Gnangarra. --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I am not sure who I should believe, Gnagarra saying "doesnt reveal any detail" or the NASA writer saying "highly detailed true-color image". It is not as high a resolution as that of Google maps satellite views, which use Spot Image imagery. But the date is more precise, and it is a free file. Are we determined to highlight free contents? By the way the purpose is not to show the streets or the location of the hospital, but to show a floodplain and its eastern limit when it reaches a geological fault. This is also a highly educative content as the image is provided with a detailed, easy to understand description on the NASA website. In my opinion, the only thing missing on this view is "Here be lions" as used to be written on old maps. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it very much. It looks like a painting. --Lošmi (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Takabeg (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose La photo semble voilée de blanc, et les détails trop petits et trop nombreux rendent le document bruité.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Another brick on the wall.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Example of photographic color, texture and rythm, elements of design in photography. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral (for now) I can see what you try to show and I don't know why, but this one don't catches me as much as your brooms pictue. But defenitly a great pic with a really cool title! Face-smile.svg --mathias K 10:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Now Symbol support vote.svg Support for the great educational value in photographic technic. After looking longer on it I like it even more than your brooms picture. Face-smile.svg mathias K 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I see no reason why this should be featured. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A picture of a brick wall doesn't really have any educational value. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ... Prove it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, what does it teach to the person looking at it? That bricks are red? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC9
      • That could be one thing. But your questions do not prove your assertion. Prove it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No particular educational value we are in Art. The artist could work in manual and not automatic. He showed he had a good camera. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pieter Kuiper and Jonathunder oppose the image based on their opinion, and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it is their opinion, and they are entitled to that. Whether or not I agree with their opinion is inmaterial, and will not try to argue against it. But with your statements and the high fin sperm whale I do take issue, for you are not expressing an opinion, but issuing qualifying statements about the image. Starting with your statement that the image has no educational value, how do you substantiate it? From what criteria do you issue such statement? If you were a photographer, and if you knew about principles of design as they apply to photography, you would then recognize the elements that I mentioned, such as color, rythm and texture, which is what this image illustrates, hence its educational value. What happens here is that if you do not know about graphic elements, you cannot recognize them when you come accross them. Hence your statements about the image not having an educational value. As to me working in automatic and not manual, well, that too is inmaterial for you do not know how I make a desicion about working in manual or automatic. What I will tell you is that I make my desicions based on the zone system. Read about it. As to the nice camera, well, what does that have to do with your oppose? So my request to you and to the sperm whale is to prove that this image has no educational value, since you so authoritatively stated so. I think the participants of FPC deserve the courtesy of an explanation of your judgement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAny robot could take this picture. the quality of this picture is not related to work ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ... and any robot could oppose it too... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - while it's a very nice image, perhaps even QI, not special enough for FP, in my opinion. Jonathunder (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others, a good picture probably, but not "special" enough for a FP status. --Eusebius (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interest - yes, FP - no --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good photo as a picture for the Wiktionary article кирпичный (brick-red). -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed my mind. After doing some sorting, subcategorizing, diffusing tasks among heaps of bricks and brick walls yesterday and this morning, I discovered that this picture is one the few items we have as an illustration of the somewhat more rare "raking stretcher bond with bricks overlapping by one third of their length". So it's a keeper. The File name should be changed into something more informative. I suggest [[:File:Brick wall in León, Guanajuato, 2010-06-13.jpg]] Teofilo (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC) - I am no longer so sure about the bond identification. It could be a header/spanish bond with specific dimensions. Teofilo (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Teofilo (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportNot as simple as it seems to be. -- smial (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a brick wall...an ordinary picture of an ordinary brick wall. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    A brick wall yes. But not an ordinary modern one. Jonathunder (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Looks ordinary to me. Even if it isn't ordinary, is a picture of a brick wall really a good choice for a featured picture no matter how good the picture looks? I have a problem with seeing a picture like this close to the magnificent featured pictures that I have seen. Featured pictures should impress people. When people see this, most of them will probably be like "It's just a brick wall." Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Curculionidae 01 (MK).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 15:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

a Mononychus punctumalbum
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by -- mathias K 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support My first try with the new guidelines is a Mononychus punctumalbum on a closed blossom of a flower of the Iris family. Good to see are the holes which came from feeding from the blossom. -- mathias K 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I believe it could be darkened a little bit. It seems somewhat greyish for the moment. I did such an adjustment locally, but I didn't dare upload the modified file over the existing one. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a slightly darker version. The difference is just marginal but i wont go any further cause I'm really pleased with the result now. bg mathias K 09:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing image. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Confusing?? I can see a blossom and a bug. What is confusing on this? If you mean that you can see a ~ 5mm big bug so large on your monitor, than your right, that is confusing but imo no reason to oppose. So when you oppose please use comprehensible reasons. Thanks --mathias K 14:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was confusing. Where is the head of this bug? I cannot see it. I do not see a flower - I first thought that the bud was some stage of the insect. I am sorry for not being an entomologist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've added notes to indicate the head and snout - MPF (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
And now you are also leaving messsages on my talk page... please, you nominated, you invite comments, I commented. If you do not like it, do not nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No need to apologize. I dont see anything bad if I leave you a message on your talkpage if i cant understand your oppose. But OK, I will never ever do so. Promise! But I still dont understand your oppose when you don't see where the bug starts and the flower stops. Thats the point of macrophotography, to show the viewer a world he did`nt recognise allone. But OK. --mathias K 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Curculionidae 01 (MK)-crop.jpg

Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Thanks for the edit. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg InfoI did an a crop of the image and tried to get a better composition. I think that is the biggest problem of the image. Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've uploaded a tighter croped version to show more of the flower and the weevil. But I dont want to crop more cause I still want to show the blossom with the holes from the snout. I dont rotate the image cause a closed Irisblossom mostly stands upright. Face-smile.svg But thanks a lot for the try! So, please purge cache and have a look again. Thanks, bg mathias K 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- This is a weird little critter! I think the composition would improve a lot if the bottom half of the image were cropped. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, maybe, but than you only can see one tiny hole and not three. And the Irisflower is a strong part of the biotope from this weevil for feeding AND reproduction. Because the eggs where also put in this flower through nearly the same holes. And thats the reason why I want to show so much flower with the holes. bg mathias K 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks confusing to me to. Neither I can clearly see an insect, and neither the composition works for me. Sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Boer goat with two kids.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 12:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boer goat with two kids

File:Inkerman cave monastery 2009 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 05:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info All by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Inkerman orthodox men's cave monastery of St.Clement (VIII-IX century)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pudelek (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice pic. The extreme top right corner needs a spot of sky cloning in, though; will support when that's done. Oh, and someone should tell the monks to water the garden, some of the plants are wilting ;-) MPF (talk) 21:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: sky cloned in now - MPF (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Per MPF. Also, busy compsition, somehow too much going on for me (perhaps more DOF would help?). Lighting and technical quality nice, though. Nikopol (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I dont like the composition the plants are too dominant hiding the Cave aspect of the place Gnangarra 00:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done sky fixed now. And many thanks to MPF --George Chernilevsky talk 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice shot - Darius Baužys → talk 05:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture, but some quite visible noise, and above all I don't find anything so "special" in this picture. --Eusebius (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture. --Ліонкінг (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice picture. I like the view and the colours! Is there a picture on Commons from the inside? --A.Ceta (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)--A.Ceta (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik (my contribs) 09:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The trees on the left make me want to see this from a different angle. Even if that's not possible, this is annoying enough to mean it's not featurable for me. --99of9 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky is fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Ku pamięci - Łaziska Górne.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 12:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cemetery in Łaziska Górne (Ober Lazisk), Upper Silesia - grave candles
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is too dark to see the details. Laurent (talk) 12:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
We need both kinds of pictures. We need the kind of pictures providing details on how one candle looks like, and pictures showing the global visual effect of theses candles, when they are actually used. If people traditionally use many candles together, we need a picture showing many candles together. Teofilo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess the issue is that there are two large black areas in the two corners of the picture. Also, although the topic of the picture are the candles, it's not possible to see any one of them in full. They are all either hidden behind other candles or cut at the bottom of the picture. Laurent (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The picture is too dark --82.176.109.255 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry did not log in --Sylvy d'Acoz (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ditto to Laurent and Acoz. And brightening it wouldn't help, as it would leave the lights blown. - MPF (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too dark?? In the photo are candles. With the details... what do you want to see more? --Pudelek (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes night is darker than the day and we can't see as many details. But we need night pictures in order to report events that take place during the night. Teofilo (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -- Yes we need, and some of them (the best) are often considered good enough to reach FP status, as you will easily confirm with a quick browsing of the FP galleries. As for all the others, do you really believe that they loose their potential encyclopaedic value just because they were not promoted and run the risk of being deleted?...? I don't object when someone tries to make a point in a place like FPC (though some users very much do). But this place has a culture of its own, as well as a set of guidelines, which should be chechek carefully before trying to change the present status, especially when the attempts are made by someone not very familiarized with the process (yes, I read the crusade in Village pump against POTD) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very emotionally ... -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I don't like the composition which looks somehow random to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alvesgaspar - interesting but not FP to me. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Vai R06.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vai (Eastern Crete, Greece): the beach
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Vai on Crete is the only natural palm beach and palm forest of Europe -- MJJR (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral good quality, but just looks like a typical beach snapshot to me. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • In fact, it's both: a beach snapshot on the one hand, and a view of a unique botanical phenomenon - the only natural palm forest of Europe, as pointed out above - on the other... -- MJJR (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Malheureusement, l'endroit est certainement spécial, mais la photo l'est moins, même s'il n'y a pas grand chose à reprocher... - Benh (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:An Astronaut's Snapshot of the Moon.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 00:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apollo 17 astronauts Dr. H. Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan took this image of the Moon's Taurus-Littrow valley. The view shows the lunar roving vehicle near the rim of Shorty crater. In the distance are the mountain-like massifs that define the Taurus-Littrow valley. This region marks the last time - December 1972 - that humans walked and drove on the Moon's surface.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded by LuisArmandoRasteletti - nominated by LuisArmandoRasteletti -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- LuisArmandoRasteletti (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beautiful picture... but did you really take it? :) Laurent (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support It's not really fair that we have so many landscape pictures from Earth and almost none from other celestial bodies. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy(probably few others around here as well) to go get some pictures but we would need some funding assistance from the foundation to cover travel costs :) Gnangarra 08:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support something totally different from the usual NASA collection of FP's Gnangarra 08:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-Henswick (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol strong support vote.svg Strong support -- Really awesome. :) Von.grzanka (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support ( Support),

It looks like the photo is made of three photos pieced together, and this white line could be the intersection of two of the photos. Laurent (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Stitching artefact. You can see it continue downslope as a blur in the land. - MPF (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Can anybody fix it? Rastrojo (D•ES) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Truly amazing content, and surprisingly good quality for a 1972 shot. Small stitching issues and crosshairs are mitigated by... well, the obvious. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Amazing! Jacopo Werther (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Takabeg (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info How many degrees wide is that photo? More than 180°? On the right side of the picture the shadows point to a different direction than on the left side of the picture. ---donald- (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I would estimate 200-250°. Jujutacular T · C 13:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Very impressive view and quality but unfortunatelly too many stitching problems and CA. Sting (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can we really fault CA on the moon in the early 70s?? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • And it's not like we are going back there any time soon to take a better shot. Laurent (talk) 19:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that the fringes could have been desaturated in order to avoid those unatural purple areas as it's a very easy post-processing operation. For the stitching, unfortunatelly... Sting (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Iconic and for all practical purposes impossible to reshoot. — raeky (talk | edits) 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Lošmi (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - would like to support, but the number and badness of the stitching errors is just a bit too much. Would it be possible to get the individual section pics and re-stitch with more modern software? - MPF (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This site seems to have the full set of Apollo 17 images but unfortunately they resized them all to a low resolution :( They have some highres panoramas as well but not the one we're interested in. nasa.org and nasaimage.org don't seem to have the full set of pictures either. Laurent (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The other moon panorama looks better. --99of9 (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. If it passes, it should be delisted in favor of the other one. --ianaré (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Brown Bear bathing.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown Bear bathing
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love it --Llorenzi (talk) 14:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support funny and inspiring - an excellent candidate. it's got my vote! --Tb240904 (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good details on the splash. Daniel Case (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 05:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - a zoo photo, and not very illustrative for an article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 05:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not enough of the bear is shown or not enough of a bear's natural environment is seen. Also not sure if this behavior would happen in the wild. --ianaré (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ianaré and pieter --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Limited informative value. We can't see enough of the bear to see what it's actually doing. Laurent (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Pieter Kuiper - MPF (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above.--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 06:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I like the picture, but I don't think that it would be a good choice for a feature picture because of the reasons stated above. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ianaré --mathias K 06:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination

File:Vicinity of Pigeon Point Lighthouse.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lighthouse, and tide pools with wildlife
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info everything mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Composition -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Great framing and composition, showing different scales. Quality good enough. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Very nice, but loss of detail (overexposition) on the octopus, which is a significant subject in the composition. --Eusebius (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Alves. Despite some minor flaws a really good work Mila! Greetings mathias K 14:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great image, per supporters above. --Cayambe (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, but I don't really see the point of this - difficult shape for viewing (height 2× width); and what is the main subject, the dead octopus, or the lighthouse? I'd be inclined either to crop out the octopus to make a scenic coast shot, or else crop off the top to make an ecology photo of the dead octopus. Trying to fit both in doesn't work well. - MPF (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with MPF, sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
It is of course matter of taste, but IMO remove an octopus and get a boring lighthouse, remove lighthouse, and get a boring octopus. Besides there is not only octopus there, but also w:sea anemones, and hermit crabs. I agree format is different, but it is practically not noticeable in the full resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
"It is of course matter of taste" . . . hope I don't have to taste the dead octopus ;-)) [Sorry, couldn't resist!!] MPF (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If you really, and I mean really, would not like to taste the dead octopus, you'd better support the image Face-smile.svg. BTW was there something wrong with my English? Should I have used a different word?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, the English is fine, it's just my warped sense of humour ;-) MPF (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.I like that "difficult shape for viewing". -- deerstop. 10:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per MPF; no wow over a deceased octopus. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, it is not per MPF. It is an usual revenge of a "spoiled child" - kuiper. I knew about this oppose was coming after I removed kuiper's message from my talk page. kuiper, it is about time you'd grow up.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per all those above me. Kooritza (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it either way. Don't think it would be boring if the octopus was cropped out though. Think it would still have a lovely composition, a nice long shot. The design in the water lends interest itself. Stellarkid (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support glad you got it fixed --ianaré (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, but the long narrow composition with a subject of interest at each end does not work for me. Jonathunder (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the "subjects of interest" are not only the lighthouse, the octopus, sea anemones, and hermit crabs, but also the reefs, the very same reefs that were the reason of quite a few shipwrecks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As MPF. --Karel (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree with MPF. In my opinion, it works well. Schuylar (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Apollo 17 Moon Panorama.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 21:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the moon taken during mission Apollo 17 (Station 1 East)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by NASA - uploaded and nominated by Laurent (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While searching for the sources of this image, I came across this high res panorama of the moon. Great quality and details. -- Laurent (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need more extraterrestrial landscape pictures. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Cephas (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support excellent image --Tb240904 (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What a moonscape should look like. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --ianaré (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Takabeg (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support   ■ MMXX  talk  20:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 06:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Magnificent. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Przykuta → [edit] 16:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture. Schuylar (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wow! Jacopo Werther (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Citrus paradisi (Grapefruit, pink) white bg.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pink Grapefruit
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by א (Aleph) - retouched by Raeky - nominated by Mmxx --   ■ MMXX  talk  18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --   ■ MMXX  talk  18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not particularly stricking, detail in the fruit structure isnt overly clear any cross section should show seeds in whole not cut. The editing to adjust background to white appears to have drained colour from the fruits skin Gnangarra 12:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment that's incorrect about the color, the fruit was 100% masked from any changes to the background, it's identical in color, you can tell if you load both images up in your browser then switch back and forth between the tabs, or any other method of quickly switching between them to quickly visually tell the fruits color wasn't modified. — raeky (talk | edits) 19:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Blurpeace 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't see an issue with the colours, and do not know why seeds shouldn't be cut. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 22:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the fruit is the seed pod of the plant, disection should be to reveal the internal structures of the fruit . Gnangarra 00:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Isn't ruby red considered "seedless" i.e. it doesn't produce viable seeds, those are pretty small seeds for a citrus and is what I would expect from a seedless var. — raeky (talk | edits) 02:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, don't like artificial white backgrounds, I'd rather see them on a 'real' surface, as long as the surface is reasonably unobtrusive. PS yes, the pips are abortive, unfilled. - MPF (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support delicious!!! --A.Ceta (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — raeky (talk | edits) 14:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Brackenheim (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Steven Walling 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bonne qualité générale. Illustration nette.--HAF 932 (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I love grapefruit. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

File:Mulo sul monte Grappa.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 15:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mule on the Grappa mountains
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Luca Lorenzi - uploaded by Luca Lorenzi - nominated by Luca Lorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose composition not so good, details look oversharpened --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not a mule, it's a donkey. Steven Walling 20:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor angle and composition. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per comments above. I don't think this is the standard of a featured image --Tb240904 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not featured picture quality. Also, it's a donkey not a mule. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

File:2010 - tourmaline ring.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 06:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tourmaline ring
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Doronenko - uploaded by Doronenko - nominated by Doronenko -- Doronenko (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Doronenko (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- I don't like the composition and the shadows. Quality is not the best either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose please clean the stone before you take a photo. The underground is to noisy. Please use smooth paper. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy, also it needs a light source from the right to get rid of the shadows. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor quality --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Youngkitten.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 07:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the reasons stated above --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Dendropsophus microcephalus - calling male (Cope, 1886).jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 02:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dendropsophus microcephalus, male, calling.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Brian Gratwicke - uploaded and nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We only have 25 featured amphibians, and none of them are calling. I love action shots, and this one is high quality with elegant composition. (disclosure: Brian is a friend of mine, and occasional contributor, who I would like to further encourage toward Commons.) -- 99of9 (talk) 02:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Was this frog actually in the jungle, or in a cage? And was actually in front of a black background, or was this done with an image editor? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Most of his photostream are taken in situ, and those that aren't are usually in a light-box with a white background, but I'm not sure. I will ask, but his last facebook status update was "Ready to venture into the Darien. lets hope we get some good frogs." so I doubt we'll get a timely reply :). --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Brian just answered that it was taken in the wild at night. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 13:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:F-22+F-117+F-4+F-15.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 22:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An F-22 Raptor, an F-117 Nighthawk, an F-4 Phantom and an F-15 Eagle fly over Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., Oct. 27, 2007, during the Holloman Air and Space Expo. The expo showcased Air Force capabilities and the 49th Fighter Wing.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by the USAF - uploaded by Wikifreund - nominated by The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --JovianEye (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting. I taught at first that these are the toys on the blue background. --Lošmi (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So... ...a goal keeper is propaganda, and this is not? --Dschwen (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Quality so so, nothing extraordinary here. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - USAF military propaganda MPF (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose useful documentation but quality not so good --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bof, c'est une image comme les autres, rien ne la distingue côté composition, symbolique ou qualité technique.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per other opposes--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Quba 452.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Gulustan (talk) --Felix 06:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Waldemar Zukerman (talk) 09:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I find the clouds over exposed, and the 50/50 horizon too much of a distraction but concede that the location does give some value to image that cant be totally ignored Gnangarra 12:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • FPX Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Very poor image quality: noise, unsharpness, lack of detail, chromatic aberration, poor lighting -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Incorrect FPX: existing one support vote other than the nominator's. But i agree about quality --George Chernilevsky talk 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You are right, I misread the support vote. Chnage the FPX to oppose now. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hazy, poor quality, sky overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is the sort of picture one is always tempted to take and think will work. Unfortunately with the sun at this angle you can never quite get rid of the blown cloud fringes. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Unloading metal pipe.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Unloading metal pipe for storm sewer project in Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral as long as the dustspots are there. When they are removed I give a strong Symbol support vote.svg Support cause this is a very interisting and perfect composed picture. mathias K 09:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Change vote after edit by Tomas. --mathias K 14:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dust spots, but also oversharpened. The composition is very good though. --Eusebius (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Removed dust spots and uploaded an unsharpened version. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Far better IMO. I remove my opposition, but I don't support because I find the left part strangely unsharp, even near to the focus plane. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - valuable pic of construction work in progress, not easy to get. Around here, getting a pic like this would be impossible due to site security / health & safety regulations - MPF (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Eusebius: the left part with workman and background is unsharp. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:AbingdonTornado.JPG, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 18:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tornado near Abingdon, IL
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Jarrod Cook - uploaded by Truthsort - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I know this is probably a long shot, but I thought it was worth nominating anyway. This is one of the best high(er) resolution photographs of tornadoes on all of Commons. The words in the bottom left will probably cause some opposes, but I think that (with the exception of the photographer's name) they add information to the picture that would not be conveyed by just the photo itself. -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is the image description for this kind of information. Possibly the text could be cropped out or edited away if required. However image quality (mainly focus which appears to be on the grass in the foreground) is far away from featured picture standards in my opinion. bamse (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugly watermarking, among other things. Steven Walling 19:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Κατά I' ve just added the note in the picture. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Alt[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 18:44:17 (UTC)

Tornado near Abingdon, IL
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral This is one of the best tornado pictures, but it is rather noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Because the subject is out of focus (see the original un-cropped image which shows that the focus lies on the extreme foreground). bamse (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Κατά I' ve just added the note in the picture. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 10:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose better, but I' m not enthusiastic about the picture. --патриот8790Say whatever you want 10:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I support this version over my previously nominated version...it's much better without the tilt and watermark. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - The best of the 'high resolution' tornado images in Commons? What about this one ? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "...one of the best...", but still... Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 03:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pfefferminze natur peppermint.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I've made much effort to shot this image. It's a peppermint from close distance. I have used macro mode to improve the picture quality.

*Strong Support , I haven't see nicer image! Urgentos (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Composition, unsharpness and insufficient depth of field. --Cayambe (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Cayambe. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Low quality, poor composition, and unsharp. Tiptoety talk 23:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CheckUser note - Both Urgentos (talk · contribs) and the nominator, Aleksa Lukic (talk · contribs) are Artículo bueno.svg Confirmed sockpuppets of one another and have both been blocked for vote stacking and operating a rather large sockfarm. Tiptoety talk 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp - and sockpuppets? No... --Schnobby (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the subject is not in focus 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.

A long way from featurable, even with sockpuppet support! --99of9 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Burrowing Owl 4354.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 12:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A burrowing owl on the lookout
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 12:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Dori - Talk 12:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Inspiring composition! I was sure of my support until I opened the picture in full size and realized how unsharp it is... Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp bottom, i dont like downscaling. --Mile (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't either, what does downscaling have to do with my image? --Dori - Talk 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downscaled to 1.600 × 2.000 Pixel --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Ok, may also be a cut-out. (think first , vote afterwards) --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh it may be a crop? Thanks for the confidence. How about read the previous comments first? --Dori - Talk 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't find it unsharp. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question -- 'Don't find' it? I'm afraid this is not a question of opinion... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
      • You do exaggerate a bit. The photo is not unsharp (just look at the definition on the talons), it's just not as sharp as it could be as it's wide open. If it had been at f/8, it would have been sharper, but the background wouldn't have been as clean. --Dori - Talk 20:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik (my contribs) 09:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great composition. Laurent (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sooo unsharp. But at this "fir's postcard" size, I don't forgive (and also given hardware). Shame, because excellent otherwise. - Benh (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Kloster Ebrach BW 5.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong noise, some CA, not really sharp and not very satisfying composition. --Niabot (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ich habe schon gewartet. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Lag jetzt aber nur an der Aufmerksamkeit. Du musst zugeben, dass das Bild im unteren Bereich wirklich absäuft und oben überbelichtet wirkt. Das Kontrastverhältnis scheint mir nicht zu stimmen. Es wirkt so als würde man geblendet in die Sonne schauen. Zudem vermisse ich schmerzlich etwas mehr Detail, da das Motiv dieses an sich zu bieten hätte. Wäre mal ein Fall für dezentes HDR und Stitching. --Niabot (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunatly there is no tripod allowed, therefore no HDR and no stitching. So I tried to take most out of the RAW File and the contrast may seem artificial. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see little or no CA, the sharpness is OK, and the noise isn't that bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can't fault the composition and there is a lot less noise than there probably would be if I took it :-). Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but only just . . . I wish they could find some less obtrusive method of lighting, without all those ugly hanging black wires ;-) MPF (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Sorry but image quality is not good enough. I also don't like the extensive out of focus parts. Alvesgaspar (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. To me the bottom of the picture seems to be missing. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Karel (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

File:Nœud carré sur foulard scout.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 03:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Noeud carré sur un foulard scout. Ce noeud est un symbole su scoutisme, en France ainsi qu'en Suisse. (Petites retouches pour enlever des poussières).
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by HAF 932 - uploaded by HAF 932 - nominated by --HAF 932 (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It's a VI rather than an FP, imho. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't even know if it should be a VI. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    Maybe it's a VI, but I don't catch the difference. Thanks.--HAF 932 (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - sorry, but I don't see how this rises above an ordinary image. Nice knot, though. Jonathunder (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's an ordinary knot. Schuylar (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per Schuylar--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 05:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Pfahlbaumuseum Unteruhldingen amk.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stilt houses in Unteruhldingen
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Stilt houses in Unteruhldingen --AngMoKio (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not the most extraordinary quality, yet an interesting composition and subject. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 20:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bland composition. Steven Walling 19:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Could you please explain what is wrong with the composition? It seems an application of the classical "en:Rule of thirds". (You divide the "canvas" in nine more or less equal parts, and put the main object on one of the intersections.) MartinD (talk) 09:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - tourists. Would support if there was a bunch of re-enactment people dressed in iron age costumes instead ;-) MPF (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    Well this is a quite popular museum at the lake constance which mostly has visitors. So this pic documents the place as it mostly is. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    I'd be very surprised if they don't hold re-enactment events from time to time. A photo of one would be much more worthy of featuring, as it would show the place as close to its original state as possible - MPF (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like it! Not the easiest shot but well done! Composition is fine and the tourist should to be there if it`s an used museum. OVerall really good, but where is the panning? Face-smile.svg --mathias K 14:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
hehe...yeah...unfortunatelly those tourists were to slow for a decent panning shot ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the tourists; it's what it is, right? The image should reflect the realism of the place. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Semperoper bi night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 08:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Semperoper in Dresden by night
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Soccer goalkeeper.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Master Sgt. Lance Cheung - uploaded by Stianbh - nominated by Thick thi sock -- Thick thi sock (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Thick thi sock (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. I don't believe Commons should become a mean of propaganda for the US Army, with all due respect. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 12:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Uh? What’s the pattern between a football (soccer) photography and the US Army? Do you see any military content here? Diti the penguin — 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Noisy :( Rastrojo (D•ES) 14:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noisy, but good action shot. --Lošmi (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Poor framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much action blur, in my opinion, and not the best framing. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 19:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice action shot. Laurent (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Could be better: too much noise, some unwanted vignetting; but nice action photography. Diti the penguin — 22:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not believe the vignetting is unwanted - it could easily have been removed. It rather creates a tunnel effect, which supports the impression of speed and movement. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I usually do not support this USAF propaganda crap but this is military-free and a great shot. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blur. Steven Walling 01:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Ουδέτερο per Diti. Thank you, --патриот8790Say whatever you want 06:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Agree with H005. MartinD (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling et al. Where did they find a person who looks so much like Frankenstein's Monster?? MPF (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the ball is blurred. This is the focal-point of the image, therefore it should be clear. --Tb240904 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Odd. To me it looks like the player (e.g. the expression on his face, his struggle to reach the ball) is the main subject of the image. A player should always keep his eye on the ball but the photographer isn't on the team. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry and too much noise. Jujutacular T · C 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fleeting action shots deserve some special consideration, they are much harder to get sharp than stationary subjects. This has an exciting mood, and the motion blur on the ball only gives it more activity. --99of9 (talk) 10:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Avala (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support An unblurred ball is a little bit asked too much. :-) Really great picture, the composition, the way the keeper looks... --Ziko (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, and I agree with 99of9 and Ziko. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support action.-- Mbz1 13:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice action. --Karel (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jklamo (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Wolf (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Ja bym wam chętnie pokazał, pod hajrem i jak boniedydy, prawdziwą propagandę dla, psia kość, dosadnego porównania, i w te pędy skończyłyby się te nieprzytomne wydziwiania. Niektórym chyba przydałoby się z piętnaście lat życia w peerelowskim reżimie.
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As last time. Lycaon (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the good composition, although the quality is not that good. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Image:Dortmund-U-100616-14203-Weitwinkel.jpg, not featured[edit]

Deutsch: Dortmunder U, das neue Museum für moderne Kunst in den Gebäuden der ehemaligen Union-Brauerei English: "Dortmunder U", new museum of modern art in Dortmund, former Union brewery

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by smial (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)]]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --smial (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik (my contribs) 09:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good point of look George Chernilevsky talk 10:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Nice picture but nothing extraordinary jsutifies FP status. BTW, there is obvious noise in the darker parts, e.g. the windows. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some ordinary buildings. Yann (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - interesting subject, and creative angles were probably required to get the shot, but the composition does not work for me here. Jonathunder (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Nice quality, but it didn't have that "wow, look at that!" effect when I saw it; it's just some buildings. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 12:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Alvesgaspar - nothing extra. --Karel (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not special enough for FP. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor JSOH.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 06:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Rob Shenk - uploaded by File Upload Bot - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- JovianEye (talk) 06:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Llorenzi (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Neat photo, the postcombustion is cool (pun not intended :P), but I think it is a little too noisy and the crop is a little too tight. Diti the penguin — 22:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Let the poor thing breathe -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have restored the 1st version. The cropping in that is more relaxed. --JovianEye (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Great shot. --Cephas (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sujet centré et bon paramètres techniques.--HAF 932 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - More USAF military propaganda. - MPF (talk) 23:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per MPF. Yann (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I find MPF's and Yann's reason for oppose unreasonable! This image was not taken by the US Air Force and therefore IMO is not military propaganda. It was taken by Rob Shenk at an Air Show. --JovianEye (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If it had been taken by the USAF, what would have made it propaganda? I just see a photo of an aircraft… be it taken by the military or not. Diti the penguin — 19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It is mainly the frequency with which candidates broadly similar to this one appear as FPC - there are already more than plenty of them. Plus a semi-joke reference to some of the comments here - MPF (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Grattacielo Cesenatico 2009 - vista est.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 14:39:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dialog-warning.svg
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's extremly blurred --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Burrowing Owl 4212.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Burrowing Owl
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created, uploaded, nominated --Dori - Talk 14:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Another view of these little guys. --Dori - Talk 14:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Downscaled to 2.000 × 1.334 Pixel --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC) may also be a cut-out --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Darius Baužys → talk 19:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --MZaplotnik (my contribs) 09:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bit small, but otherwise good shot. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I prefer http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Burrowing_Owl_Florida.jpg (shameless self-promotion) although I don't like the down angle of that shot. The candidate picture is nice and well-shot, but I am not sure I like the composition and how it is cropped. Tomfriedel (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I enjoy your work Dori, but this one seems to have an unnatural lower crop and unfortunate shooting angle. --99of9 (talk) 07:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I cropped it on purpose that way. I have a full image, but the lower half is rather out of focus. Here's another take. --Dori - Talk 00:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice grim look! Amada44  talk to me 18:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as 99of9 — Lycaon (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As 99of99 --Karel (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Safari in Ngorongoro.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Muhammad (talk) 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could you please let us know what you find outstanding about this? Your contributions are usually wonderful, but this one completely bemuses me. --99of9 (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Tons of Educational value IMO. For instance, this is the only safari image in the wikipedia safari article. --Muhammad (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't see how this rises above an ordinary image. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jonathunder. --JovianEye (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but per 99of9. I can't share ur reason why this picture should be featuerd. Educational value is no part of the guidelines and using it in an article don't make the picture much better. Neither the quality nor the composition makes this pic outstanding enough to get featured imo. bg mathias K 15:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "Value" is a part of our guidelines, be it educational or any other form. Jujutacular T · C 04:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Jonathunder. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not special enough – but probably QI. --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jonathunder--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 05:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Baigneurs a Asnieres.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 08:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bathers in Asnières.
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Georges-Pierre Seurat - uploaded by Yann - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 08:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- патриот8790Say whatever you want 08:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Trace (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Provisional Symbol support vote.svg Support - nice pic - but is this version on en wiki even better? It is nearly nine megabytes compared to just one for this pic, and the colour reproduction is a bit brighter too, less greyish, 'washed-out' looking. - MPF (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This isn't just a nice looking image, it's unique also. Joe Chill 2 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC):
    But is it unique? There appears to be a larger version pointed to in the comment above. Jonathunder (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    I missed that. Anyway, like the others above, I think that this should be featured. Is it possible to replace this one with that image? Joe Chill 2 (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You should just move your support to the alternative below. We don't actually have to replace the file - some may prefer this version. --99of9 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternate version[edit]

Bathers at Asnières, Georges Seurat, 1884.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Whiskey Beach.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 09:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by Noodle snacks - nominated by Noodle snacks -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support About the last place I saw my circular polariser :( -- Noodle snacks (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - something's gone very badly wrong with the sea, flat, featureless, whitish. Where are the ripples and the sea colour? - MPF (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't know if you're ironic, but I lose nothing in explaining (I find the reasons you raised unfair): It's because of long exposure (exif says 25sec) and you can obtain this sort of results by using ND filters and/or eventually polarizers (which bring additional 2 stops loss). Lighting from early morning probably helps as well. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Or could it be evening ? - Benh (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support nice use of long exposure (as always), but I'm supporting mainly for composition and color. --ianaré (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is the idea of the long exposure? --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To make a potentially good pic look awful - MPF (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose -- Not special enough in my opinion. I find the composition and colours a bit boring. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ack Alvesgaspar, and the fact u lost ur polarizer there isn't special enough to me. You have much more impressive similar "surreal" pictures. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - not enough wow factor for me, sorry. Jonathunder (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have seen too many images of this photographic affect of blurred moving water. How many FPs of this photographic effect does the wiki need? Snowmanradio (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per above.--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 07:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Υπέρ --патриот8790Say whatever you want 04:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/June_2010&oldid=40963628"