Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 11:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of arms of the Czech Republic.svg
Oppose now wow, nothing oustanding for FP --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info French caption (blasonnement) added.--Jebulon (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question I'm interested to find a primary source showing a golden crown on the head of the black silesian eagle. I'm not sure about this specific ornament...--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) But it is good, according to the czech text (...zlatou koronou...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 12:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca mulatta, Puerto Rico.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Macaca mulatta, Puerto Rico.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 15:50:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support bin ja kein Fan von strahlendem Sonnenschein mit harten Schatten, aber die Schattenwürfe der Bäume auf den Turm gefallen mir. Passt. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Solid work, wb is not so good imho, good QI but I don't see why it should be FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Good picture, with a crop a bit tight however, no opinion about the wb, but as Berthold Werner about the FP status.--Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 21:29:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 19:58:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Map Berlin Brandenburg Airport.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Map Berlin Brandenburg Airport.png
Support clearly arranged map, for me the absolutely appropriate inscriptions, we have a complex topic, commendable solved --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Is it less kreativ, or less worth to invest hours of creating a well-arranged graphic, then a successful photoshot? - Just to think about. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Needs to be vector-based. พ.s. 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment A svg-version would be nice, I know (I prefer it too) - but it's extremly difficult with graphics of this complexity to convert it to a error-free svg-file. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I have created a vector version of this file. Please check it if I did wrong or you can fix it. Regards, --Katarighe (Talk) 17:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not a vector version, that is a bitmap with an SVG coat. พ.s. 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 04:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support FPD removed. Let this is my nomination. I give my limit of nominations to this candidate and support -- George Chernilevskytalk 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Uniform background, good crop, and high resolution (8,846418 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 06:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 00:56:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Altensteinia virescens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Altensteinia virescens.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 01:00:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Background is very different the left and right, and it interferes. Otherwise good. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Same here: noisy, and unsharp in one zooms in. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Bad crop: the lower flower is disturbing. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 10:45:02(UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grandtetonnational park59887215.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grandtetonnational park59887215.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small at 0.6 megapixels. —Bruce1eetalk 11:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 21:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:View of the Rabí Castle (2) 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:View of the Rabí Castle (2) 2.JPG
Support I know that this image was already nominated, however this improve version was active only for last 3 days with 5 positive votes and no oppose one. I'd be thankful give one more chance to it see if in normal voting period will be more successful. Thank you for this opportunity! :) -- Chmee2 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I think for FP, one should get better sky conditions. Not mandatory but, the lighting here could be improved a lot. Some areas are very dark. Another photo from the same place in other conditions would be totally featurable though, imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I rather like the somber mood, it's fitting for a fortress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianare (talk • contribs)
Support The cloudy sky is fine. Yann (talk) 07:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment sky conditions are super, also the light and composition, but the image is oversharpened --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Carschten, and I fight against the dictatorship of blue skies. But the castle itself looks bad (oversharpening ?), enough for a "decline" vote, sorry. I like the light and the composition very much though.--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 20:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Палач,-Петропавловская-крепость.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Палач,-Петропавловская-крепость.jpg
Support Fine. Uniform background ang high resolution (7,265496 megapixels). –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Impressive. I think the colors are very good (the nuances of the dress). Nit picking: a very little red CA at the top of head, and the sharpness of the block not perfect.--Jebulon (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question Did I miss something, or the info about the end of the voting period (29 jan.) is wrong ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 00:47:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amanohashidate view from Kasamatsu Park01s3s4410.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanohashidate view from Kasamatsu Park01s3s4410.jpg
Oppose Beautiful view, but there're Chromatic aberrations, blown parts, black areas, noise, chroma noise... too many details for FP status in my opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 02:57:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Unfortunate crop, I would see the car lower in the frame; the dust would be more interesting than empty road. --ianaré (talk) 23:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per ianaré. I have the same feeling that framing is not the best. --Chmee2 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 17:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus unicolor LC0239.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haematopus unicolor LC0239.jpg
Info A couple of the Variable Oystercatcher (Haematopus unicolor), created, uploaded and- nominated by Jörg Hempel
Regretful Delist Very interesting place. Nice mood, quality not terrible. I would have liked trying to fix this picture rather than delist it... but then, the blur is really too bad. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist poor quality and colours, bad composition and light --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
== Hamza Issa Farid est un Djiboutiens,et il est un etudiant .Il a commence L'etude de 1 er année jusqu'a second;ecole Champion et Lycée Mandela.Et Mantenant,il passe L'anticipe blanc.Il à une belle Famille,les noms des freres: Mahomed,Ibrahim,Abdi,Idriss,Sadik,Hamza,Bilal,Youssouf;et les noms des soeurs:Moumina,Rahma,Zamzam;les noms des parents:Issa Farid Adaweh,Fardoussa Sayed Idriss.Et aussi son couleur préferée est: Rouge;son matieré est:Arabe.Il est Muslumans; il decteste les menteurs et les voleurs;il aime ses familles et ses amis; et il aime trop voyage comme Dubai;Turkey...
Delist I like the composition and there are no CA, but the image is full of (colour) noise, sharpness and details are on an low level; also poor colours --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The new version is much better. Very good work, Wetenschatje! --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Because of the historical value of the subject. A FP is not only a super Quality Image. We have to be very careful in the delisting process IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Isn't the rationale "because of the historical value" lacking in NPOV? What makes the subject of high historical value? Tomer T (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see any point of view, neutral or not, here. Opinions about this barrier is not important here. But this barrier exists, and it is an historical fact.--Jebulon (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Jebulon.. the image quality is not so bad..and the subject has high encyclopedic value and aesthetically is nice. do we have another featured image, like that, of the isreali barrier? Ggia (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Good picture of historical value. Achird (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No noticeable chromatic aberration, no reason to delist --Tony Wills (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. I would have voted to delist the original version, per Carschten, but Wetenschatje's subsequent edit has improved it a lot. Still not that sharp, but good enough IMO. --Avenue (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 01:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Weak support -- The out-of-focus impala in the background is a little distracting, but otherwise I like it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate composition with the the edge of the waterhole being aligned with the underside of the heads of the two rightmost impalas and the back of the leftmost. พ.s. 10:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support there is enough "wow" for me due to the water droplets falling of the snout of the specimen in the middle. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 12:26:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anton Raphael Mengs, The Triumph of History over Time (Allegory of the Museum Clementinum), ceiling fresco in the Camera dei Papiri, Vatican Library, 1772 - M0tty.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anton Raphael Mengs, The Triumph of History over Time (Allegory of the Museum Clementinum), ceiling fresco in the Camera dei Papiri, Vatican Library, 1772 - M0tty.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by M0tty -- M0tty (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2012 at 17:24:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bahía Onelli Parque Nacional Los Glaciares Patagonia Argentina Luca Galuzzi 2005.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bahía Onelli Parque Nacional Los Glaciares Patagonia Argentina Luca Galuzzi 2005.JPG
Info created & uploaded by Lucag - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Kelidimari (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think this is very beautiful, and the colors and peaceful feel of this photo is nice.Reply[reply]
Support Shots like this too often wind up being the ones that you think "But it looked like it was going to be cool!" when you finally look at them. But this one has the composition and colors just right. Daniel Case (talk) 07:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 13:44:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Belfry Panormitis monastery.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belfry Panormitis monastery.jpg
Support View of the colorful belfry of the Monastery of Archangel Michael in Panormitis, in the little island of Symi, Dodecanese, Greece.-- Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Undersaturated under greek sun.:-/--Jebulon (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose In-camera processing or post-processing has removed lots of fine details. Colours (saturation) could be OK, I can't judge that. Composition is a bit random and there might be a slight CCW tilt. พ.s. 08:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for serious, even if negative, review. I don't think lots of details are lost, and don't see any obvious tilt. Composition is matter of taste and was maybe wrong in your opinion, but not random. I need other opinions, please.--Jebulon (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I don't see problems with this picture besides the crop. Don't think it is random but it is not optimal either. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 04:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Earth western hemisphere from Suomi NPP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Earth western hemisphere from Suomi NPP.jpg
Info created by NASA/NOAA/GSFC/Suomi NPP/VIIRS/Norman Kuring, uploaded by and nominated by -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Hellbus (talk) 04:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC) Very high resolution (64 megapixels) and sharp focus throughout.Reply[reply]
Support Wow! A great image of our small planet. Yann (talk) 07:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I change my vote. Nice but wrong proportions. Yann (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Support wow it's my favourite picture. our blue planet :)--Davidსაქართველო 09:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*Neutral Not bad. Yet another NASA picture of the earth... I prefer pictures made by wikimedians.--Jebulon (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. The size of landforms is not the normal one and gives a false impression. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I change my vote, Per Thierry Caro and ws. Is the Gulf of Mexico so bright ?--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brightness in the Gulf could be due to algal blooms. พ.s. 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Misunderstanding, my mistake, due to poor english. I meant "large", "wide", about the visual distortion. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I just read Thierry Caro's comment, then noticed inmediately the wrong proportions. It's weird how one doesn't notice such an important detail at first sight. This is really misrepresentative of the earth. Not really encyclopedic, au contraire. That planet looks like Americaland, not the earth. I heard on the radio about this pic from NASA. Why would (on purpose??) NASA make this unrealistic representation? As if they could not do a perfect job... --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose confusing and unexplained distortion, as remarked above. --ELEKHHT 15:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Thierry Caro is right. I compared it with this image, and with a globe on Google Earth. North America is definitely oversized. I can't believe they said it's "most detailed picture of Earth ever seen", and it has wrong proportions?! o.O --Lošmi (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't oppose due to explanation about satellite position. --Lošmi (talk) 03:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I hadn't really paid that much attention to the proportions before, but now I see it too. It looks a bit like fisheye-distorted view, but I can only guess. Hellbus (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that it got a fish eye like effect which, in this case, makes the USA look quite enormous compared to the apparent "diameter" of the Earth seen here. This is an important matter which should be mentioned about this picture! Otherwise the picture would really mislead less attentive people. What comes to the picture itself, it is really beautiful and detailed... But..! --Ximonic (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because the satellite seems to be named as Suomi which means Finland (even though it was named after Verner E. Suomi) they should take this kind of fish eye picture where Finland fills the entire half of globe. :-) Let's talk about false impression after that... --Ximonic (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Ximonic is right, the picture has probably been taken so close to the Earth that a substancial part of the visible hemisphere is "behind the horizon". Take the Earth representation in Google Earth and imagine cropping the image with a smaller circle. The result is similar to the present picture. This is not a distortion, in the sense people is using here, just a close-up. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment For those concerned about the fisheye/cropped aspect of the picture, would amending the description to reflect that fact help? Hellbus (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely should be explained, as is very different from common perspectives and projections. --ELEKHHT 04:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added the following text to the beginning of the image description. Hellbus (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC) "A view of most of North America taken from a low orbit. This vantage point results in a view that is distorted much like that of a fisheye camera lens, making the land mass appear disproportionately large. NASA description follows."Reply[reply]
Oppose per fisheye effect. -- Kaldari (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm even considering to propose this "image" for deletion. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment and Support -- I can't understand the animosity against this image. This is not a fisheye effect at all! When looking at a sphere you only see (almost) a full hemisphere when you are very, very far from it. The closer you are the less you see. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think what is meant by "fish-eye effect" and "distortion" is not that is "artificial" use of a special lens, but that is a very particular perspective, in contrast to the ones we are used to, taken from further away and which are closer to the projections used in mapping. The problem I see is that it does not provide any significant advantage in terms of major additional detail in the centre, while reducing the overview. Furthermore, the distinction from the "standard" perspectives is here ambiguous as some of the usual conventions are kept (i.e. north upwards), and thus the viewers are confused, as well demonstrated above. --ELEKHHT 20:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let them be confused, they will undestand and maybe learn something then - isn't this a purpose of the project? Of course the description of file should explain this. --sfu (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe a good image should be self-explanatory. For instance here is clear for anybody that the image is from close-distance (while the description is also more precise). My other argument illustrated, is that I find a good overview more educational. --ELEKHHT 00:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe so. I think description is needed sometimes. --sfu (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alves you are right with the distance, but it suggests that you see the whole (half) globe, but it isn't so. -- -donald- (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Jes. People. It really looks that way if you are close to the surface. You can only see full hemisphere if you are far enough from the surface. Being very strictl you can only see full hemisphere while being in infinite distance from the sphere. Plese read the: en:Horizon, please. --sfu (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment A shot from the moon is far less than infinite. It would be good enough, no need to go to infinity. It gives a perfectly precise enough idea of what the continents and landmasses sizes are, compared to the total size of the earth. We are not arguing technical facts, fisheye distortions and crazy calculation stuff here, as I've understood. We are just opposing because when a person opens the file gets a wrong proportion of the landmasses, which is not very helpful for an encyclopedia. If I were a learning kid and looked at this picture I'd get confused (what the heck, is the north pole in the grand canyon?? Is California the opposite of Ushuaia? Are Asia plus Europe smaller than America????). Problem here is, that this stitched pano's contour is round, coinciding with the earth roundness. Had it been a circular sector, there would have been no problem. But the file, as it is, is misleading, no matter what we say. It is an extremely cool panoramic image, but it gives more wrong information than it gives right. --Paolo Costa (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, bacause I have a slight impression that you are trying too suggest it's arifficial: if you where on this height above Mexico as the satellite you would see exacly the same. The fact that it looks that way is a very strage indeed, and that is why it's worth to show it to the people. Of course the decription have to be changed, as now it doesn't mention the word horizon, nor the height of the satellite above the ground. Give people something confusing, and explain to then. Are you really stucked in showing people nice but not surprising views and animals? If look at the picture more carefully you will see that the atmosphere is very thick in it. That's because the satellite was close to the surface. Everything fits, it looks that way. What have to be changed is the description, which should mention the approximate height of the satellite and the link to horizon. It's disturbing, it's true, Great! Then that's what we want (with a good description)! Ok, I'll try to make the description today. --sfu (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also the file name have to be changed. --sfu (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2012 at 22:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Cook LC0247.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mt Cook LC0247.jpg
Info Aoraki/Mount Cook as seen from Hooker Valley. Created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Weak oppose. Excellent weather, and beautiful, but it's just the standard shot of Mt Cook up the Hooker Valley, so no great wow to me. Agree with Carschten about the composition. --Avenue (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2012 at 17:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Reflet-tour-Eifel-Paris-Luc-Viatour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Reflet-tour-Eifel-Paris-Luc-Viatour.jpg
Info Check Category:France FOP cases/kept the Eiffel tower by night has been restored. Eiffel tower is in public domain, the SETE claims to have registred copyright which is impossible in France (you only register patents and industrial properties stuff), copyrights exists just by the creation. PierreSelim (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Wow for me, I like the composition which is the not usual picture of Eiffel Tower by night. PierreSelim (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Pretty cool. But I think it is a little too dark isn't it? --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose superb idea, but the image is noisy and I would prefer more space at top and less at bottom --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Interesting concept, including WOW, but insufficient image quality (e.g. noise). พ.s. 13:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support a very interesting and fantastic shot. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, noisy. But...Did somebody ever see such a view of this monument ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support with a reservation. This is not a picture of the Eiffel tower, but of the reflection of the Eiffel tower in a sheet of water. I'm sure French lawyers will appreciate the difference. I'm equally sure they will take this completely nonsensical and idiotic matter seriously. MartinD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 15:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus, por Sávio Freire Bruno.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus, por Sávio Freire Bruno.jpg
Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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 size is less than 2MPx
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Name and description of file purports to show a full moon. In fact, the moon shown is not a full moon, so should not be a featured picture illustrating a full moon. Suggest another picture showing an actual full moon would be a better candidate for a featured picture.
Comment I'm not sure if there is a way to withdraw my nomination, but I've changed my vote. Meanwhile, I've also emailed the author, who has a much better camera now and possibly could simply replace the picture with a better one, which would satisfy some of the criticisms when originally featured.Victor Engel (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It says "nearly full moon". The name can be changed. I didn't understand why it should be delisted though. Tomer T (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep No valid reason to delist, and I wish people would get over filenames - a filename is not a description! --Tony Wills (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It says nearly full moon because I made that edit. It says full moon in other languages, and it's referenced by a number of pages as a full moon picture. It's wrong for it to be used as an example of a full moon picture. That's what I would like to correct, but I'm not sure how to accomplish that. Delisting it is one step toward that direction.Victor Engel (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It is a Featured Picture because of the quality of the image, it wasn't featured because it was of a full moon, that is irrelevant to its featured status. You are quite welcome to correct the descriptions and captions wherever they occur, and even request a rename of the file. But your reason for delisting appears to be that you think it is easier to delist than bother to correct what you see as a problem. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CommentIt would be nice if I could receive some constructive comments. Did you follow the link posted to the comment you replied to? Did you see that the picture is listed there as a featured full moon picture? Note that this is the first time I've dealt with modifying the status of an existing wikimedia commons entry, so this is new ground for me. Rather than criticize what I'm doing, instructing me what I SHOULD do would be more helpful. I have not followed all the links to this picture, but I suspect there are a number of pages that use this picture to illustrate a full moon. If those pages are to be corrected to reference another picture (there are plenty out there), what is the best way to do that?Victor Engel (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:Result: 0 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevskytalk 10:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 14:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Malta Gozo Ta Pinu BW 2011-10-08 10-18-54.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Malta Gozo Ta Pinu BW 2011-10-08 10-18-54.JPG
Support -- Loved this the moment I saw you first post it. In checking the WWW I don't think there is one that is better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Beautiful church, good quality. I don't like the environment though, with all the dry vegetation. Lacking some sharpness too. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The dry vegetation is typical for the region. --Mbdortmund (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 23:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schlammspringer Periophthalmus sp.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schlammspringer Periophthalmus sp.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tachar Persepolis Iran.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tachar Persepolis Iran.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2012 at 19:59:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Weißeritztalbruecke-pano.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Weißeritztalbruecke-pano.jpg
Info The bridge is very distorted. Take a look to Google-Maps. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I have no problem with the distortion, we have a very wide viewing angle, well done sitching and a very interesting view of the bridge --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think geometric distortions are sometimes needed in order to give a wider view. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. + bad crop IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose poor distortion and crop at bottom. Panoramics are not always useful... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 20:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 10:19:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2010-02-20-kickboxen-by-RalfR-01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2010-02-20-kickboxen-by-RalfR-01.jpg
Oppose Good action shot, but motion blur is a bit strong, and composition seems indecisive. For instance, legs are cut off, top and right crop very tight, busy background. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 12:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with Maurilbert, composition is way below FP quality. Legs seem to be important in this sport so shouldn't be cut off. The relationship to the spectators might be interesting but was mostly missed here. And the file description doesn't say very much about the image either. Instead there is an endless list of licenses, including many NC. --ELEKHHT 20:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Paolo Costa. Additional, partially over-sharpened and strong noise. --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong oppose Commercial stopped badly, poor crop, and an uneven background. Not featured. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 08:48:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus LC0202.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gyps fulvus LC0202.jpg
Info Griffon vulture (Gyps fulvus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Comment Light is not good, with shade on the face of the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I find that the shade in the face and the drop of blood increase the dramatic expression, which match the bird's reputation. Yann (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Not a drop of blood, IMO, but a piece of flesh/meat.--Jebulon (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose very bad light: shady face and strong blown parts on the plumage --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 20:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:MG PA 6 Race, 1300 cm³, Bj. 1936 (2008-06-28 Sp).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:MG PA 6 Race, 1300 cm³, Bj. 1936 (2008-06-28 Sp).jpg
Support Nor the sharpness (at high resolution) neither the background look optimum (backgrounds are always difficult for cars...), but it is a very good picture, "featurable" IMO. I support.--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Really a very unappealing background, just as in focus as the car. The resolution isn't great and the crop is too tight right and left. It's a decent illustration of the car, but not featurable. I've seen much better pictures of vehicles fail, such as this one: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Yellow Lamborghini Gallardo edit2.jpg. Julia\talk 21:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The background, a box in the historic paddock of the Nürburgring, is authentic and marvelous. I like the silence of this moment between the competitions. --Pitlane02talk 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - Beautiful car. The background shows that it was photographed in its element - the paddock/pits at a race track. Royalbroil 23:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 16:05:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Molière Mignard Chantilly.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Molière Mignard Chantilly.jpg
Support this rare and pretty little portrait of Molière by Mignard, 55cm X 48.5cm. On display at Château de Chantilly, France. Photo not made by Mr.Google.-- Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support just an observation it could even go main page on the 17th Feb the date Molière died 339 years ago Gnangarra 00:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 18:01:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Narasimha oil colour.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Narasimha oil colour.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2012 at 19:34:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I wouldn't support it on en because it shows only part of the animal, but gladly do here. Nice for showing semi-aquatic lifestyle. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not enough edits to vote. Yann (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose bad light and background (too similar like the animal) IMHO --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 22:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the principle of camouflage... If the environment was yellow, I don't think the lizard survive long.--Citron (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great. I particularly like the position of the head and the eye, directly pointing at the viewer. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 15:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 03.jpg
Support Very beautifully, good color. --Aleks G (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Fantastic view! But is WB ok?? seems too yellow, also considering the blown parts in the clouds. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Sometimes the world really does look like a painting. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support wonderful lighting - Benh (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I'm a bit worried about the white balance. It seems very yellow or green. In such weather condition as it seems to be I would expect a little more reddish tones too. --Ximonic (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...with different white balance. Maybe not perfect but to give the idea.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arcade.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arcade.jpg
Oppose Sorry but, I see it more as a valued hystorical picture, not as a FP, because it is 'almost symmetric', and I don't like the lower crop, nor the vert/horizontal ratio (top could be cropped a bit imo). --Paolo Costa (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 04:52:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Delphine, Madame de Staël, Paris, 1803 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Delphine, Madame de Staël, Paris, 1803 01.jpg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Coyau (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 12:28:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mumiae, Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte IMG 1897 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mumiae, Museum für Hamburgische Geschichte IMG 1897 edit.jpg
InfoMummia in a box, pharmacists collection of the hamburgmuseum - created, edited, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEISTALK 12:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment da fehlt für meinen Geschmack eindeutig (irgend)ein Größenvergleich. Ich kann mir gerade überhaupt nicht vorstellen wie groß diese Box ist ( a size comparison is sadly missed here IMO) --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Die korrekte Beschreibungen und Metadaten werden aus dem Museum nachgeliefert. Ein Datenexport erfolgt demnächst und war bei Erstellung technisch nicht möglich. So viel vorab: die Box ist etwa so groß wie eine Hand. Oben auf kannst du den Inhalt der Schachtel sehen. Das ist etwa so feinkörnig wie feiner Sand. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - entire object should be sharp for FP. --Claritas (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is good to show detail through the whole image in an encyclopedic picture. Blur is good for artistic pics, but sharpness is necessary here. It depends on the use of the image. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all. It depends on the photographer's decision. It's hard for me to understand what makes you believe that the whole object should be in focus. Using that shallow depth of field and having this bokeh was created intentionally. Using a larger aperture would provide insufficient optical resolution and therefore less sharpness. The faded label does not provide a distinct sharpness. Yet one can estimate the focal point when looking at the Mummia atop of the box. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 21:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what Details do you expect on the rear of this box? --LC-de (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I was answering to a question in general terms, of why people usually gives a negative vote on this page, with shallow depth of field as the reason for it. I did not oppose, even if I must say I would have liked it more focused on this white background, through the whole image even if there's nothing to see - a matter of personal taste. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:45:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Playful girl on a False Bay beach.jpg
Neutral Nice. But what would the encyclopedic use of the pic be? Also chromatic aberrations present, and looks like noise reduction was too strongly applied. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noise reduction was applied to the sky only. I think you may be seeing haze in the distance? Julia\talk 09:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment This seems to illustrate quite a few things about this locality - presence of sandy beach, presence of haze, water apparently too cold or too dangerous to swim, rocks that pose problems to navigation, human attempt to address this problem (lighthouse). And is that the other side of the bay in the distance there, or an island? Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment -- Other side of the bay. No islands that big in the bay. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 11:47:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Avenue Belfast2.jpg
Support nice illustration, and although the "wow" not that strong, it helps the topic balance given the very low number of streetlife FPCs. --ELEKHHT 12:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Speculative color correction removed all of the characteristic tones of the photochrom process. Also the attribution is incorrect, this is an image by Photochrom Zürich, not the Detroit Publishing Co. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you provide a reference and if yes, correct the attribution? --ELEKHHT 20:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 21:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Roquemartine 06.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Roquemartine 06.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The resolution ist to small, minimum 2MP - Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:18:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Yes, but we have already two featured pictures from this artist, and frankly, I think we could maybe try to find another one, kind enough to upload reproductions of his pictures in Commons... --Jebulon (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 17:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fleur de givre.tifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fleur de givre.tif
Oppose Nice photo, but wrong format. Please renominate it with a JPEG format. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment TIFF is used by a variety of institutions over PNG for obvious reasons, despite our current policy. Given this image was taken in RAW mode, a TIFF is suitable. In addition a JPG can be helpful for people who are not technically able to handle TIFF. Both formats are helpful with respect to future possible reusers. Afaik there is no statement on formats in our FPC guideline. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 12:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:07:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fleur de givre L.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fleur de givre L.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 01:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Haetera piera - Ptari tepuy - Gran Sabana.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Haetera piera - Ptari tepuy - Gran Sabana.jpg
Oppose Sorry, imo the image quality is far below the actual macro bar and I also don't like the "messy" background — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leviathan1983 (talk • contribs) 20:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)
It could be helpful to show the BF transparency in this case, maybe it mitigates. --Paolo Costa (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But a more blurry background would show the transparency the same way. --mathiasK 23:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too much leaf. Would support the cropped version. --WikedKentaur (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question ¿Cuál es la subespecie? Conrado (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
La sub-especie es piera también (es decir Haetera piera piera), que es la única sub-especie que se encuentra en Venezuela, y primera Haetera identificada de todas, alrededor del año 1750. Existen otras 5 sub-especies entre las cuales la Haetera piera negra o Haetera piera diaphana, pero se encuentran en países como Perú, Colombia y Brasil. Espero te haya servido, saludos. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:30:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iridescent Glory of Nearby Helix Nebula.jpg
The Helix Nebula (also known as The Helix, NGC 7293, or Caldwell 63) is a large planetary nebula (PN) located in the constellation Aquarius. The Helix has often been referred to as the Eye of God on the Internet, since about 2003. With a resolution 16,000 × 16,000 and a filesize 37.15 246.9 MB this is one of the best (if not the best) images of the Helix nebula. Image was nominated before but I do feel it deserves another go given the upload of improved version by Tryphon since the nominaiton.
Info created by NASA/ESA - uploaded by とある白い猫 & Tryphon (improved version)& Ready (largest version) - nominated by とある白い猫 -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Although there is another featured version of this file, I feel this one is superior. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 03:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Other image (featured)
Comment Wahhhh. Amazing! But wait, I can see HUGE pixels... so what are those 37 Mb for if resolution is not that good in the end? Takes hours to open, but I could open in 10 sec a similar file with almost the same res I think, am I wrong? --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not the same image. Compared to the 2004 version (the other image) way more effort was given to the creation of this image due to a meteor storm so it is more accurate I believe. You'll notice old image has more "red" and colors are actually off in other ways as well.
Story: "Valuable Hubble observing time became available during the November 2002 Leonid meteor storm. To protect the spacecraft, including HST's precise mirror, controllers turned the aft end into the direction of the meteor stream for about half a day. Fortunately, the Helix Nebula was almost exactly in the opposite direction of the meteor stream, so Hubble used nine orbits to photograph the nebula while it waited out the storm. To capture the sprawling nebula, Hubble had to take nine separate snapshots."
Mind that the source image is a 285.99 MB TIFF file which unfortunately isn't as easy to carry to Wikipedia. I will try to upload a better copy though as I am downloading this TIFF. The pixels are the detail Hubble is capable of. Aside from looking good the pixel color differences gives us better clue on how the material is distributed in the planetary nebula (back when I first uploaded it, my computer had less ram than the size of the TIFF file). So it is supposed to be pixelated when zoomed in too much I believe.
Yes, the massive pixels are a product of low quality JPG. I'll be working on this right away. The better quality version is at 4shared.com, though I am not sure if devs will agree to upload it here yet. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 13:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
File is now 246.9 MB and I hope the huge pixel problem is resolved now. -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
I still see huge pixels, but now the image is way higher in size, which requires even more time to open. That's probably not the way to solve the issue, it's not a matter of compression of the tiff, nor the fact that the file was made out of 9 separate images. If I have a photo of 2 by 2 px of information and make it larger I can now have a lot more pixels, but the information is gonna be only 4 pixels, in 4 squares, repeating themselves. I'm not adding quality/information to the file, only weight. That's what appears to be happening here. As for the second upload, I think 250 Mb is really too much, you probably want to revert the picture to its previous size of 37 Mbs. Just an opinion. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reduced size is reduced quality in this case though. I do not believe there are giant squares anymore. There are subtle differences in pixels, the difference is small due to the increased resolution. Are you sure it isn't a setting issue? I am not sure if I understand your concern completely. I thought I did which is why I went to great lengths to upgrade quality. :/ -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 12:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I still see them, even refreshing the file. I don't know, could be a setting issue... it never happened to me before, even on large panos of approx. 100 Mbs. But I'm not sure, it could be a problem on my computer, that's why I'm not opposing. Maybe we can get an opinion from another user. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crop: Comet-like Filaments Along the Inner Rim of the Helix Nebula's Gas RingCrop: Another close-up of the Helix Nebula
The file is using what came from NASA/ESA/Hubble. I have not increased the resolution artificially by stretching the image. :) Mind you we do not really expect the viewer to view the file full. I am unaware of any computer that can display in 16k by 16k resolution. :) When you downscale the file down to screen size or printable size it should not show pixelization of any kind. If the person wants to print this image into a poster the size of the ones in times square, it should still not show pixels. High resoluition allows this. What it also allows is if someone wants to zoom to a specific point and crop that detail as the very center could be of great importance like here. If the file is downscaled down to 3k by 3k pixels it would loose that kind of detail.
By the way the individual stars you see may be pixelated as they are out of focus. The stars and the nebula are light years apart (literally). The object (nebula) you see is about 2.87 lightyears wide (~2,715,171,650,000 kilometers or ~1,687,129,450,000 miles) so it would take you 2.87 years to get to one side to the other if you are traveling at the speed of light!
To give you a better idea, the nearest star to the Sun is Alpha Centauri C which is 4.24 light years away making the nebula's radius ~0.677/10ths the distance to there. Indeed the numbers are crazy. :) -- とある白い猫ちぃ？ 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 03:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I think that «designed by the studio of the architect I. M. Pei» should be added in the description.--MrPanyGoff 07:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added architect. Please always feel free to improve descriptions, or add other languages. --ELEKHHT 07:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, and added french description.--Jebulon (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, large dark foreground, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. Half of image are empty, just blue sky. Sasha Krotov (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 05:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment strong brown cast, also a stitching problem. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 09:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment But they were twins!! I saw them... - joking of course - I'm working on it. The brown cast though... I wouldn't know how to fix it. I'll try some WB and local desat. Let's get to work. Thanks. --Paolo Costa (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed I fixed the stitching error and reduced a bit of brown tint. But I think it can still be improved. I tried more WB variations but the outcome is just too blueish or greenish. This is the version I like the most. --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Despite being born there I am not a fan of TO but this is still a rather nice capture. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 19:34:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinogobius flumineus(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhinogobius flumineus(Hamamatsu,Shizuoka,Japan).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 12:45:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Petersburg-Mosque,-dome.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Petersburg-Mosque,-dome.jpg
Comment Proponuję przyciąć do samej kopuły, ponieważ "żabia perspektywa" deformuje. Poaz tym bardzo mi się podoba. Albertus teolog (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2012 at 20:28:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antalya Side Apollo.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antalya Side Apollo.jpg
I get that you don't like my photgraphy as evidence by the long history of negative votes but there is nothing bad about the light. Some might say the shadows add a bit of drama. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Harsh shadows because taken at the wrong time of the day. It would be better if taken with the sun at your back. Royalbroil 22:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Brilliant advice...wish I thought of that.Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sun at Back!
Support -- I see nothing wrong in shadows + per Ritchyblack Bulwersator (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 11:22:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Calocochlia festiva 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calocochlia festiva 02.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 12:07:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose if the motive has several black / dark parts, it's not good and useful to choose a black background IMO. So not a featured picture to me. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 14:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The difference from the hook to the background is too little. --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Please provide a reference that can be used to verify and reproduce the pattern. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 13:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2012 at 08:30:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rockefeller Center, December 1933.jpg
Oppose As a historical document it is valuable, no doubt about that. As an FP candidate is sucks big time. พ.s. 18:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might not like the mood or the tension between light and darkness, or simply not like any historic photo, but if you don't explain nobody will understand. --ELEKHHT 20:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only thing that sucks is your inappropriate use of the English language. Wetenschatje, insulting other people's photographies is not very cricket of you. Constructive critique is welcome and I assume that even you can do better than "is sucks". Regards, PETER WEISTALK 12:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose current version. I like the scene, and the image deserves some leeway due to age, but I think it also needs further restoration work to make FP grade. There's a lot of noise, a lack of sharpness near the top of the Center, and there's an odd lighter patch flaring in from the right side (indicated with a note). --Avenue (talk) 08:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 09:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant feces in the wildlife.jpg
899
2346
612
449
5616
3744
Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise
Oppose See the shade: Unnatural color (perhaps too saturated) and chromatic noise. In adition, chromatic noise in all the object IMO--Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Lmbuga, please read the article: Color temperature and then you understand the "blue shadow" areas. I can mail you my RAW file too. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I only can read the spanish version (too little version) and I think the same, sorry--Miguel Bugallo 00:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have never seen something like this in a picture mine not oversaturated. In the shade there are green colors, violet colors, blue colors...!: Excessive to me--Miguel Bugallo 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The shade is not a valid reason to oppose. I see nothing wrong with this picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the shade (or shadow) is a demonstration that the image is oversaturated IMO--Miguel Bugallo 00:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Let us not argue about this shit. Shit Happens ;-) --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not wow for me--Umnik (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Umnik, nothing so special for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid Miguel is right. The shadow does look really weird. But also the top left corner, and the dung looks too reddish and oversaturated. There's also some chroma noise. --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The original shot wasn't "tick sharp" and the well executed sharpening process can't change that fact. Moreover the chromatic noise in the dark areas as mentioned by others reduce the images' quality. Please consider using {{Retouched picture}} to point out the changes done to the image. Great idea for a featured picture btw. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't retouched. It is simple an other second image, taken some seconds later.
I withdraw my nomination I withdraw this image for now. I try to rework it new, perhaps without chromatic noise. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 18:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus.png
Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this image with 1,4 MPx resolution does not meat the minimum size criteria of at least 2 MPx --LC-de (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Info But the image has 3,37 MPx! Conrado (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, the filesize is 3,37 MB, but the image size is 1.452 × 946 pixels = ~1.373.600 pixels = ~1,37 mega pixels < 2 Mpx. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 22:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:31:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Chairs freeze in Winter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Chairs freeze in Winter.jpg
OpposeToo dark, Perspective distortion, left chair is missing snow, traces of cars and persons are disturbing. -- -donald- (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 15:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shillong parrot.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shillong parrot.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 21:49:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mastle y la Odles.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mastle y la Odles.JPG
Question Pardon me, could you please point out the underexposed parts of the image? --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I suspect the grey clouds and yellowish snow make one wonder as they should be lit up by the sun. Regardless, you should take care of the dust spot just above Sas Rigais. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the magic of the evening, when the path of the sunlight is much more intriguing - thanks for thw dustspot!--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose Beautiful colors/scenery, but most of the picture is in shade, and when you open the file full size you see artifacts in the sky, and the rock is not very sharp.--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Do I have to understand that only pictures in full sunshine are eligible for FP? The artifacts can be fixed. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Why not votes anybody ? Pro - Contra opposed, as you think, but nothing at all, very strange --Ritchyblack (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Good otherwise but there is something with the crop that bothers me. I feel it's too tight. --Ximonic (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - They must feel like its close to FP standards but have no specific criticisms. Royalbroil 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 06:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I don't like the harsh flash light.. but the image is nice as a composition and has high EV. Ggia (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OpposePoor light, poor background. พ.s. 11:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As พ.s. and a bit oversharpened--Miguel Bugallo 17:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not oversharpened. Yann (talk) 17:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support same as all the support above.Trongphu (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Could be better... --Citron (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2012 at 19:37:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Arrecife. Lanzarote-36.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Arrecife. Lanzarote-36.jpg
Neutral superb quality, very nice light and colours, but I miss the wow, too, and that woman walking upstairs..... --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 18:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 02:05:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Steinway & Sons concert grand piano, model D-274, manufactured at Steinway's factory in Hamburg, Germany.png
This is a newly uploaded photo of the known concert grand piano, D-274, by the world-famous piano company, Steinway & Sons. Both the concert grand piano, D-274, and the company, Steinway & Sons, have their own large articles on Wikipedia: Steinway & Sons and Steinway D-274. For years, I have been looking for good photos of pianos and esspecially of Steinway pianos and this new photo is undoubtedly the best photo of a piano I have found. I am happy that this photo now can be used legally in Wikimedia projects like Commons and Wikipedia. This photo is of high resolution, clear, crisp and detailed, no noise, well-exposed and the piano is photographed from a very good angle. I have read the Commons:Image guidelines and as I see it this new photo is a featured picture. --Fanoftheworld (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – What about we just change the ".png format" to ".jpg format"? Do anyone know how to do this the easiest way? I have already a file in ".jpg format" with the same photo. (By the way, I fail to understand what is wrong with ".png format"). --Fanoftheworld (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment – I've just compared this photo in ".png format" to the same photo in ".jpg format" and it does definitely look best in ".png format". --Fanoftheworld (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment That could just be a bad conversion. What jpeg compression level was used? --99of9 (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support With so much pure-white space, and sharp edges to black, I think png actually might be better than jpg for this. Both in terms of compression, and artifacts. --99of9 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm of the school of thought that .jpg is always better than .png for photographs. It makes images quicker to load, which improves the user experience, and if compression is done properly, there won't be much noticeable information loss at full resolution.--Claritas (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support png format, jpg format ... what is the difference? If you need a JPG format, then upload it simple. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Superb, brilliant quality. I love it. I've always loved pianos. Absolutely brilliant. This image just blew me away. Although I also think you should convert this image to JPG. TrebleSeven (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 06:54:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Africa from low orbiting satellite Suomi NPP.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Africa from low orbiting satellite Suomi NPP.jpg
Oppose too prominent artifacts in the image. The earth hasn't these bright stripes in reality. --LC-de (talk) 08:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info As for those four vertical lines: That’s the reflection of sunlight off the ocean, or “glint,” that VIIRS captured as it orbited the globe.
Yes, I know. And there are four stripes, because this image is a composition of several pictures taken by the satellite at various places, normally there would be only one area. So it's artificial and not even useful to explain the "glint". Btw. explaining the flaw doesn't improve the image. --LC-de (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - I like the atypical angle. The description of the lines being sunlight reflection makes sense to me. Royalbroil 22:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No star doesn't mean it's not real lol. You know with our technology today, we can easily take out the background if we want to.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Very impressive techinique in stiching. Although sun reflection from four visible passes of the satellite over the Planet makes the picture looking odd and unnatural. The fact that it's a stich is not a problem for me, but parts of pictures with sun reflection in the oceans should be avoided (I don't know it that was possible though). Also I'm not very sure if everything went fully correct while calculating the resulting image. When looking at the famous blue marble picture form Apollo (which didn't required stiching as it was taken far enough from the Earth) we can see that there is a big part of Antarctica visible. I suppose the purpose of the author was to create a picture of Earth as seen form a similar point as the one Apollo 17 was in 1972. In 2012 picture we can see only some coast on Antarctica, while in Apollo's quite a large part, including South Pole. In other words South Pole should be visible in a picure taken from very high above a point on the Earth south of the equator and it doesn't seem to be here (at least far enough from the horizon). --sfu (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the techniques. It doesn't look like a normal Earth doesn't mean it is not beauty. After all it is still our home, the best place in the world so far.Trongphu (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 06:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 19:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau Versailles Galerie des Glaces.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chateau Versailles Galerie des Glaces.jpg
Support The lighting doesn't convince me 100%... but I was there and I can say this picture reproduces very well the atmosphere of the chateau. EV is high, quality ok for me, and there is wow factor - the place itself is a huge wow.--Paolo Costa (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as author. Thank you for this nomination! --Myrabella (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as supporter/fan beside the author, I was there this nice day. Great shot indeed, Myrabella! Happy to be the seventh !--Jebulon (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Lots of visual drama and well executed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 06:37:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chris Rea 03 AB.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chris Rea 03 AB.jpg
Info created by / uploaded by / nominated by -- Chepry (talk) 06:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
InfoChris Rea during the Santo Spirito Tour; concert at Sala Kongresowa, Warsaw, Poland on February 5, 2012
Oppose For me it is too dark and noisy. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I share Yikrazuul's feeling that it is too dark. But the main problem is that the image is not nitid at all. I can see too much motion blur in the guitar . --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 21:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Diomedea exulans in flight - SE Tasmania.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 16:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2012 at 17:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Light painting gnangarra-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Light painting gnangarra-1.jpg
Neutral Nice but noise.--Claus (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment If it's to be useful for an encyclopedia, you should explain how you produced the picture. --Paolo Costa (talk) 07:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 00:19:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus 2.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mergus octosetaceus 2.png
Info A male specimen of Mergus octosetaceus, Brazilian bird considered critically endangered. It is estimated that only 250 individuals remaining in the wild; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
SupportConrado (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC). And now, actually more than 2 mpx.Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 06:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Painted Stork in Flight 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Painted Stork in Flight 1.jpg
Oppose I like the photo, I know how dfficult it is to get birds in flight but its not FP, this is dull and the bird isnt in focus especially the head Gnangarra 08:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Head not in focus. --ELEKHHT 20:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 10:38:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of tsar Alexey Mihajlovicha in Kolomenskoe-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palace of tsar Alexey Mihajlovicha in Kolomenskoe-1.jpg
Oppose No wow. "Турки строят муляжи Святой Руси за полчаса..." Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Oppose Main object of picture (as per the name of picture) seems to one side and rest is distracting. Nothing special. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- I don't think it could be an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Gnangarra 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2012 at 22:19:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Peasant Woman Cooking by a Fireplace.jpegCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peasant Woman Cooking by a Fireplace.jpeg
Support Not one of his best works in my opinion... but this is still a good reproduction of a Van Gogh, with high EV and quality. --Paolo Costa (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 15:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
SupportConrado (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC). The real Woodpecker!Reply[reply]
Oppose sorry, this bird is unsharp, false focus. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's a real pity, but Alchemist is right. The bird is clearly out of focus. Otherwise it is a very nice picture --LC-de (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 23:14:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Wedding Stockholm 2010-Slottsbacken-05.jpg
Also if you don't mind, I added image notes to illustrate the photo. You can undo my action if it feels not good to the picture. --Katarighe (Talk) 16:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportConrado (talk) 00:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC). The maternal grandmother of the Princess was Brazilian! That's cool!Reply[reply]
Info - I think this one - currently the lead image in the wedding article - is the best one. A pity his hand is slightly over his face, but considering that this is a one-time-only event, I think it's a great photo and I decide to nominate here as a FP yesterday. --Katarighe (Talk) 22:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Everyone can use a bit of bright and cheery. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Well, I hope that wasn't meant as an argument for making it a FP. As someone who was forced to pay for this wedding I don't find it cheery in any way, but like your comment that has nothing to do with the quality of the picture. / Achird (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment No, bright and cheery was a statement of fact. Other facts include high EV, well executed and a bit of wow. As to the cost... surely outweighed by short and longer term economic benefits. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photo is actually featured on the English Wikipedia proof. The photo is selected to as POTY for June 19th, 2012 on en.wiki. --Katarighe (Talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Support. — Raghith 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- I wouldn't say I didn't like this image, but I don't do like it either. I think an image of the Royal Wedding with Kate and William would be better. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 14:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinn - Town Hall Square (Raekoja plats).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tallinn - Town Hall Square (Raekoja plats).jpg
Oppose Nice picture but, too much distortion and the left side is too dark for me. To much contrast. --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too noisy, and i don't like this many people in the picture, unbalance. I don't like the left side either.Trongphu (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2012 at 01:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899 retouched.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Temple Square, Salt Lake City, 1899 retouched.jpg
Info created by William Henry Jackson - retouched by Tom dl - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXX talk 01:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Oppose per Elekhh: I don't like composition and crop. It's an old image, but it's not the only one. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 18:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2012 at 00:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Question Could you please add some scale to better understand the dimensions? --Paolo Costa (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Paolo Costa. The body length by the Tipula oleracea female is 26 mm. I have no possibility to add some scala. Maybe somebody can help me. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment. I added a note, can crop the top?--Sasha Krotov (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Please add notes on the nomination page, not here... It is impossible to click to open the file in the zone you delimitated--Jebulon (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Shadows too dark. Indirect light would be better. The sharpness is perfect. --Ritchyblack (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support not perfect but in my opinion feature pictures don't need to be perfect. After all nothing is perfect in this world.Trongphu (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Shadows too dark and I don't like the detail, I don't like the quality of the sharpness--Miguel Bugallo 01:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Shadow too strong, disturbing IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Interesting subject, shadow could be improved, and a crop should be made. TrebleSeven (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Gnangarra 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 22:47:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 22:34:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Three players have parts of their bodies cut off, which spoils the image, sorry..
Comment Thank you for the nomination, however I'm really not sure it's a feature picture material (referee and sound man beheaded, and Yves Donguy has lost his left leg and arm). PierreSelim (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Doesn't seem good enough for an FP. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2012 at 08:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kukoboy temple.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kukoboy temple.jpg
Comment This is a silicate brick 100 years of age? The site of the village said that the white and blue bricks for lining taken from Finland. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx lynx2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx lynx2.jpg
Sorry, a very nice picture but it doesn't meet the size requirements (<2MPX) Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size < 2MPX Tomer T (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 17:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Culicivora caudacuta.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Culicivora caudacuta.png
Info A specimen of Culicivora caudacuta, Brazilian bird considered vulnerable in the Red List; created by Sávio Freire Bruno, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado.
Oppose distracting background. Tomer T (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose ... and the tip of the tail is out of focus. —Bruce1eetalk 05:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 01:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bonaparte premier Consul Gérard Chantilly.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bonaparte premier Consul Gérard Chantilly.jpg
Support Napoléon Bonaparte, as First Consul of the French Republic, Feb. 1803. On display at Musée Condé of Château de Chantilly, France. Photo taken by the nominator.-- Jebulon (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 18:33:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Borboletas em Mini-Dálias.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Borboletas em Mini-Dálias.JPG
Info Five butterflies in five Dahlia flowers; created, uploaded and nominated by Denis Conrado. Conrado (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice and beautiful, for the first time i saw all 4 butterflies on the flowers in the same picture.Trongphu (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 15:01:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Exocoetus volitans.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Exocoetus volitans.jpg
Info created by Gervais & Boulart - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2012 at 12:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Goddess Bhadrakali Worshipped by the Gods- from a tantric Devi series - Google Art Project.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Goddess Bhadrakali Worshipped by the Gods- from a tantric Devi series - Google Art Project.jpg
Info created by 17th century Basholi artist, Google Art Project - latest version uploaded by Redtigerxyz - nominated by Redtigerxyz -- Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 09:42:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocus tommasinianus LC0031.jpg
Info Tommasini's crocus (Crocus tommasinianus); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Support good enough for me. Use of DOF, composition, sharpness. Direct sunlight might be a minus in some cases, yet here I think it is a plus. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 12:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Gratulon pro la momento! Conrado (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful pic. Identified sp., has EV, nice atmosphere, good composition. --Paolo Costa (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose It's just not clicking with me. I find the ground and background distracting. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Gambliel, nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2012 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Šmarjetna gora 04.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 12:46:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20081206 Alexandros Grigoropoulos december 2008 riots Sina Street Athens Greece.jpg
969
190
936
1107
1964
3000
This is The Law faculty of Athens. Ggia (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
419
950
236
301
1964
3000
This burning flames are from the building of the Library of European Law. Ggia (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info created & uploaded by Ggia - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 12:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support This B&W picture appears timeless ; the grain and stark contrast from the film, along with the make of the car (a Jeep...), had me wonder wether it was truly from 2008. It also has an eerie feeling, as if the burned down and turned over body of the car was floating above the ground. Truly worth being featured, according to me. --MAURILBERT(discuter) 13:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportConrado (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC). Impressive, a tribute.Reply[reply]
Request @Ggia: maybe you could add some infos about your used camera and the settings of the image? --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak supportAt full size it's very noisy and I get the feeling the jeep could be more focused. Anyways, I am not opposing since I am aware of the difficulty of all the conditions and It still is a wonderful pic, with a huge wow (the light just above the car is perfect).--Paolo Costa (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a Contact sheet of the whole set of images shot here. I just uploaded it. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info I am really impressed that you like this image since it is an image from film, having some grain - and noise-grainy images are usually rejected for being FPC ;-). According to my negative notes it is shot by FM2 Nikon, Kodak Tri-X 400ASA (Shot at 400ASA), D76 developer 1 (stock) + 1 (water), 11 minutes @ 20Celsius. Shoting during the night (without flash) and with 400ASA film you need to have open diafragm and the depth of field is quite limited (you can see it at the image). I uploaded this image on December 2011 remembering the December 2008 riots without thinking that this can be a FPC. Ggia (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 16:08:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful autumn day.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Beautiful autumn day.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 15:39:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glass of red wine.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glass of red wine.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 12:42:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ice cream van, Helsinki (Helsingfors).JPG
Oppose -- Simply an image of an ice-cream van, nothing special. It's not even sharp enough. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep it is an image from 2002! Ant the main: it is a bit chromatic noise, not CA. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Since it was a one-off event, it cannot be retaken. So, like historic images, if it was featured according to the technical criteria of the time, I think it should stay featured. If the volcano was not erupting, I would have voted to delist. --99of9 (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 17:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Automeris caterpillar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Automeris caterpillar.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 08:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2012 at 19:42:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstaviks kyrka January 2011d.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by ArildV -- ArildV (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose No wow at all. It is simply a well executed picture of a church. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Saffron Blaze. --Karelj (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Architecture is under-appreciated on FP in my opinion. This has serene mood all around, with a good combination of lighting and snow-dusting. Technically, it is sharp, with correct perspective, and minimal noise. The composition is great, with high EV, no distracting elements, and the eye is led right into the door. --99of9 (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Nothing wrong with it, nice composition. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:11:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kaveri river.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kaveri river.jpg
Oppose No wow and poor license. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose at about 1pm: the sky is simply too dark for me. The license is however full OK for wikipedia. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2012 at 21:57:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Russia. Moscow Region. Winter pine wood, lake Kratovskoe area.JPG
Support the image is really technically good, its interesting it shows the detail it let the viewer experience what snow looks like. Gnangarra 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Better viewed as an artwork rather than a picture of trees. JJ Harrison (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 18:46:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dandiya Raas.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dandiya Raas.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: size is under 2MPX Tomer T (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 21:26:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sevilla 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sevilla 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 00:33:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:King penguins on South Georgia Island.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:King penguins on South Georgia Island.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small at 0.9MPX —Bruce1eetalk 05:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 06:09:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Very nice view and panorama. The only thing I am not totally happy with is the colour or saturation in the sky, but that's a minor problem. / Achird (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support very nice, though two people are on the bridge centre section in the reflection on the water.... Gnangarra 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good of you observed, and I have retouched badly! --Ritchyblack (talk) 12:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment very nice, I would support a better crop (the tree on the right is cut). PierreSelim (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. I don't understand why the two people were erased in the first place. Thierry Caro (talk) 05:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because I like the photo without people prefer. I had been waiting a very long time that the two go on. But now came the next travel group already on the bridge. I'm standing with the feet in the water and the flood was rising. These are only temporary objects that I have removed --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2012 at 11:34:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Khost children in 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Khost children in 2010.jpg
Info created by Staff Sgt. Andrew Smith (U.S armed forces), nominated by 122.169.50.222
Support very nice aesthetically, has EV.. of course.. US miliatary propaganda... Personal rights warning etc.. should not be arguments for a FPC IMO.. may-be for a deletion request... but not here. Ggia (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment When I nominated this picture I was acutely aware that this was USM work. But despite that this work humanizes and highlights the Afghans. Secondly its hard to say 'kill all Muslims', 'bomb,bomb!' while looking at this picture.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.141.235 (talk • contribs)
So it is a non-neutral nomination with a political purpose ??--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Wonderful picture. Really, it's a brilliant shot. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't mind who took the photo. It's a featured picture IMO. --Dr.Haus (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Composition is excellent. Royalbroil 02:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose License at source restricts commercial use Images uploaded to Flickr are for the free intended use for dissemination by media outlets and all other interested persons or organizations for newsworthy or educational media products. They are not, however, and in accordance to Flickr policy, to be used with the intention of reproducing and selling the images without prior consent of the releasing authority, or by extension, the photographer whose name should be included in the description. Please credit "Photo by ISAF Public Affairs" unless otherwise noted. The releasing authority is the Public Affairs Officer for ISAF Headquarters or any persons designated by the Public Affairs Officer, any of whom can be contacted at pressoffice@hq.isaf.nato.int.[1]Gnangarra 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Created by U.S. Army Photographer (not another NATO Army Photographer) which means this photo is public domain. Sasha Krotov (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
not according to the source used, please link to a US military source for this image as there is nothing on the source page that identifies the photographer[2]. Gnangarra 11:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see Exif2 Info[3], it consist all information about author. Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that just means its a copy violation at source, as such we cant link to it. Find a US military alternative Gnangarra 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 13:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ST vs LOU - 21.jpg
Support I've tried this kind of shots myself. Not easy stuff. Anyways, the moment offers a big wow in this pic. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 01:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Force India 2.jpg
Comment considering that the photo was taken from far away and the car is moving at high speed picture turned out good --Sasha Krotov (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the composition and cut isn't OK for me: to much unatractive foreground, lo less car, not enough place in front of the car. And the main: the car ist unsharp. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. / Achird (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- I agree, if only the background was a little bit different. TrebleSeven (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --ELEKHHT 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 10:32:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metropolitan opera 1937.jpg
Oppose Needs more/better restoration, see image notes, just marked some of them. also image has artifacts, unlike the original TIFF, it is grainy,. ■ MMXX talk 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per MMXX. But will be happy to change my vote to support if corrections are made, this is a beautiful, impressive and valuable image. It just needs a little boost to be a FP. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Here is a new version, adjusted the brightness/contrast locally and globally, also removed most of the spots and scratches. ■ MMXX talk 00:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I think it's much better. Tomer T (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Perhaps renominating it would be better, so that it gets a chance. This one's voting period is reduced at this point. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 17:53:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ricinus communis - Fruits.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Moonik (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the main: the fruits are too unsharp. The DOF is too low. The distracting background kills the composition. If we see only the sky in the background and the plant slightly tilted, then I give my full support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Yes the fruits are not sharp enough. But I like the composition. Vegetal elements are a bit distracting maybe, but the building surely not (IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:58:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of Greece.svg
Support The author is one of the best heraldists in "Commons", and this work is particularly good (and "heraldicaly" correct, obviously). Very nice and difficult SVG coat of arms IMO. + Very pleasant to be seen in detail.--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 21:09:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Winterporling Polyporus brumalis.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 01:56:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 09:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common Jezebel Delias eucharis by kadavoor.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 12:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support - color of the clouds and sky is perfectly plausible and natural, so I don't doubt the rest of the image is very similar in color to the actual scene at the time –Juliancolton | Talk 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Colors OK for me. Yann (talk) 07:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The picture looks good when filling my full screen, but in full resolution it's not sharp. -- Achird (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose unfortunate composition, seems to be blurry in full resolution. --LC-de (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 22:49:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
So just because the camera could have taken a higher resolution photo you oppose it? A picture is a picture, regardless of the camera that took at, am I wrong? --TheHighFinSpermWhale 03:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary. And yes, I do oppose those who limit resolution by downsampling or disproportional cropping - independent of the image. This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld. One of the major aspects to a featured picture is the way people can re-use it. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 08:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"This limits the possibilities of re-use outside the Wikiworld." Yes, that's exactly the reason why we require a minimum resultion of 2 MPx. Everything above would fit that requirement. The cameras original resolution is absolutely irrelevant at this point. Arguing against the FPC is
unfair, because this argument targets the equipment, not the image itself.
stupid, because for this argument you need knowledge of the used eqipment supported only by EXIF data which can easily be changed or deleted.
"Deliberately using lower resolution than technicaly possibly is utterly unnecessary". This is just a statement from you. In fact you don't have any clue, if the author cropped it to improve the composition or downsampled it without any strong reason. Alleging the last is again unfair and stupid. --LC-de (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What a petty reason for opposing this image. It's this kind of rule-craziness that discourages people from submitting images here. --69.225.14.10 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support a very good and valuable image. We needn't larger images for Wikipedia too!!! It is exact and perfect for the full resolution of my monitor (2560*1440 pixel). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Alchemist, I simply don't care about your WQHD display setup. One of our projects targets is the re-use of images outside the wiki world and the internet. To assure the possibility of re-use in print for example, high resolution is mandatory. Since we don't know how people like to re-use images, providing the highest resolution we can is a service to them. Given a situation in which people can rely on the quality of this project, more and more re-users will be convinced by our cause and the usefulness of free licences. Again: limiting the possibility of re-use is counterproductive to this process. Other users apply nutty licence combinations to decrease the chances of commercial re-use or any other way of re-use they oppose to. Yet this is allowed so far, and therefore no valid reason to oppose. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 09:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, now we have a new rule: the "Peter Weis Rule": if the image isn't uploaded in full camera resolution then it is permissible to oppose it. --> absolutely NONSENS! "In the future I eliminate simple my EXIF Data or I manipulate it to a low resolution camera, perhaps to a 3MP Kodak DC 4800, my first photo tool." --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think equity is important, and we should apply the same standards to all nominations, regardless of camera type. We assess the qualities of an image, not the performance of the creator. Ideally, the creator's name should be hidden as long the image is under assessment, to assure fairness. --ELEKHHT 12:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alchemist: Despite being a timeconsuming endeavour, this would be rather useless. Since I know that you are working with a Canon 5D Mark II (SN: 530306722), and comparing the differences in terms of image quality should be possible on eye sight, feel free to do as you like. You are trying to decrease the credibility of my statement by presuming that my opposition is based on a rule, which you referred to as the "Peter Weis Rule" - why, thank you for this subtle move. The only thing that is nonsens (sic!), is your made up citation and rule. For clarification: I do oppose in this case, because the native resolution of the Canon 7D (5,184 x 3,456 pixels) was cropped disproportional. More than 50% of the image were cropped. I am fully aware that it might have been necessary to keep this distance to avoid scaring off the crow and that 700mm is already at the upper end of what most people carry around. To me a true featured picture would have been able to provide a larger resolution without cropping at large. There is no guideline that prohibits opposition to featured picture candidates. Despite the supports to this decreased resolution, you won't be able to convince me - a compromise is futile.
@Elekhh: I would have opposed anyone else who's cropping away that much of his native resolution - independent of the camera. The performance of the creator is what determines the quality of an image. Unregarded our desire to prevent this from being part of the decision-making process, we do considerate the performance of the creator as well. The story behind the images is critical to our evaluation, because it determines our view to the picture. Imagine a panaroma that was taken shortly before the photographer got killed by a landslide. It's just not possible to remain unbiased during this process if knowing about this. The idea is to produce arguments that are considered being objective or technical and blind out those arguments which affect us as well. In this case we don't know much about the circumstances under which the image was taken. And yes, of course my critique is directed at JJ Harisson as creator of this image and his extensive cropping. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 12:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are almost alone with your (for me) unfair opinion. Our minium requirement are 2MP for an FP image. It don't must be the fuill resolution of the camera. We can be lucky to have this image. It is much better then nothing! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support Per Alchemist. / Achird (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Very nice image, but I also agree with the argument of Peter Weis. I think we should increase the minimum image size for QI and FI. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YES, minimum 60MP and only using of a Hasselblad H4D-60 or a better camera. We have NOW the rule of minimum 2MP, not a fantasy resolution of more. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. I can start to vote for your images with contra.Reply[reply]
Comment You are right, minimum 2MP is the present rule and this is why I didn't vote against this image. Please note, that I just didn't support the promotion to FI. I don't understand why you become so emotional and announce to vote against my images. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on a sustainable POV, this image will be one of the first, which could be affected due to a new rule on image resolution. Currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule. Again: our current image and FPC guidelines is not the only set of valid arguments for or against images. It provides us with a set of rules that are widely accepted within the community and therefore rather uncontroversial. As of now, there is no limitation on the reasoning for opposition or support of an image. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 11:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course there is no "limitation on the reasoning", anybody is free to make an argument trying to convince others. But the statement that "currently we delete images that fall short to the 2MP rule" really confuses me, haven't seen such a rule. --ELEKHHT 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right, I should have been more specific here: delete from Featured Pictures, i.e. delist. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, let's explain again the background of this 2 MPx rule. We have a minimum size requirement, because the pictures in Commons are not intended for use in WP net projects only. This minimum size of 2MPx is widely accepted, because it fits also to bigger computer screens, different screens (2MPx ≃ 1080i HD resolution) and even to print media. (A 1600x1250 digital image equals a 13,55x10,58 cm picture using a print resolution of 300 DPI (standard in printing) which is fairly enough to provide reasonable good article illustration in a book.) You can suggest a higher minimum resolution and discuss this on the discussion page. Unless we don't have a new minimum size requirement the increasing sensor resolution will give more freedom to the photographer, freedom to enhance the images by cropping or even downsampling. Please don't invent and apply any Peter Weiß Rule without discussing it. It will just undermine your reputation. You can delist the pictures afterwards anyway (as we do currently with some older FPs not matching the 2MPx rule) --LC-de (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 18:30:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:DoemitzerBruecke2.jpg
Info created by Fice - uploaded by Fice - nominated by Anonymous
Oppose Prominent shadow on the foreground + not that much wow imo + poor crop on the sides + a bit of horizontal perspective correction needed I think. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 19:17:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg
Oppose harsh flashlight and the resulting strong shadows ruins this pic imo. --mathiasK 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just want to note that this species is critically endangered. To my understanding of reading its profile in the IUCN red list website, the species is very rare and there are very few individuals left, and that's what makes the picture so valuable in my eyes. I'm not sure you can say the image is reproducible, so I think quality issues are secondary in this case, or at least less important than usual. Your opinion is your opinion, but I just wanted to share my point of view for a productive discussion. Tomer T (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand the argument with the critically endangered. And yes you are right, this is a very valuable image. But imo this is a very good argument for a VI not for a FP. Especially in this actual case I think the picture quality could have been better if an other equipment would be used. For example a ring flash or maybe a reduced flash power with a little longer exposure. Also the composition with the leaf "in" the eye isn`t the best imo. But it looks like this picture will be promoted anyway so my oppose wont be that bad. ;-) Greetings mathiasK 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The flash light is a minus. Definitely. Should have used some other illumination system (there are many for frog photography, like a macro ring led flash light). But detail is good, the composition is awesome, and it is an endangered species. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 09:17:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Tres de Mayo, by Francisco de Goya, from Prado in Google Earth.jpg
Info created by Google Art Project, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Yann (talk) 09:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
InfoThe Third of May 1808, by Francisco de Goya. A very high resolution of a famous painting, by the Google Art Project. It is acknowledged as one of the first paintings of the modern era. According to the art historian Kenneth Clark, this is "the first great picture which can be called revolutionary in every sense of the word, in style, in subject, and in intention" (Wikipedia).
Support -- Nice image, but can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request -- Can you crop that black line on the left? TrebleSeven (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Please notice that the "black line" (in fact, a shadow) is part of the framing. It is necessary for an encyclopedic purpose: it proofs that the picture shows the whole painting, whithout any crop.--Jebulon (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My connection is too slow to download the whole file, let alone upload it again after editing. Yann (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment@Jebulon Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. This proves nothing. Given the picture frame of the painting is not displayed, even this decision was an initial crop to the composition. Without the picture frame any statement on the actual image borders is mere guesswork. In case you've seen the image in reality things might be different because you know how it looks. Yet this is not the case for most viewers. Cropping an area that contains no information is admissible in this case. Indeed a version featuring the frame would be nice for its encyclopaedic value, given the frame itself has fallen into the public domain and the creator of this image would provide it with a free licence. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 12:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry I'm not sure I understand very well what you mean. Maybe we agree. Here we can see a part of the framing all around, then we may be sure that the whole of the painting is shown... I know the rule about the PD domain of the framings.--Jebulon (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2012 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The whole tail is out of focus, which is not that bad. But the crop so near the end of the tail ruins it imo. A more balanced composition would require the same amount of space as the one left on the left side, from the head to the edge. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - when I first looked, I thought it was very aesthetically pleasing. Then I thought of several reasons why it shouldn't be... but it is. I don't get it. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 15:55:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Olympic and Titanic.jpg
Support as nominator -- Outstanding image, brilliant quality for 1912, and is one of the only images of the Olympic and the Titanic together after nearly colliding. TrebleSeven (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Too small and blown out sky. Yann (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:09:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose because not taken with a Hasselblad H4D-60 camera. The resolution is to small for me. Is this OK for you? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC) But of course, this is nonsense. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 07:52:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wadi Rum BW 2.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 18:21:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waldermarsudde Panorama February 2012.jpg
Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 18:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Muthathi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muthathi.jpg
Weak support This is original, something different, and acceptable quality. Full support if red/cyan CAs are removed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 20:35:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Colchicum automnale.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colchicum automnale.jpg
Oppose unsharp details, I would like to see more of the stamens. Tomer T (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment bad file name imo... One could be confused and doubt if it is the name of the plant or the animal. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2012 at 22:18:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:El Taj Mahal-Agra India0023.JPG
Oppose Not so yellow. The whitish marble colour captured in the original picture is gone in the edit. Compare with FA File:Taj Mahal, Agra, India.jpg and unedited upload. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Gauravjuvekar and per Redtigerxyz. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 00:21:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg
Oppose I think it's worth Wikipedia featuring, but not Commons. The image is extremely blurry, noisy and shows poor detail. It also has this pink tint. I know it's a very old shot but then, should every historic picture be featured? I don't think so, that's why we have a valued images section. This is not among commons best historic material by far imo. --Paolo Costa (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist This no longer represents our best work. It is very nicely composed. But the issues Tomer T mentioned are real, and the resolution does not meet our current low standards. In principle a similar scene could be retaken now. --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 17:51:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lmbuga-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support It's not a perfect portrait (taken in 2006 with a Nikon 8800), but perhaps wov. I want to know what you think-- Miguel Bugallo 13:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment seriously, your nominating an image and not even supporting it. Gnangarra 01:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• (I'm not sure if I understand you) With this nomination I can learn if people think: Currently I do not understand that this image has been promoted to QI. I'm not sure..., if QI...perhaps FP?--Miguel Bugallo 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I don't see nothing wrong with nominating a picture while abstaining from the vote. Tomer T (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 11:59:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorophyllum rhacodes LC0093.jpg
Info The Shaggy parasol (Chlorophyllum rhacodes); created, uploaded and nominated by Jörg Hempel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 16:51:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom.svg
Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as used by current monarch Queen Elizabeth II from 1952 to the present (as used in all her realms except Scotland).
Support Very nice and interesting. A short visit to User:Sodacan's galleries is a real pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 15:15:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2012-02-03 20-34-32-salbert-moonlight.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012-02-03 20-34-32-salbert-moonlight.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 20:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Galerella sanguinea Zoo Praha 2011-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Galerella sanguinea Zoo Praha 2011-2.jpg
Neutral I agree with Jovian Eye. The mongoose seems to look away from the side of the picture. --Ximonic (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support But I also think Jovian Eye's crop is an excellent suggestion. Karelj, just try it! --Kadellar (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2012 at 04:04:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose for now. The colours look oversaturated to me, especially in the red shadows under the leaves (and the leaf-green looks a little overdone too). I would support a different version of this picture if it is reprocessed. --99of9 (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I have reprocessed the image from RAW with standard picture control. The earlier version used vivid. --Jovian Eyestorm 12:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good for me now. --99of9 (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Wouldn't mind it being featured. But I think, as 99of9 that saturation should be lowered a bit. Won't support also because I don't like the leaves being under the mandarins, it looks kind of too "forced". --Paolo Costa (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Changing the picture processing has reduced the saturation a bit. As for the leaves, I never forced them down, its the way they were packed and kept at the store. :) --Jovian Eyestorm 13:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2012 at 20:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg
Early-morning light is one of my favorite shooting situations, so I think the general atmosphere of the image is fine. Darker blue colors high in the sky transitioning to reddish toward the horizon is consistent with what I'd expect from the timing of the shoot, and indeed I think it makes the aircraft stand out well against the sky. However, 1/1000 is an awful short exposure time for this kind of lighting, so I agree that it's probably way darker than it appeared in person. I like what you did with the second edit... I'd definitely support that file. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I guess the world is a small place. The photographer is an acquaintance of mine. He has a username here with a couple of uploads (User:Noogz). JJ Harrison (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Noogz (talk) 08:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC) (By the way, if consensus is that it needs to be brightened, I'd be more than happy to do this from the original RAW)Reply[reply]
Oppose This image has nothing exceptional. Perhaps QI but not FP. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I may be wrong but, looking at other featured airplane pictures, I think this one is not among the best. There is very strong vignetting and underexposure I'd say. --Paolo Costa (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose What's so special about this composition? I don't see it, I have hundreds of photo's like this one. --Bthv (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Qantas A380 lands and Melbourne Airport.jpg
Support As original image nominator, I support this improvement. I'd argue this view of the aircraft is impressive. Cloudbound (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 14:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amethyst gem stone texture wwarby flickr.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amethyst gem stone texture wwarby flickr.jpg
Oppose Too many gray areas. Lighting that crushes the volume. Caption too poor, not to scale. Wow no effect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 12:37:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pav bhaji.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pav bhaji.jpg
Oppose "Look[s] like real food", what does that mean? Do we see anything different? Besides, this images lacks in sharpness, it is noisy, and the composition is inconvenient. --Yikrazuul (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Poor composition and image quality, looks like a snapshot to me. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: per above. Tomer T (talk) 11:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:31:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File::Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File::Oia Santorini Blue Domes.jpg
Oppose Image looks to be way overlighted. lacking detail and object is not clear, too much background noise/distraction from the actual subject. --Bthv (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Tight crop to the left. Tilted and distorted by wideangle lens. "Empty" foreground and bad composition. -- Achird (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I do agree it's not the best crop and light is quite harsh. But could not resist such beautiful colors. I could see this one in the gallery of FPs; image has good quality, little noise, and CAs, exposure and tilt could be corrected. What a beautiful place, I want to go there. --Paolo Costa (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 23:02:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park path.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Central Park path.jpg
Neutral What makes this so special? Not that it's a bad picture, it's lovely, just not very special... --Bthv (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't know, I was looking at my NY pictures and this one caught my attention. Must be the peaceful feeling one gets in those paths in the middle of one of the most chaotic megacities... I also liked the colors. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Hmm... Sorry. I do not find actual serious _problems_ in this picture. So don't get me wrong, it is very good as a picture, a nice add among the other material in Commons. One might find the picture quite useful as well. But the thing is: I really do not find the exceptionality which would make this picture clearly overcome many other good pics of parks. The problem (if I can enunciate it so) is quite much the same like with the sunset pictures here for example – many of them are pretty but they cannot all be featured. Keep it up nevertheless! --Ximonic (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's ok, I am just biased because I was there but you are probably right about it being pretty common scenery. --Paolo Costa (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nothing special (featurable) for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 20:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:F1 2012 Jerez test - Lotus 4.jpg
Comment I like the image, but what is that bumpy (?) thing on the top right (see annotations)? Is that a part of the road or some kind of image distortion? Tomer T (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment its called a ripple strip it defines the edge of corners on race tracks Gnangarra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's obvious, but there is some kind of bumpiness/distortion there. Tomer T (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the crop it too tight for my liking given the original there is plently of room to give the car some space Gnangarra 01:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I do not oppose the FP, but I think that Gnangarra has a point about the crop being too tight. I would support a slightly wider crop. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I re-upload image with another crop version. Now it's better? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 03:34:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto di Marina Grande - Isola di Capri.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto di Marina Grande - Isola di Capri.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 21:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A big argument for good roads in Argentina.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A big argument for good roads in Argentina.jpg
Info created by he National Geographic Magazine, VOL. XL, No. 4 OCTOBER, 1921; page 430 - uploaded by Haabet - nominated by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 17:36:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Andricus kollari - Capanne di Marcarolo.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2012 at 09:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paris moderne. Les Tuileries, le Louvre, et la rue de Rivoli, vue prise du Jardin des Tuileries.jpg
Info created by Charles Fichot - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16
Oppose Not really "outstanding" amongst other similar artworks. I have seen better and more vivid paintings. --Bthv (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 19:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Sorry guys but the light is not the best as well as image quality, whith the strong white haloes due to sharpening. I don't like the unfocused plant in the foregound either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Alvesgaspar has said all to the Picture. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 15:18:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2012-02-05 16-14-05-fort-arches.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2012-02-05 16-14-05-fort-arches.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 14:28:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:06. Whiteheaven Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:06. Whiteheaven Beach.jpg
Weak support Is the f/4.5 value real?? the image is sharp all along it does not seem like aperture was set to f/4.5. Very beautiful, a heaven indeed. The crop is poor though, cutting the beach at the bottom. Also horizon is tilted and slight CA is visible. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sorry but the crop is pretty bad. Greetings mathiasK 19:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I´ve checked the pictures I used to do the stiching and the f4/5 is rigth. The crop is the best I could get from the place I was and I think the overall composition is good enough (you can see a huge part of the Whitsunday Island NP) even though a small part of the botton beach is cut. Thanks anyway to all of you for your reviews. elemaki (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Whiteheaven beach is the huge beach you can see at the middle-left of the picture (if you zoom in it you can see a lot of people walking over it). The small cropped beach at the botton is nothing important in this picture. Regards. --elemaki (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 09:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2012 at 14:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Colostygia aqueata Buchstein01.jpg
I´m not familiar with the procedures here, so i´m probably wrong and the picture still has a bad background, but may i refere you to en:Crypsis? --Kulac (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure about the quality, but "bad background" is really a poor argument. This is called camouflage. Yann (talk) 18:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support quality is good imo, and the photo is a good illustration of crypsis. Tomer T (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. Butterfly has changed color or is it just a coincidence of colors? --Sasha Krotov (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think none of what you metioned. Butterflies cannot change colors like a chameleon, not any that I know (I do know a little about BFs). But it looks as if this is not a color coincidence either, but a butterflies which has this color to be camouflage in this rocks where it can rest without being noticed. --Paolo Costa (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Excellent example of camouflage with high educational value. Sadly, it's a quite grey and dull picture with low contrast. -- Achird (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC) / Ximonic and Archaeodontosaurus are right, so I am changing my vote from Weak support to Neutral. -- Achird (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Not a bad background. A very good example of camouflage. I think the DOF isn't optimal though and many interesting parts seem to be more blurry than needed. According to my own experiences these specific animals aren't so timid and fly away easily anyway so one can concentrate on optimal technical settings quite safely. --Ximonic (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Very good didactic image. But the lower wing is blurred. In this situation one has time to experiment. F20 would be a good option. Or put in the exact plane of the butterfly. Personally I would have two images in Focus staking. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2012 at 10:37:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:All Aboard.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:All Aboard.jpg
Oppose -- Poor image quality. Am I wrong or this is the second nomination of the same photo? Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp and the quality looks really poor. --Paolo Costa (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Resolution is low, composition is okay, but not FP worthy. Scewing (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor quality (noisy, blurry, unsharp, low resolution). Need to be cropped to get rid of the empty brownish lawn. Everything, except the sky, need to be brighten up and to have better contrast. -- Achird (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: very poor quality, way below FP standard: noisy, blurry, unsharp, low resolution --ELEKHHT 08:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2012 at 21:37:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cappadoccia Balloon 01.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cappadoccia Balloon 01.JPG
Info created & uploaded by Benh - nominated by -- Tomer T (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose to dark and CA around the balloon and the horizon. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Quite a nice effect but this is just art. It has little value wrt the project's goals. See the "Value" bullet point in the above guidelines. We're not an art gallery. Colin (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 21:28:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Girl in the Hopi Reservation.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl in the Hopi Reservation.JPG
Question Is there a white balance issue? --AngMoKio(座谈) 09:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. These are the original colors by the Kodachrome 25 slide film taken in the year 1997. The white balance would destroy the original colors by Kodachrome 25. The Film had nice colors with poetry, softness and elegance, and he needed with 25 ASA a long exposure time. When stored in darkness, Kodachrome's long-term stability under suitable conditions is superior to other types of color film; images on Kodachrome slides over fifty years old retain accurate color and density. It has been calculated that the yellow dye, the least stable, would suffer a 20% loss of dye in 185 years. This is because developed Kodachrome does not retain unused color couplers. However, Kodachrome's color stability under bright light, for example during projection, is inferior to substantive slide films; Kodachrome's fade time under projection is about one hour, compared to Fujichrome's two and a half hours. I used the Kodachrome 25 film in the years 1974–2001. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose For me it is too unsharp/noisy, and besides I cannot see a wow-effect. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- Sometimes I have to resist children's pictures... Very good composition but poor image quality: unsharpness and exagerated yellow cast. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:00:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GreenHead01-AltesMuseum-Berlin-reconstructed.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GreenHead01-AltesMuseum-Berlin-reconstructed.png
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: resolution is under 2MPX, a lot of chromatic noise. Tomer T (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 09:56:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jasmine in the garden.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jasmine in the garden.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2012 at 08:48:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jerusalem Mount of Olives BW 2010-09-20 07-57-31.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jerusalem Mount of Olives BW 2010-09-20 07-57-31.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 14:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CastillodeMarvao.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CastillodeMarvao.jpg
Info Mavao´s Castle (Portugal), created, uploaded and nominated by -- elemaki (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support because I don't like the crop at bottom, but nice and good. --Miguel Bugallo 17:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support because the composition could be more exceptional and quality a little bit better, but...! --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 19:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Correct composition (though the crop in the foregound is less-than-optimal ), very nice colors and mood, but image quality and size are on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 10:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hamadryas arinome MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hamadryas arinome MHNT.jpg
Support Thank you. I do not have much merit for this image. The real credit goes to the butterfly. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Oh yes! This is the kind of illustration that makes Commons a very rich source of encyclopaedic material. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support No merit to you?? This type of picture is a great example of what we need on Commons! In fact, please can you write down somewhere technical instructions for how you achieve an image like this? --99of9 (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With pleasure, I am sending you a note with my techniques, but in French because I can not for another language.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be a pleasure to help on the translation. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that. For now I've put the French and a very rough English translation on the image talk page. --99of9 (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2012 at 21:26:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rouge gorge in Brest.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rouge gorge in Brest.JPG
Oppose The lighting is very unlucky as the shadows covers half of the head and the bird, the background is disturbing (a more "blurred" background would help), the composition is not very interesting. The an excellent image below can give you an example on how to create good bird pictures. --LC-de (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 04:01:50
Info While this a nice landscape, the subjects in the foreground are in the shade and these dark portions are quite prominent even in thumbnail sizes. (Original nomination)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 05:42:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Abraham Lincoln stereoview by Walker, 1865.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Abraham Lincoln stereoview by Walker, 1865.png
Support -- This man is historical. The president of the USA. Perhaps one of the greatest leaders that have ever lived. I strongly support this nomination! TrebleSeven (talk) 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral for now. The stereogram works and the image has obvious encyclopaedic value. But needs restoration. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 21:06:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Nachshol Reconnaissance Company.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Israel Defense Forces - Nachshol Reconnaissance Company.jpg
Oppose very shadowed image and false yellowish colors. I don't see the "Israel Defense Forces". I see only one smiling women in a distracting background and also a simple and boring centered composition. I see nothing featured. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2012 at 06:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Orange flame tulip.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Orange flame tulip.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2012 at 22:58:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Railway station Kreiensen 1963.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Railway station Kreiensen 1963.JPG
Support Wow, 1963 work! Is this originally colour or did you convert this in software? --Jovian Eyestorm 04:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, these are the original colors of the slide. The sunrise has been at 08:17 a. m. on the date 16 January 1963 in Kreiensen. I took this image at 08:55 a. m., see the station clock. The purple colors are the colors of the morning sun. I don't know if the color of the slide has changed in the last 49 years. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Don't see any artistic merit and as an image, the quality is terrible: it is low resolution and even at that resolution there is no detail whatsoever. None of the people have faces. Flare in the middle of picture. Colin (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a Contre-jour photograph. Contre-jour produces backlighting of the subject. This effect usually hides details, causes a stronger contrast between light and dark, creates silhouettes and emphasizes lines and shapes. The sun is seen as either a bright spot or as a strong glare behind the subject. See this featured picture: File:Vaalankurkku railway bridge.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... or a poor quality snapshot with a backlight/flare problem. The arrangement of people and trolleys is random. There's really less than 1MP of detail here. I do like the lighting, but low sun on snow is pretty just like a sunset is pretty: doesn't make it featurable on its own. Colin (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(update) Ok I was a bit harsh with the "artistic merit" comment. The light in the scene is very artractive and the silhouette a deliberate effect. Various lines/shaddows/brightness-gradiant lead the eye towards the centre. But then what do we see? A random collection of trolleys and people milling about. This is a bit of a let-down for the eye. I think other people are responding to the nostagia of a 60's period and costume, as well as the lighting. But sunrise/sunset pictures are naturally pretty and it needs more IMO. I would be interested to see a version without noise-reduction applied because I suspect that is responsible for the lack of any detail. This reminds me of a picture of Harlech castle at sunset that I took with a toy digital camera years ago. I'm quite fond of it, and the colours are great. But it is just too small. Colin (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, too bright, nothinb special impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The subject of this image is the railway station Kreiensen in the year 1963. Kreiensen is an example for other railway stations in Germany. Nearly everything changed in the railway stations in the last 49 years. Station concourses, switch towers, baggage trolleys are mostly out of order. It is today not allowed to desert his baggage or to go over the rails to the next platform and so on. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question The overall quality of the image is rather bad (lacking sharpness, no film grain, smallish resolution). I wonder if this was due to the scanning process or due to digital enhancement? Could you provide further info on the equipment you used to create this image in the first place? Regards, PETER WEISTALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I scanned the slide in the Nikon Coolscan V ED 35mm film scanner with Nikon Scan 4.0. I needed to take Windows XP, Nikon made no driver for Windows 7. In some time it will be possible to use SilverFast HDRStudio 8 with his driver for Windows 7. I used Dfine 2.0 to apply noise reduction. I cropped the Tiff-image with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and converted the Tiff-image with ViewNX to JPG. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be great if you could provide the unprocessed image. Regards, PETER WEISTALK 04:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info try VueScan.. you can use scanners without drivers for Windows 7. Probably this software works for you scanner too (in my scanner Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 it works - it is the same issue - it has drivers only for WinXP). Ggia (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for this information. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC) - I purchased the VueScan Professional Edition. It works with Nikon Coolscan V ED in Windows 7/64. Now I am able to scan Nikon Coolscan V ED with Vue Scan and as well with the scan-software by Nikon. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- This is a great picture. Impressed by the preservation. Chaojoker (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose it's an old image, and a good one, but nothing special to me. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strong support I think this picture is astonishing from artistic point of view. Yes, of course, you cannot expect 2012 quality from a 1963 picture, but the imperfection is what makes it authentic. It reminds me of surrealist painting, for example The Son of Man.--Joyradost (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 18:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 17:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of Arms of Panama.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Coat of Arms of Panama.svg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2012 at 18:15:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Puffin Latrabjarg Iceland.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Puffin Latrabjarg Iceland.jpg
Neutral indeed it is a very good catch. This picture is valuable and quite nice. However I think the DoF is a bit short (that why I'm neutral). --PierreSelim (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 18:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quito as from panecillo Basilica.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quito as from panecillo Basilica.jpg
Comment No wow? I can not be surprising that, behind the historic center are large modern buildings? This mixture is nice and amazing. In my opinion if it is wow. David C. S. 21:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Crop ~5% on the top - IMO this photo without "gray area" on the top could be better. Przykuta → [edit] 16:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done I think you are right, thanks. --Cayambe (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2012 at 23:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
strong oppose nice, but: can anyone see it: absolute false colors. It is simple to blueish. Take a look to our galery: Erithacus rubecula. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am also very surprised at the unusual color for the robins, but can paint a feature of juvenile birds, or a feature of the population of southern France. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, or have southern France blueish timber??? The colors are false oversatured. Take a look at his image histogram. And now ... now all the other voters are too proud to change their opinion. I shaking the head about so much ignorance unknowingness. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling it ignorance if they're not of your opinion? That's a very bold statement... --LC-de (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think it's possible to improve it ? should I increase the color temp ? I've tried up to 6500K it seems really orangish cast, the one I showed seemed the more neutral to me.
Oppose colors definitely look fake, plus the color of the background makes them look even worse. It looks better on the one with the correction of the colors but still not enough to be featured.--Joyradost (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice image, well captured, excellent composition... but sorry, there is indeed a strong bluish/violet colour cast here. --Cayambe (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist. Sorry, it`s a really nice catch with a suprising good quality for f/2.8 but i have to agree with Alchemist and Joyradost. --mathiasK 16:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As above--Miguel Bugallo 23:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Temperature is better, but the colours are still way to oversaturated. --mathiasK 16:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hum, well all I can say is that I didn't touch the colour from the RAW file, the first version was a tad over staturated (with vibrance) but this once is untouched. --PierreSelim (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here i`ve uploaded a corrected version where the colors look even more natural than in the actual alternative. This was just a quick try, with the raw-file and a little more time the result would be even better I think. --mathiasK 16:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I don't see any oversaturation here. It wouldn't be a robin if it has a grey throat. --LC-de (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Better alternative in the encyclopedic sense, even if I didn't mind the blueish tone. --Paolo Costa (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
weak Oppose: underexposed, tilted and per Alchemist-hp. It's really a nice picture, but I don't think it's featured, sorry. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2012 at 17:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Observation Tower view of Niagara Falls in winter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Observation Tower view of Niagara Falls in winter.jpg
Info Panorama was made out of 24 images. All by Paolo Costa (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, out of focus and the quality looks really poor.TucsonDavidU.S.A. 08:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral I don't get the above comment at all. The picture is perfectly well focussed and as sharp as one could expect given then weather and distance. I have no problems with the quality either. There's a wealth of detail all over the picture and I can't see any stitching problems. However, there's no getting away from the fact that it was a dull day and those buildings up the top right aren't pretty. My brain likes it but my heart isn't in it. Colin (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think he's just getting back at me for opposing his candidate "All Aboard.jpg". He did the same with the nomination by user scewing, who also opposed on his FPC. Not the most mature behaviour, but whatever. I thought the buildings were good for illustrating purposes, but now you mention it, they actually disturb the nature scenery. I'll nominate another cropped version later on, thank you. --Paolo Costa (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose -- It's a shame that I have to oppose this picture because the idea and mood are really nice. But the composition is somehow unbalanced, with too much white on the middle (and all around) and a too imposing and less interesting foreground. Also, the care to make the vertical lines vertical on the right was not taken on the left as well. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 18:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Adelpha cytherea MHNT.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Adelpha cytherea MHNT.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:32:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bald Eagle Portrait.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 18:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral the interior of this church looks impressive, however the perspective correction is a bit weird (exagerated ?). --PierreSelim (talk) 06:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 14:21:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 06:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kohrvirab.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kohrvirab.jpg
Neutral For me there is on the bottom something missing, what is there? A forest, a town? -- -donald- (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The monastery in the foreground is Khor Virap, which originally served as a dungeon for Grigor Lusavorich, the patron saint of Armenia that converted the country to Christianity in 301 AD, as the first state with the official religion being Christianity. The mountain in the background is Mount Ararat, which according to the Biblical accounts is where Noah's ark is supposed to have rested, and serves as a great national symbol. So if anything was cut off in the bottom, it could hardly compare in significance to the rest of the photo :) Chaojoker (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose bad image quality (noise) and colours (white balance is too warm and looks oversaturated IMHO), even if the view is really stunning... There are some dust spots in the sky, too, and I'm not really happy with the three leaves on the right. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I like the composition, but I agree with Carschten. --Kadellar (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2012 at 21:35:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info A teneral, still colorless female of the Northern Damselfly (Coenagrion hastulatum). The ripe damselfly will show a green colouring with black markings, typical for female Northern Damselflies. c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Feb 2012 at 07:47:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral Ich weiß nicht so recht. Schönes Bild, kein Zweifel. Aber der Hintergrund ist mir persönlich zu dunkel, da wäre weiß angebracht. Das Kabel nach rechts wäre toll, wenn es flach aufliegt. Und die Reflektionen im vorderen Bereich über dem roten Knopf stört etwas. Und dann den Blickwinkel ändern, dass man die Zahlen lesen kann und das Telefon mittig, symetrisch ist. -- -donald- (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment volle Zustimmung. Ein wenig mehr Platz drumherum (insbesondere links) täte dem Bild auch gut. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat 19:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
donald was neutral and I think it is a nice thing to disagree using English language.
Support Good quality with soft lighting. I don't think it is necessary to always have such images isolated on white. There appears to be a reflection of a fluorescent strip light in the glossy portion below the dial. Colin (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
_2.JPG/450px-View_of_the_Rabí_Castle_(2)_2.JPG)
%2C_ceiling_fresco_in_the_Camera_dei_Papiri%2C_Vatican_Library%2C_1772_-_M0tty.jpg/300px-thumbnail.jpg)
.jpg/496px-MG_PA_6_Race%2C_1300_cm³%2C_Bj._1936_(2008-06-28_Sp).jpg)
.jpg/300px-Adi_Holzer_Werksverzeichnis_899_Satchmo_(Louis_Armstrong).jpg)
.jpg/220px-NGC7293_(2004).jpg)
.jpg/220px-Close-Up_of_the_Helix_Nebula_(4).jpg)
.jpg/451px-Rhinogobius_flumineus(Hamamatsu%2CShizuoka%2CJapan).jpg)
.jpg/400px-AMG_Mercedes-Benz_C204_(DTM).jpg)
.jpg/620px-Tallinn_-_Town_Hall_Square_(Raekoja_plats).jpg)
.jpg/400px-Tipula_oleracea_female_(Linnaeus_1758).jpg)
.jpg/450px-ST-UBB_-_Clément_Poitrenaud_(essai).jpg)
.JPG/386px-Ice_cream_van%2C_Helsinki_(Helsingfors).JPG)
_-_2.JPG/387px-Keisarinnankivi_(Helsinki)_-_2.JPG)
.jpg/559px-Machecoul_-_Abbaye_Notre-Dame-de-la-Chaume_(1).jpg)
a.jpg/690px-Polish_cavalry_in_Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg)
.svg/310px-Royal_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(1952-2022).svg.png)
.jpg/450px-Mandarin_Oranges_(Citrus_Reticulata).jpg)
_-_part.JPG/390px-Keisarinnankivi_(Helsinki)_-_part.JPG)
.jpg/300px-Brandenburg_St-Katharinenkirche_03_(MK).jpg)
Info created by Tlusťa - uploaded by Tlusťa - nominated by Tlusťa -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Tlusťa (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Oppose now wow, nothing oustanding for FP --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Question I'm interested to find a primary source showing a golden crown on the head of the black silesian eagle. I'm not sure about this specific ornament...--Jebulon (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) But it is good, according to the czech text (...zlatou koronou...)--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
.svg/15px-Pictogram_voting_comment_(orange).svg.png)
Comment Is it less kreativ, or less worth to invest hours of creating a well-arranged graphic, then a successful photoshot? - Just to think about. --CellarDoord85 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Strong support -- David C. S. 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Neutral Background is very different the left and right, and it interferes. Otherwise good. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
_2.JPG)
I withdraw my nomination
Keep Because of the historical value of the subject. A FP is not only a super Quality Image. We have to be very careful in the delisting process IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
,_ceiling_fresco_in_the_Camera_dei_Papiri,_Vatican_Library,_1772_-_M0tty.jpg)
Strong oppose Commercial stopped badly, poor crop, and an uneven background. Not featured. –ElmA (Talk – My files – E-mail) 14:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
a size comparison is sadly missed here IMO) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
사랑 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
Fixed Done, image also has less distractions now. --Paolo Costa (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
,_ceiling_fresco_in_the_Camera_dei_Papiri,_Vatican_Library,_1772_-_M0tty.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_delisted){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
a.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.svg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_delisted){kind=link}
_-_part.JPG,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
,_ceiling_fresco_in_the_Camera_dei_Papiri,_Vatican_Library,_1772_-_M0tty.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_ceiling_fresco_in_the_Camera_dei_Papiri,_Vatican_Library,_1772_-_M0tty.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
Done Thanks. New version (not tilted now, I think)--Miguel Bugallo 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
chromatic aberration --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Request @Ggia: maybe you could add some infos about your used camera and the settings of the image? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
--ArildV (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Weak oppose I find the composition too busy. Tomer T (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
_-_2.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
a.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a.jpg){kind=link}
a.jpg)
.svg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_part.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_-_part.JPG){kind=link}
_-_part.JPG)
Abstain -- Llorenzi (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
Weak support -- Achird (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
