Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2011

File:Spizella arborea CT5.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 22:42:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I hope I won't get bored too soon ;) - Benh (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colour --Böhringer (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 10:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you could only be this passionate about non-birds ;) --ELEKHH^T 13:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On what would you like me to go? --Cephas (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...I find there is a serious lack of good architecture photography... but that's a completely different fish... :) --ELEKHH^T 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But architecture is much, much easier to take than birds: doesn't fly away! --Cephas (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you mind some other opinion... How about simply some other wildlife animals ? It seems to me you could share us some pretty good stuffs - Benh (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this already, but apart squirrels, mammals are elusive and don't cross our way too often. --Cephas (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is anything like here, it might pay to go out at night with a spotlight to find them. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since we're playing puppeteer... Personally I want you to keep providing us with awesome bird photos. In fact, I've put your lens on my wish list and am hoping I can oneday do a similar job in Australia (as JJH is already doing). --99of9 (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Could you please denoise the background? That is an easy thing to do nowadays. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you denoise the background without affecting the sharpness of the bird? (I will finally learn to decrease ISO when enough light is present!) --Cephas (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I carefully selected only the background and denoised it. I uploaded over the top, but feel free to revert if you don't like it. Maedin\^talk 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO A little bit too much lead room, but good. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I put a note for a possible crop (strangely not showing here but only on picture page). Any support for it? --Cephas (talk) 11:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In agreement with the comment of IdLoveOne, I finally cropped the picture a bit. --Cephas (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to get the annotation here try this. Edit the page as usual, press view (at the top of the page), press an "Add a note" button that appears under the image and then annotate it.--Snaevar (talk) 12:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Good work, Maedin. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aww, thanks! But more so to Cephas for doing the hard part, getting the picture! :) Maedin\^talk 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Blejski Vintgar, Slovenia (5).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 14:51:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by flickr user James Southorn - uploaded by Sporti - nominated by Smihael -- Miha (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miha (talk) 14:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The long exposure in this picture is a well known procedure to get this kind of effect. However, in this case it causes motion blur at the people in the picture. Also, there is overexposure at the top of the gorge.--Snaevar (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure, motion blur (I don't mean the water, I mean the camera was bumped). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 06:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Only featurable at thumb size. Sting (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: not featurable quality

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.

--99of9 (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-02-13-chemin.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 12:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite different picture of what is usually nominated as FP, and that is a good thing. Good quality as well.--Snaevar (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --McIntosh Natura (talk) 20:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although it seems a bit reddish to me, the color tone perfectly suits the scene. --Aktron (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose图像主题不明确--shizhao (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 15:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Big air Québec 2011.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2011 at 17:37:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Letartean (me) - uploaded by me - nominated by me -- Letartean (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Letartean (talk) 17:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive action shot IMO. Furthermore I like this "urban" unusual impression for a snow game.--Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture of snow game without logos, wow! --Citron (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Jebulon.--Ankara (talk) 09:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Highly dynamic image (I speak of the feeling it gives), moreover in an uncommon context. --Myrabella (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snowflakes up in the air and really good timing. It´s a yes for me.--Snaevar (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 18:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Maersk Riesa 2010 G2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 20:55:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Oil products tanker Maersk Riesa
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sock Whale (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dead central compo is a no-no for this kind of images. Where is the tension, the excitement? W.S. 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per W.S. --Cephas (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It is not dead center, though I wish it were larger so more detail would be visible. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WS - Benh (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ For me the yellowish color on the crane, the captains deck and the tower above that is a no-no. Pictures outside of commons tell me that those places are supposed to be white (just as the nearest surroundings), but of course you may try to prove me wrong.--Snaevar (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can compare colors on title "MAERSK RIESA" at backside - clearly white. I don't know why yellow color was used. Also this ship at first years after construction was blue, not typically black as some tankers. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Changing my vote to Support.--Snaevar (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Good technically and a clear QI, nothing more. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beatrice Ask på Internationella brottsofferdagen 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 20:50:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- V-wolf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Honestly... suboptimal lighting, noisy, without even talking about the background. One might argue that the superimposition of her figure and the flag is exactly what makes the picture... I believe otherwise. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Perhaps you're right...--V-wolf (talk) 06:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 22:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diceros bicornis MNHN.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 00:35:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support . Info This skull (and the whole skeleton) of a Diceros bicornis (Black rhinoceros) was collected for the french National Museum for Natural History by the french naturalist Pierre Antoine Delalande during his travel in southern Africa, between 1818 & 1820-- Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I need one of those as a pet! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to smile ;-) --Schnobby (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot, nice object. Letartean (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the black hat.--Claus (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support he is smiling!!!--Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I bet the smile is an illusion, just as dolphins seem to smile all the time, witch is just one of nature´s illusions. However, it doesn't seem to matter, because the quality is good.--Snaevar (talk) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe I'll support when the CA is removed. W.S. 08:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your positive votes are like your photographs: always invisible.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments are as acid as personal. W.S. 13:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am surprised they let vote, a stranger who did not produce any photograph. I draw the attention of the community about your behavior strange. It will be very easy for a critic to your level to amaze and delight us with your production. If I'm writing here is that on your talk page you erase the criticism you are doing. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is this really worth arguing over? Let's talk about the image, not those voting on it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're right, one should talk about pictures, but nevertheless: FPC rules have changed. According to the new guidelines, only editors whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits can vote. I can't see a single edit (picture), only opposing votes. I'd like to know, why someone can vote without fulfillig the criteria for voters. If I not have the right to vote by not having 50 edits, I think I have also not the right to oppose. --Llez (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are we still using that rule? The vote was 11-9 to get rid of it. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, we are still using that rule, and actually it was 10-9 to get rid of it. The conseus was a heated discussion of what should have been a fairly simple conclusion and ended with one of the Commons administrators deciding the result.--Snaevar (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment advice.. User:Wetenschatje is one person.. if (s)he want to oppose to all the images he has only one vote.. Try to support the images that you like and ignore him/her. Ggia (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done photo --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now inserted in some WP articles. --Myrabella (talk) 10:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect shot. Only "problem fossil?" is missing on the bottom of this shot, but that's nothing that can convince me not to vote for support :-) --Aktron (talk) 16:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I thought a lot before supporting, because I have to be consistent with what I said before ;) and the subject of this picture is definitely worth FP in my opinion. Execution (choice of point of view, masking) gives it justice. - Benh (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info I've removed a spot in the mask (beetween the two horns). --Jebulon (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:StatueOfLiberty.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 00:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jnn13 - uploaded by Jnn13 - nominated by Jnn13 -- Jnn13 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jnn13 (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting angle, but there is nasty flare near the sun. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THFSW. --JovianEye (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Imaginative artwork of having the sun in the image does not work for me. It looks like the brightness of the sun has caused some cusps of light probably due to internal reflections within the lens. The cusps are fascinating - is there a name for this phenomenon? I find the foreground is unbecoming. The resolution is good enough. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The name for the effect is w:lens flare 99of9 (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree on the lens flare. It is both slightly left of the sun and as a green beam at the statue.--Snaevar (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like how the Sun, its lens flare and the Statue of Liberty share the composition, even if the lens flare was an accident, though I would like the bit on the left cropped out since it isn't even symmetrical in any way. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per THFSW.--shizhao (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Comanthina nobilis (Feather star) on Callyspongia sp. (Elephant ear sponge).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 17:42:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CAs, big part of the subject in foreground is oof --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten.--Snaevar (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citron (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ACE EMD F40PH Fremont - San Jose.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 19:07:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger, nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reflection in the water makes for a very nice composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not.--Citron (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! -- MJJR (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you think about a crop of almost a half of the empty sky ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the sky looks good, it matches the blue in the train and the reflection. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe cut enough sky so the horizon match the 2/3 rule. --Cephas (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have added an image note for a possible image crop. --JovianEye (talk) 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - That way looks ok, I would support that. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Me too ! Even if I think it could be more (per Cephas)--Jebulon (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - With this cut, the verticale 2/3 is reached, but I would make sure not to put the train dead center (horizontal) as it is with the crop. I'd push the crop to the left a bit. --Cephas (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with pushing the crop to the left, per Cephas.--Snaevar (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have cropped it as per the comments above. --JovianEye (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, the way it leaves room both ahead of the train and behind it.--Snaevar (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support what a composition! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a collaboration ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A classic. Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support now with crop. Very nice. Jonathunder (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 01:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:John Reynolds death 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 22:43:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alfred Rudolph Waud - uploaded by Papa Lima Whiskey - nominated by Jujutacular -- Jujutacular ^talk 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jujutacular ^talk 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice historical illustration. Steven Walling 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Generally very good of an image from 1863 and a good image as well, but I am not exactly thrilled about the quality of the frame.--Snaevar (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Upper Belvedere LCD.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2011 at 19:25:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Murdockcrc -- Murdockcrc (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Night photograph of the Upper Belvedere palace in Vienna, Austria.
Support -- Murdockcrc (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dull colours, and rather dark, even for a night shot. Looks very slightly tilted to left as well. - Benh (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Benh, could be more sharper. --Mile (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the colors and their atmosphere, has the feeling of weird and mystical. The image is sharp, maybe a bit noisy (ISO 200 would be better), but that's still ok. I have a problem with the composition: At such symmetrical buildings with reflections the image should be centered what isn't the case here. I would crop ~12 pixels at the right and ~312 pixels at the top. Then I would support this very nice photo. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1

Comment Modified the exposure to make the palace brighter without clipping the highlights and applied some sharpening. Feedback is very appreciated. --Murdockcrc (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice improvement but I would still oppose. You're not helped by the lighting scheme itself, which is pretty basic. - Benh (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about those Pointing angle quotation marks in the lake, how did they get there? (I annotated one of them on the original for your convenience)--Snaevar (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking closely at it, it's two posts or something sticking out of the water at opposite angles. The water reflects this, making teh < shape. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, those are metallic posts inside the water, whose purpose is unknown to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Supports for fireworks ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality, although I agree on the tilt of this picture witch is 1.14 degrees to the left.--Snaevar (talk) 12:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice improvement. Difficult light conditions.--Jebulon (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Difficult light conditions, but still too noisy...--Citron (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Auf dem Gehrenberg 6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dietrich Krieger - uploaded by Dietrich Krieger - nominated by Anghy -- anghy (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- anghy (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support High quality and very artistic, but not a whole lot of EV. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture--Llorenzi (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support To be perfect the horse should have been the other way round, but still impressive. --ELEKHH^T 11:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per THFSP. --99of9 (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose, per THFSW. His arguments are valuable for an oppose vote too... This is a very nice picture, which could win in a contest, but I do not know how to use it in projects. There are many other sites where to show this kind of (very good) images. Only my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember that Commons is not only supporting Wikipedia. I imagine this could be used as a generic image in a Wikinews article like this or elsewhere. --ELEKHH^T 13:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for information. I'll try to remember, but I think I know well enough now what "Commons" is or is not ...;). I know too that this picture will be feature-d. In my opinion, only in my opinion, this (nice) image has no (or a very little) educationnal value and is not feature-able for this reason, sorry. --Jebulon (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beware the lone opposer, thou shall be castigated. W.S. 14:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Amen O my Lord. Sed qui bene amat, bene castigat. --Jebulon (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't misunderstand me, I am very glad you give so much attention to educational value! Nevertheless I think there are multiple ways an image can be educational. In this case I imagine you refer to a lack of EV as the image does not show any details of the horse or the vegetation etc. But as a highly impressive image, it can help attract attention (i.e. readers) to an educational article, thus indirectly leading to an educational benefit. More directly, it shows the silhouette of a horse in an aesthetically pleasant way, which might make viewers want to learn more about it. -ELEKHH^T 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can agree with all of that. I understand what you mean. My oppose is "weak". But I oppose, indeed...--Jebulon (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Je pense comme elekkh que tu as tendance à trop valoriser le côté encyclopédique d'une image alors qu'on est sur Commons, mais nous en avons déjà suffisamment discuté... À la rigueur, il faudrait penser à faire l'équivalent du FPC sur le Wiki français (seul grand wiki sans !!) - Benh (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Je pense comme Archaeodontosaurus (et d'autres) que tu as tendance à trop valoriser le côté "concours de beauté" dans FPC alors qu'on est sur "Commons". Il y a beaucoup d'autres sites, et des meilleurs, pour montrer et juger de "belles images", alors que "Commons" est unique. Nous ne nous accorderons pas sur ce point je le crains, et en effet nous en avons déjà discuté (suffisament ?). Je crains que ton interprétation de la pensée d'un autre ne soit pas tout à fait conforme à ce qu'il dit, en ce qu'il confère tout de même un aspect encyclopédique (ou éducatif, pour mieux traduire) à la beauté de l'image en question et tente de m'en convaincre. Je pense au contraire qu'il conviendrait de supprimer les FPC des wikipédias nationales (anglaise, turque, allemande essentiellement), qui n'apportent rien et ne font que créer de la confusion, d'autant que la tendance est à regrouper et à faire migrer tout les stocks sur "Commons". J'attache énormément de prix au côté international de "Commons". Je considère enfin que les discussions particulières et les interpellations ad hominem n'ont pas leur place sur cette page, surtout dans une langue qui n'est pas usuelle pour la majorité des utilisateurs. --Jebulon (talk) 17:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I've no issue with switching back to english. I remind you again part of the guidelines : "Remember, the goal of the Wikimedia Commons project is to provide a central repository for free images to be used by all Wikimedia projects, including possible future projects. This is not simply a repository for Wikipedia images, so images should not be judged here on their suitability for that project.". That's Elekhh's point. Another issue, unlike en:FPC, you can't weight your vote on Commons, no need for weak or strong vote. - Benh (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        My concern was not only about the use of english or french...--Jebulon (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        After re-reading the guidelines (rule 7), I see that I was wrong (only) with this part of my sentence above: but I do not know how to use it in projects. It is not a valid reason to oppose, ok. I still think so, but please notice that it is not the main reason of my oppose. I maintain the rest. To me, this picture is suffering of a lack of educational value. Then I still oppose for that. It was a weak oppose because I used a contrario the same arguments used for a weak support by THFSW. Please notice that I didn't use the false/wrong template. This kind of trial sounds ridiculous. I never go to ENWP FPC (only one time, when they promoted my écorché), and I don't know what happens there regarding the vote process.--Jebulon (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong composition -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition is unbalanced to me. Challenging the general rule of giving some space ahead of the subject doesn't always work -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacks EV, sadly. That's a great shot! --LeavXC (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support per rule #7. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karelj (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --Claus (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice! --Falcoperegrinus (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Red tone overexposure.--Snaevar (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Citron (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Crocodylus-krokodilskopf.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 19:08:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

crocodile skull,Crocodylus sp.,4 pictures in a summary (scientific view)

Info created by H. Krisp - uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by H. Krisp -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 4 pictures in one scientific overview H. Krisp (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several making errors / dust spots, but can be removed (see annotation) --Llez (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you! I removed the dust spots H. Krisp (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request can you remove the CA please? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Alchemist-hp, sorry, I´m a hobbyphotograph. Can you tell me what you mean with CA please? Thank you very much and many greetings
- CA = Chromatic aberration. Alchemist, please remember that not everyone knows what this means! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SupportA great looking picture--Breawycker (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV, nice composition. Steven Walling 04:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good.--Ankara (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose For a scientific overview, all images should be to the same scale and have the same white balance! W.S. 10:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. --99of9 (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WS has good point here. - Benh (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for the critical comment! I know what you mean but a same scale is in a paper not really necessary! Normally scientific journals want to see under each picture a scale. If you want, I can make such a scale but to my mind those things disruptive the picture because my intention was only, to take a nice scientific photo that showed many details of a skull of a juv. crocodylus sp.. Thank you and many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the biggest issue is the white balance consistency. - Benh (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, but: Oppose per W.S + technical inadequacy: white balance + chromatic abberation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Oh, now I understand WS and CA. Thank you very much H. Krisp (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Scale on the image is not necessary, but the scale of the subimages has to be the same:

Version 3

W.S. 09:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to make the picture a little bit better :o) H. Krisp (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you use pixels and not something like centimeters? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that not obvious? How am I going to use cm when no indication of size is given on the original? W.S. 07:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, never mind then. I thought an alternative with a scale was being added. I see this is merely for demonstrative purposes, though IMO it was obvious to me that the images already weren't in the same scale. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Hi W.S., sorry that I upload the new version with no comment (see above) but my withdraw is correct: I think the picture isn´t good enough for a featured picture. Now I try it again in the category quality images (I found the category this evening :o)). Thank you very much and many greetings H. Krisp (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /IdLoveOne (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ronald Reagan with cowboy hat 12-0071M edit.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 17:41:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an unknown author. restored, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 17:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the hat and both ears is some pixelation. Also, since I am an European, I don´t really value a picture of an ex-president as much as the Americans would do.--Snaevar (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- meh. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good portrait of a historically very important person. If this has no value, we should delete the rest of the images on commons. Nice quality, considering the circumstances. --Nikopol (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good restoration of a 1976 portrait.--Jebulon (talk) 00:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support regards, PETER WEIS TALK 11:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support GerardM (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC) a portrait picture I featured on my blog[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Citron (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:Junior at Darlington edit.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 17:02:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by United States National Guard - uploaded by Purpy Pupple (Original by Dha) - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Thomas888b (talk) 17:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Sorry, a good subject, but I just can't support it. There is far to much noise, the picture is tilted, and the crop is not the best. However, I might change my vote if the tilt can be fixed. Sorry, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure for the tilt. Please consider the shoe in foreground. It looks almost perfectly horizontal. And the technicians are changing a wheel...--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see the shoe. Now I see the tilt is an illusion. Changing vote to Neutral. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the illusion is the car being tilted to allow the team to change the tyres. Thomas888b (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality but not perfect, but overall a very good photo that captures the situation very well.--Ankara (talk) 09:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Awesome photo, but I agree about the crop. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere of race.--Claus (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Bad composition. The exposure is ok, since it is both overexposed and underexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /--Citron (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:Paris - Invalidendom - Kuppel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:59:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I just love reviewing pics like this... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and detailed. --Cayambe (talk) 09:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Admittedly I'm being picky here, but I wouldn't have cropped this much on the bottom side. It really feels like missing some kind of "support" here,sSomething like this. But since this wasn't taken from front... - Benh (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Beautyfull subject and nice quality is not enough. Agree with Benh. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, at the cross at the top, statues and the whole dome.--Snaevar (talk) 11:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reflections are inevitable when you have sunny weather. But I can not see that the reflections on the gilded areas disturb the impression of the image. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are to some extent, as long as you take from proper point of view and at the right time (This example from myself doesn't have that many reflections) - Benh (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has not that many reflections because the picture is anyway to dark. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of bad faith here... You are right for the underexposure; but really the point of view is more suitable to avoid reflection. I could work on that and brighten it up, I wouldn't have that large burnt out part. But I think I'll have a reshot at it someday instead, since my lens is now repaired. - Benh (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like Benh pointed out this picture should be taken a different time of day, or even when there its more cloudy. Not every picture can be fixed in a computer to make it as an FP, you know.--Snaevar (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even reducing the picture at 2 LW there are reflections visible. [1] Gold is twinkling. That's life. --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- A different angle would've caused shadow, therefore IMO the glint, especially that the entire top is gilded yet the glint is only over a fairly small part, is forgiveable.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Not very good but very sharpness.--Claus (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Citron (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:Space Shuttle Discovery under a full moon, 03-11-09.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 21:49:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/Bill Inglais - uploaded by Gage - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lovely. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Goes together, rocket and moon --Schnobby (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect. --Aktron (talk) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ackles29 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support There isn't exactly much detail at the platform, but I agree the Shuttle and the moon are the main subjects.--Snaevar (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impresive. --Karelj (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Carnival-Freedom-Cruise-Ship.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 17:05:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rapidfire - uploaded by Rapidfire - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Oversaturated. Also the poor thing is suffocating for lack of space. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahaha poor, little entire 900-foot-long, 13-decked, 110 thousand ton, 3000-person capacity cruise liner. Squished into a measly 10 megapixel image.. Oh, the humanity! :( -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alves. I'd support this if the saturation were not so high and the crop was better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Hugely oversaturated --MAURILBERT (discuter) 05:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:I samma ögonblick var hon förvandlad till en underskön liten älva.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 02:17:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by w:John Bauer - uploaded by Thuresson - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just ever so slightly under 2MP. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad framing. Needs to look like this, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you cut the guy's name off on the bottom.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Magellanic penguin, Valdes Peninsula, e.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 20:33:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David - uploaded by Chin tin tin - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite some apparent lint that was on lens. Strange tilted setting but apparently natural. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per IdLoveOne. --Snaevar (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to know exactly where he goes! --Schnobby (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really captures that comical penguin spirit. Nice work. Steven Walling 21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if I find the composition too centered. Why not a (serious) crop left maybe ? Should be better IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I would crop it on the right, very slightly. Too much would make the image almost square. Please take a look at the background, which is full of jpeg artifacts. Maedin?... Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Steven Walling H. Krisp (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 04:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice, but the central composition and the bush on the right are unfortunate. --Cephas (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's useful - let's you know the bird isn't falling over, it's just on a slope. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For no good reason, I've de-noised, edited & cropped this image (bot posted results while I was editing :-) File:20110301155553!Magellanic penguin, Valdes Peninsula, e-2.jpg

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Meteora Agios Triadas IMG 7632.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 02:35:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Dido3 - nominated by IdLoveOne (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Needs geocoding, however. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 07:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but it does make me wonder how those people got up there. Perhaps the path is on the other side.--Snaevar (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yes, there are (steep and narrow) paths now. In the past, however, people and goods would be transported in a basket. Neither the basket nor the ropes looked very solid, actually, when we were there (about 25 years ago). MartinD (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support slightly overexposed but valuable image --Böhringer (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 10:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't that thing in a James Bond movie??? Seems familiar to me. Letartean (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. jonkerz ♠ 07:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Sitta canadensis CT3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 10:13:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail, strong composition. --ELEKHH^T 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks very nice. Sharp and room on the right side greatly makes for the composition IMO. - Benh (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good composition, but too noisy and only part of the head is sharp. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good. The only thing I can see wrong is a really minor distortion at the food above his beak.--Snaevar (talk) 11:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel we have sufficient featured birds that we are able to demand natural settings for them. --99of9 (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ljubljana - Anas acuta male.jpg

File:Polyporus squamosus 2010 G4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 15:16:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky --
Info Dryad's saddle, immature bracket fungi (Polyporus squamosus)
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ??? No wow, nothing that screams FP here. W.S. 09:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support All criteria satisfied, in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, composition, obvious harsh front flash lighting which mostly lit the center part and side effectively vignets the pic, and makes for a common shot. - Benh (talk)
Support -- Benh's sort of right about the flash, otherwise it's a good image taken in the natural setting. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, too dark. --Karelj (talk) 10:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Walter Siegmund and I think its a good picture of a young fruiting body of Polyporus squamosus H. Krisp (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, and clear underexposure in the blue channel. This corresponds to the rock to the left.--Snaevar (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Object at left is a tree old stub, not a rock --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:San juan pilgrimage.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 23:05:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice and interesting, I like the perspective, the light and the angle of view. Lot of ethnological value. I'll support if you remove the strong CA over some hats (the strongest is on the first one).--Jebulon (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jebulon, CA removed, and many thanks to Peter Weis who generously taught me how to do it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Muy interesante. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Then support. And how did you do ? --Jebulon (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jebulon, go to [[2]] and follow the instructions. I have CS4 that has that utility (camera raw). Simple to use, if you have questions, let me know (or Peter!!!) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 11:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I knew this article. I'll try, even if I'm not sure it works with GIMP on Mac...--Jebulon (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much gray for me, although it may make the subject looking more interesting, I don't think it's nice. --Aktron (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Aktron. --Karelj (talk) 10:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A man, a man, a woman (?), and a man... Nothing special.--Claus (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valuable, but lacks technical merits (poor lighting, etc.) --LeavXC (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lichtenstein.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 22:46:13

Info Bad quality. A better version exists File:Schloss Lichtenstein 04-2010.jpg (Original nomination)
Delist -- Citron (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- better version featured too. --Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Quality not up to the mark. --JovianEye (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per others. --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I love the colours of the surrounding trees (whereas in the other the trees are bare), and I see from the en:wp FP nomination that it is from a scanned slide, which explains the closeup quality, and I have this bias against delisting FPs just because technology has moved on ... So I'll abstain :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Quality of the building is not up to par, especially at the crosses on the rooftops. The trees are adequate, though, and the sky is this picture best feature.--Snaevar (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —kallerna™ 12:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Phyrexian ɸ 17:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boka Kotorska - ferry to Kamenari.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 14:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per nom above. W.S. 09:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per WS. Composition doesn't work: ship obscuring central element of the landscape, 1:1 sky/water proportion, uninteresting foreground (bottom 1/3). --ELEKHH^T 21:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Since this is a boat ferry picture, I think there are two ways to get it featured. The first is to have a good DOF so the landscape is what makes the picture great. The second is to have near-perfect quality of the boat. Unfortunately, though, this picture does not have a good DOF or sharpness and a slightly too much overexposure (wrong time of day, IMO), that makes the white color look a little off. Additionally, of-course, every image should have a decent composition and here even the water trails of the boat are not fully on the photo. It´s a no for me.--Snaevar (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support If the color is corrected. It needs white balancing. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cyphoma signatum (Fingerprint Cowry - Haiti).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 10:12:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Benh (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- No bells ringing, too wide dof. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nikopol (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Dutch Proverbs - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 19:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info painted by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, digitized by Google Art Project - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot (bot of Dcoetzee) - nominated by Dcoetzee -- From en:Netherlandish_Proverbs: "Netherlandish Proverbs (also called The Blue Cloak or The Topsy Turvy World) is a 1559 oil-on-oak-panel painting by Pieter Bruegel the Elder which depicts a land populated with literal renditions of Flemish proverbs of the day. [...] There are around 100 identifiable idioms in the scene". This particular digitization, from the Google Art Project, is not only higher resolution than our other copies of the same work (5649 × 4000 or 22.6 megapixels) but also has better colors and is sharper, allowing elements that were not discernable before to be identified (see e.g. this fish). It's used in 46 articles on 29 projects and currently has 44 extracted images depicting individual proverbs. Has a good artwork template with 10 translations of the title, albeit missing provenance and accession number. On the minus side, it could definitely use image notes and Google's title for the work (The Dutch Proverbs) appears to be their own invention (possible rename?). Dcoetzee (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dcoetzee (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support feast for the eyes (Augenschmaus), sense of (black) humor, drollery, admirably, enjoyment of art, wow, best quality --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support We needs it. Must have the precious. --Nikopol (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful quality, high educational value. Steven Walling 02:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support But definitely rename it to the accurate name. --ELEKHH^T 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I love Bruegel and this painting, in particular. The reproduction seems to be of good quality, also. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Genial painting, very good quality. --Phyrexian ɸ 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- What is this? I don't even... -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Prison island.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2011 at 02:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very nice but small --Claus (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. W.S. 09:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture and interesting (I've read the article). Lot of EV. Maybe a bit small indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 12:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wish I had gone there when I was in Zanzibar in January, but there will be more chances (am in Tanzania until June). :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As WS. --Karelj (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really special! -- MJJR (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I love it, but what is this thing I've annoted? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked with the originals, it's not a stitching fault, that's how the structure is --Muhammad (talk) 11:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Strong Support in that case. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very thrilled by the shot, sorry - Benh (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it and will support, but there are some cloning or blending "fragments" (a whatever they are called) in the sky which look ugly in full resolution (see annotation). These "blotches" can become even more noticable in print. If you fix this, I will gladly change my vote. --Nikopol (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as ws and others --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While there are sky-blend blotches. --99of9 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rapperswil SG Panorama Februar 2011.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2011 at 21:29:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Center from Rapperswil SG all by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Friedrich Böhringer you surprise me. After several boring snowscapes, now an interesting FP-worthy panorama. There is still hope for FP. W.S. 09:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-) :-) Snow is not boring, just cold. For many people, the mountains and the snow is quite something interesting. l.g. --Böhringer (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Just one comment, maybe you should crop the street at the extreme right with the traffic lights. Or maybe not. W.S. 09:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --alex.vonbun (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I'm gonna be "that guy" and say it's weird. The picture seems to be looking in 2 directions. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support And why not? --Schnobby (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because it looks unnatural, and seems that if we had two "pincushions" here. Sorry, I agree with IdLoveOne.--Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Superb composition, very good quality. But a FP is the best Commons has to offer and the buildings at right are tilted. Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--alex.vonbun (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Similan Island 01 (MK).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2011 at 14:24:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info panoramic view over the „Ao Kuerk“ bay, Similan-Island, Thailand. Second try of this one, i've straightend the horizon and correct the projection. all by -- mathias K 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 14:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment chromatic aberrations to me. See notes--Miguel Bugallo 23:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the CA it's not very important because 9,386 × 3,930 pixels, but it is improvable--Miguel Bugallo 23:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is trying to close this because you have restored an old nomination page [3]. I suggest you start it as a new nomination page (e.g. Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Similan Island 01 (MK).jpg 2nd candidature). --99of9 (talk) 06:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks FP to me. --Murdockcrc (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graz - Uhrenturm6.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2011 at 14:55:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --alex.vonbun (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Keine Frage --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 08:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This already has 8 supports? Seriously?? I hope I'm missing something, but there are huge aesthetic problems here. Big greyed out patches that have ugly joins to the non-greyed out patches. I'll mark some of the boundaries to help your eyes. This could be a stitching problem, or an interaction between the spotlights and the mist, but it's ugly no matter what it is. 99of9 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That grey is indeed disturbing, and the composition is not outstanding for me. Otherwise good detail. --ELEKHH^T 11:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per reasons above. Looks like if the masking job were unfinished. + need of some perspective correction : th pole and th dome in background right are leaning to the left) --Jebulon (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 and others.. Ggia (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the lighting and I can't find these grey spots.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others. Especially the 'misty' stairs to the left of the tower are weird. W.S. 14:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can not see any spots derogating seriously this image. But I invite all reviewer to verify and make it better: all original RAW-images are downloadable here: ([4], [5], [6], [7], click at the green download-button after closing the pop-up-window) -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cropped version, for visual purposes only.

Comment Uploaded a cropped version, where the annotated areas are marked into the picture. Hopefully that will help you to see the "greyed out patches".--Snaevar (talk) 11:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carefully: I did say, that the spots are not derogating the image and not that I did not see them. The area you have marked is the area the spotlight shines and reflects very strong. This are not errors but the natural circumstances. --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don´t shoot the messanger. If you do wan´t to argue about the "greyed out patches" do so to eather Jeublon, 99of9, Ggia or WS. Personally, I have never said that those patches are an issue, and this picture is for demonstrative purposes only. My opinion has nothing to do with it.--Snaevar (talk) 13:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I see it now. I'd noticed that before but it just looked like a shadowy area to me. I'm not quite sure what to think of it. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Muhammad (talk) 11:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Citron (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Common kestrel falco tinnunculus.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 10:37:18

Info The originally uploaded picture has obviously been greatly modified~~, and not particularly well~~. I suspect that the whole background has been replaced - the perch looks square edged and manmade, what were the original surroundings?. Ok, we have no particular problem with edited images if it is well done, and disclosed, but here it is neither. For instance the tips of the tail feathers should be white and rounded, this bird has had them snipped off - I expect the original had a much lighter coloured background at this point, and in cutting out the bird from the background, they were lost with the background. On the original upload there are a couple of white specs in this area which were probably part of those feathers. There are editing artifacts all the way around the outline of the bird. (NB I am not complaining about the subsequent editing for the FP nomination) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Original nomination)

Delist -- Tony Wills (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Examples to compare: File:Common-Kestrel.jpg, Off site example

Delist Your evidence around the tail feathers is compelling. --99of9 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good quality and the tail feathers would only make me consider putting a weak support for this image, but it is a support none the less.--Snaevar (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps there was some fixup done just near the tail, but the rest of the photo is as shot. The feathers around the bill look very consistent with the background. Has anyone asked the photographer for comment? Tomfriedel (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put an initial question on his talk page, no reply yet. Everything below the perch worries me, the background has a different texture (smooth) than above. No sign of the talons from the front toes appearing under the perch (what is that perch?). I think the photographer just cleaned up the image but wasn't aiming to submitt it to FP, if he would upload the original image we could maybe redo the edits. --Tony Wills (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still very good and FP for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Supposedly nondisclosed editing, but more important: Bad quality! Strong posterization on the back. --Nikopol (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Still great. LeavXC (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist More modifications than I originally expected. --LeavXC (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist as Tony. W.S. 09:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I once had the idea to clean up some of the bird featured photos, and selected this one first: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LilacBreastedRollerCropped.jpg but it was not delisted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomfriedel (talk • contribs)

I don't believe in delisting FP images that were up to the standard at the time (others disagree ;-), but in this case it is a recently promoted image that clearly failed what I thought was a standard here : edited images are fine so long as the editing is disclosed and not apparent (so I am not so much concerned with the quality of the photo, but the quality of the edits). --Tony Wills (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Andreas has sent me an unedited version, the falcon is perched on top of a white sign, the white tail feather tips are very difficult to see against that background but I think that we can retrieve them, the talons on the front toes are hidden by the sign. I haven't yet seen the camera original file, so am not sure yet whether we can get a less compressed version (with fewer JPEG compression artifacts). --Tony Wills (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist As Tony and Nikopol. --Cephas (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist opposed when it was nominated. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 16:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Andreas sent me the original and I have re-edited it to include the tail tips and eliminate the visible jpeg artifacts. I have adjusted levels slightly, but haven't increased saturation or adjusted the colours. The original background was fairly noisy, so I have smoothed that out with a gausian-blurr. Others may be able to do a better job, so I have uploaded a jpeg of the original too. (PS I love the sign in the original, it is as though the Kestrel is guarding the area, and directing you to read the sign :-)

File:Common_kestrel_falco_tinnunculus-original.jpg
re-edit --Tony Wills (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Feb 2011 Heavy Snow on the Korean Peninsula.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 10:28:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by the NASA MODIS Rapid Response Team - uploaded by & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Satellite image of the Korean Peninsula after heavy snow fall.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We had a thousand image like this.--Claus (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So why not have this one? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lacking highlights in the Korean highlands.--Snaevar (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marmolada Sunset.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 12:33:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sunset sunlight on the peaks is what makes this image FP worthy, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --LeavXC (talk) 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Melbourne Park - Tennis.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 11:53:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by annieb - uploaded by KnowIG - nominated by KnowIG -- KnowIG (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- KnowIG (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. Disturbing shadow in front. W.S. 15:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WS, plus the bright blue rectangle in the top right that really isn't exposed to be there.--Snaevar (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ReverseGeneticsFlu.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2011 at 11:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mouagip - uploaded by Mouagip - nominated by Mouagip -- Mouagip (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've vectorized the image which was already nominated as JPG here. Now I'd like to nominate the SVG again. -- Mouagip (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you remove the watermark? W.S. 14:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can but I thougt I leave it there since the image originally came from Link Studio. I've done the same here:

--Mouagip (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is considered good practice to remove them (see proposed policy here). W.S. 15:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll credit the studio in the description then. --Mouagip (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great picture. Maybe you guys will do a similar diagram for the pig flu vaccine?--Snaevar (talk) 16:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only can verctorize pictures. Give me a Bitmap and I'll see what I can do ;-) --Mouagip (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not the greatest fan of images whith to much text on them. If I liked to read about the vaccine, I'd visit Wiki article about it. Masur (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very illustrative and useful, but I think assigning the text to the steps should still be a bit easier. It could for example be done by reluctant color coding or by moving the text closer to the corresponding steps. Will support if you find a way to improve this. --Nikopol (talk) 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- They're right, steps could be assigned and numbered and the explanations could be translated on each specific language Wiki. Still I like the image. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support High EV. Steven Walling 21:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Masur and Nikopol. Looks to me like an illustrated text, not really like a "picture". Does a multilingual version should come, as "Commons" is a multilingual project ? It is very hard to understand for non native english speaking people like me. Sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Iguana iguana Portoviejo 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 22:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wild Green Iguana (Iguana iguana) in the botanical garden at Portoviejo, Ecuador. This one is a male, as seen from the long dorsal spines and the reddish body colouration. The animal poses on a rock close to a pond covered with the invasive plant species Eichhornia crassipes.
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 01:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- It's perfect! -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good but it would be nice if the background were less cluttered and busy. Would benefit from shorter DOF. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. I think if the background were more in focus people would complain that it's distracting, same vice versa. In this case it's sharp enough at full resolution that you can see what the plants are, and they're all pretty evenly lit with no 'disturbing shadows,' but not so sharp that it draws attention away from the lizard in question. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Per the comment of High Fin above. --Cephas (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture, good illustration, good colours. Background is at least uniform, although not blurred, so I think the composition is clean enough. It's difficult fitting entire long lizards into a good aspect ratio. --99of9 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness, but bad background.--Claus (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a natural background and please read my comment to High Fin. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 00:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:The Dome Church at Les Invalides - July 2006-3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 06:57:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Poor lighting - Benh (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose was of course an oppose - Benh (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The job (mosaïc, resolution) is fantastic, but I'm sorry, the stones doesn't look so in real, the natural colors are more "warm". Probably due to the bad lighting, per Benh.--Jebulon (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in general, it's the right weather to make photos of this building, because of the gold. But in this case, it's really much too hazy. There's also a small stitching error. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I've already shot this under clear weather and don't think I came up with undesired reflections - Benh (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

but your picture was made from another perspective --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but my point was that this is not right weather. And perspective changes nothing here. - Benh (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good, but I admit it isn't perfect.--Snaevar (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good composition, but the lighting is too dull.--Nikopol (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting. --Karelj (talk) 10:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting too.--Claus (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-02-20-ouv-chevremont-3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 12:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think for such an place some wide-lens shot or panorama would be much better. This one is missing "wow effect". --Aktron (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply too ugly and not otherwise special to pass I'm afraid. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 14:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Strix varia DM1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 23:50:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Laughing Owl!! ...no, actually it's a Barred Owl yawning. A common behaviour, but seldom pictured. -- Cephas (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yawning or laughing - I like it --Schnobby (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A picture at the right moment - great -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why is he yawning? Aren't there any mice about? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It hunts at night and sleeps all day. --Cephas (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I know. Just my (weird) sense of humour. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why the owl was laughing? Cephas, what did you do, you had a tomato nose?--Claus (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support // tsca (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice detail, interesting pose. --ELEKHH^T 12:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice smile, and reminds me this other shot of mdf - Benh (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm using that mdf shot as wallpaper for my computer! --Cephas (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't like the tree next to it, but whatever. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Crassula ovata 2011 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 16:51:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad background, poor composition... no FP Factor.--Citron (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Citron. --JovianEye (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[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. --99of9 (talk) 06:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Comment Could pass at QI. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Padoux église 08 horloge.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 18:08:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Coyau -- Coyau (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coyau (talk) 18:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Why didn't you get the whole top? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did, the roof isn't a thrill, why? --Coyau (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the entire thing would be more to C:FPC's liking considering it hates cutoffs. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, it's good enough for me anyway. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 11:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Karelj. Good picture, but no FP. -- MJJR (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj.--Claus (talk) 08:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, unsharp and perspective issue due to the other tower to the left.--Snaevar (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Karelj.--shizhao (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Coyau (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Cairo Tower 31march2007.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 15:13:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raduasandei - uploaded by Esperanza1871 - edited by Arad - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please rotate counter-clockwise --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and lack of DOF--Snaevar (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 21:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trier Welschnonnenkirche BW 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 14:49:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- Needs better lighting on top. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor lighting.--Claus (talk) 09:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agreed. Both green and blue channels are underexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't need to check channels to see it's clearly not lit enough. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I chose to check the histogram to analyze the image instead of looking at it. But, since the lightning matters to you that much, then maybe you should oppose the image. Gee, you could even have it as an "Weak oppose" ;) --Snaevar (talk) 02:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did weak suuport because other than the lighting it might be featurable. Yes, yes, I know, I can be too lazy with opposes. :( -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 14:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiacarpenter.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 10:16:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Deeptrivia - uploaded by Deeptrivia - nominated by Zeimusu -- Zeimusu (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Zeimusu (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A nice picture but not special enough for FP status. Image quality in quite poor (the small sensor size is to blame)-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality, poor colors. Sorry. --Aktron (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite quality. It is actually an informative picture, regarding carpentry. Tools (see planer between right side men), axes, working conditions, materials, etc., etc. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality and overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad quality --shizhao (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Main Dome of Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 22:35:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might I draw attention to the bad crop. Especially at the bottom right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.71.233 (talk • contribs)
- Question Who's speaking? No anonymous comments, please. -- MJJR (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The histogram indicates a clear lack of contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lack of contrast? -- IdLoveOne (talk)
- Yes, contrast. Histograms are not only useful of analyzing over and underexposure, but some knowledge of reading them is required to find out if images have lack of contrast. I suggest you google how to read histograms, since you find that surprising.--Snaevar (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I've tried and adjusted the histogram. See if it is better now. --JovianEye (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know, just seems like a weird reason to oppose. Almost an indirect request for digital tweaking and adjustments that might majorly change the mood and apparent timing of the image is all, not that that's necessarily a bad thing. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also, I appreciate your rude implication about as much as I appreciate Benh's. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could imo be a bit darker. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The window on the left could still be a bit darker, but its already much better now. --Mbdortmund (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbdortmund --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Snaevar's issue with the histogram have been addressed (I believe so). Can you still not see the difference? --JovianEye (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cody-Buffalo-Bill-LOC.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 20:58:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Jengod - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 20:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ Good quality, but ~~since~~ it is 1.7 megapixels ~~I am a bit undecided~~.--Snaevar (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Oppose. Basically the same reasoning as before.--Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 212.241.58.17 15:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too small. W.S. 15:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The picture is large enough to be a featured picture candidate. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't: it is below 2 Mpx. If Tomas hadn't supported already, I would have FPX'ed it. W.S. 15:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info As I have pointed out many times over the years, there is no arbitary size limit of 2Mpx (there is a guideline to help submitters) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree with your philosophy that there's no real need to have strict size rules. Some minor and well-justified deviations IMO are worth considering. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too small--shizhao (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KasteelTrompenburgh.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 11:52:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Castle Trompenburgh, 's Graveland, the Netherlands

Info created by GVR - uploaded by GVR - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
as nominator Support -- Basvb (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, nice picture. Multichill (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see now that I forgot to add this to the list, sorry. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yes, a nice image but not feautered. It is to dark for me and the technical quality isn't good: chromatic abberation. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy CA indeed. W.S. 15:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alchemist-hp. Actually, this is a classic example of Chromatic Aberration.--Snaevar (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PC290032.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 20:30:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Araujojoan96 - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess this entry will promptly get opposed, neither the mariposa nor the flor being properly identified. The composition is a bit cramped, the concrete terrace in the background having more contrast and attracting the eye almost more than the butterfly. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Species identification has never actually been a requirement of FP, it is part of the requirement for QI though --Tony Wills (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert, who's comment will be helpful to the author of the image. --Cayambe (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose looks like an FPX to me. --ELEKHH^T 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks like a QI though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 missing proper identification (per Maurilbert) and composition is not good->to much unused/empty space on top, to busy below and is also not sharp enough (per myself)

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.

W.S. 14:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a nice picture and I would support it if there were any point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gais AR Dorfplatz Panorama 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2011 at 19:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Very beautiful wooden houses and gable variants in the Swiss Appenzell in Gais. All by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kadellar (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know you can hardly help it, but the poles are hugely disturbing. W.S. 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Solar annular eclipse of January 15, 2010 in Jinan,Republic of China.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2011 at 20:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by A013231 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the quality is poor, but it is a very rare event and good pictures are hard to get. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some color banding but good. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would have thought something like this would be a better FP if we needed an eclipse
. --99of9 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing stopping you from nominating it (possibly with the date blacked out). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good illustratively and simple. I want to mention though, that there is a reason why astronomers do like a near-full eclipse like this one better than a partial one.--Snaevar (talk) 09:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --anghy (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Common kestrel falco tinnunculus-2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 08:56:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andreas Trepte - uploaded by Merops - edited and nominated by Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A previous edit of this image was promoted as FP, but was delisted due to a few short comings, see previous nom & delisting. -- Tony Wills (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there could be some substantial undisclosed editing going on below the railing. In particular I think that some or all of the space below has been replaced with a fake background. Particularly on left hand side the tone suddenly jumps from dark above to light green below along the fence line. The rate of this tone shift seems inconsistent with the amount of background blur. Secondly the railing is blurred at the edges above, but sharp in places below. Finally there appears to be direct evidence of cloning on the lower left hand edge of the railing. I'd like an independent assessment before making such accusations though. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is disclosed it seems (so I am wrong there), but still obvious in my view. JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original edit got through FP with little trouble, where were you then :-). I must admit that my editing concentrated on repairing the bird, I am not really much fussed by the fashion for blurred, blank, backgrounds ;-). Perhaps someone with a bit more skill would care to tidy up the image (or start again from the original :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry to waste your effort a bit. It might be technically possible to improve the consistency of background, but I'm not a photoshop whiz. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I would not bother with elaborate work on the background, since the quality is not up to the standard any longer: lack of detail due to heavy posterization (also, the head does not seem to be properly focused). It is essentially a bird without details in front of a photoshopped background. But I admit it looks nice as thumbnail. --Nikopol (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "not up to the standard any longer" ? Boy-o-boy standards have improved in 3.5 months :-) It might be worth reviewing other FP promotions during November 2010 :-)

I did not look up the date of the picture´s promotion. If it was only three months ago, that does not make it better, on the contrary.--Nikopol (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prairie Shores.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 05:15:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, but it would need some more space on the left as well as the right side, that would make the composition much better. --Aktron (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Decent quality at the buildings, lacking contrast in the sky and lacking somewhat DOF in the surroundings (just enough to make it interesting would be enough).--Snaevar (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring and the trees look funny. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 12:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 12:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diet Coke Mentos.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 15:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by User:Mikemurphy - nominated by Andyso -- Andyso (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting-- Andyso (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very interesting indeed! --JovianEye (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop at the left and somewhat underexposed. I am aware that mentos makes cola (or even pepsi for that matter) spew like a fountain becouse of nucleation. Repeating this shot would be easy.--Snaevar (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly an effort was made in composition and I'm sure in timing also. The quality is good and as for the crop it a little bit of splash cut out isn't much and if it were to be included it should be widened on both sides so it would remain even. The subject seems so random IMO. Worst of all this dramatic picture has a brand name on it and that really makes me not want this to end up as POTD. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Snaevar and IdLoveOne -- Andyso (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I might support a similar image with less product placement. ;-) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louise Elisabeth Vigée-Lebrun - Marie-Antoinette de Lorraine-Habsbourg, reine de France et ses enfants - Google Art Project.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2011 at 08:41:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Élisabeth Vigée-Lebrun - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 08:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Can someone please fix the Large Image viewer? T_T -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question three current nominations ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the first one is currently FPX-ed and as long it doesn't get contested I don´t see any reason to FPD this one.--Snaevar (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Downscaled to a measley 4000px there seems to be some strange circles on the woman's face? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of girl too. It's original painting. --Claus (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support High quality picture of a very sad painting... --Jebulon (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claus (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Oh why ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't want to vote for it until I can see full resolution, and I think other people feel the same. :( -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Öresund bridge near Malmö.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 11:42:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Vitold Muratov
Oppose JPEG artifacts in the sky. --JovianEye (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --lol. Did you even look at the image before putting it here? Sting (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[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 suject-title is much too small and a terrible picture quality. --Sting (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Comment I can see why it was submitted to FP, the strong diagonals of colour and cryptic horizon look quite good at 640x475. But at full resolution it certainly has problems. For an image taken at ISO 64 and 10Mpx resolution, and 11MB in size I am surprised at all the artifacts. I would love to see the non-photo-shopped original. --Tony Wills (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems that two pictures were stitched together in a rather bad way: see the horizon line! Lower part is oversaturated, upper part is full of artifacts and noise. -- MJJR (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:D-ACKI.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2011 at 15:30:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Wolf (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't it remind you of a pencil? (Fliegender Bleistift ). Wolf (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this exactly 2 megapixels? Has it been cropped or downscaled? --JovianEye (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped. Wolf (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp and overexposed. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's sunny and the object is white - gonna seem overexposed. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why cropped so much? From 15 Mpx to 2 Mpx? The result is not sharp enough for the size neither. W.S. 10:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral How do you overexpose a white object? Do you want it grey? However, it is not very sharp, and having the rear in front of those clouds is not good for composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Karelj (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The histogram indicates a clear lack of contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Спас Колев (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Wetenschatje--shizhao (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hacienda jaral de berrios.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2011 at 14:37:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice colors and lighting, ~~but there are some dust spots. Also, the sky is noisy. Can you fix this? Shouldn´t be a problem with CS4 :)~~ I ~~would~~ do * Support. --Nikopol (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose dust spots, chromatic abberation (and a bit noisy sky). If you can fix it then I would support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fixed. --Tomascastelazo (talk)

04:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

now Support. Perfect. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support if you can add some more space in the bottom.. I left you a note.. Ggia (talk) 14:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was to be the seventh, but I have a little doubt, it seems to need a small correction, the tower at right looks leaning in the wrong direction : the dark aperture behind the broken balcony looks distorded. Too heavy persp. correction ? --Jebulon (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jebulon, the tower seems to lean in the wrong direction because the slant is different in the front than on the back, that is, the slant in the front is of a different angle than the slant in the back, you can see it in the second tower also. If you were to look at the towers from the top down, the center of the top portion would not sit in the center of the bottom circle, it would be off-center. This can be appreciated when you look at the towers from the side. Perspective correction always distorts something else. The only way to really get better perspectives is with view cameras or perspective correction lenses. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You convinced me.--Jebulon (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice color, but a little boring.--Claus (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Usual photo. Does not inspire. --Velopilger (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 15.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2011 at 07:31:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Don-kun (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion at the top of the columns and grainy ceiling. Looks like a snapshot to me.--Snaevar (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Could you please do something about the alignment? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not good quality, as Snaevar. --Karelj (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Velopilger (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana iguana Portoviejo 04.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2011 at 22:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Wild Green Iguana (Iguana iguana) in the Botanical Garden at Portoviejo, Ecuador. This one is a female, as seen form the relatively short dorsal spines and the green body colouration.
Info I do not consider these two Iguana pictures to be alternatives of one single candidature, this because they illustrate the sexual dimorphism in ONE GIVEN population. --Cayambe (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support After checking the histogram. Very good technically.--Snaevar (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Great pose and background. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Basvb (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if I miss the tail...--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good posture and very sharpness.--Citron (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A few distracting objects in the background, but I still prefer this over the other one. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See? You just proved me right. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I prefer this one because the background is more blurry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic shot! --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice, buts where's his tail?--Claus (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Same as Claus, and I would have loved the background a bit more blurred - Benh (talk)
Oppose Per neutrals, only for me it is an opposing reason. W.S. 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the quality is super, the DOF is good (even if the background is a bit disturbing in full resolution), but I really don't like the tail crop, too (per W.S.) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose，per Carschten--shizhao (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good compromise between DOF on the subject and background blur, IMO. This sort of subject, with tail, generally gets lost in the frame and little information is added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

File:In the Conservatory.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 17:09:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Édouard Manet| - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support! -- Huge! So much detail! Well done. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, but my navigator hasn't supported...--Citron (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 15:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not that this is not the full resolution image, which is considerably larger in area, too big to upload to Wikimedia Commons or fit in a JPEG file. Once I've uploaded it to Internet Archive I will link it from this image. Dcoetzee (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 00:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pescadores escultura.jpg

File:2011-02-13-lac-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 12:15:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well captures the serenity and placidness of the place. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think that this image needs a more descriptive file name. Ggia (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ouch! Is this really the best that commons has to offer? Do you want this as an example of our prowess on the main page? Composition is trivial and DOF is low. W.S. 09:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are not satisfied of my image, so, make a better picture. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Baah. I've got already a tough enough job trying to ensure no substandard images reach FP to get involved in picture taking, thank you. W.S. 14:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this actually. It's a half-dead-looking winter scene but there's still beauty that can be captured. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor depth of field, not among the best landscape compositions we have to offer as a project. Steven Walling 21:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Muhammad (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, overexposed. Also, distortions and noise at the branches and trees to the far left.--Snaevar (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above.--Citron (talk) 07:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amphiprion ocellaris (Clown anemonefish) in Heteractis magnifica (Sea anemone).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 08:52:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 08:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite size requirement being barely met - Benh (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since this is made with 5 Mpx camera, and perhaps there was some crop i support. Would be different when see downsizing from 16 Mpx. --Mile (talk) 10:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support lovely and cute Andyso (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reminds me of Finding Nemo. —stay (sic)! 06:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An easy remember...--Citron (talk) 08:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --shizhao (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

File:Gruppo del Sella.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 12:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support which planet is this? I have to support!! W.S. 16:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing! W.S. supporting a candidate! :D --Citron (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wow! Great composition, lighting, exposure...well done! --LeavXC (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive lighting. --Cayambe (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Very good! Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If W.S. is supporting, there really can be no flaws. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think that it is exactly what he wants you think...--Jebulon (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Terrific! --Murdockcrc (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 01:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I think a little more light will enhance the image.. it is a little bit dark.. or no? Ggia (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have a sun glasses that time ;) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
tentative Oppose: There is noticeable posterisation in the sky...provide a higher quality version, please? Maedin\^talk 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can't find any. Please check your monitor bit depth. Does somebody else notices posterisation? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm per Ggia, it's very dark overall - Benh (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the fan of night shots :-o W.S. 09:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Night shots are dark by nature, sunset shots on the other hand... Only tiny part of this picture is actually lit by the sun. - Benh (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if an image proposed as FPC is not a night shot you will always oppose it? Ggia (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do like night shots, but no I've supported many many non such FPC. - Benh (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment –Very nice indeed, but the visual impact could have been even greater with a slightly different position of the sun, illuminating larger areas of the rock. What can be interpreted as posterization in the sky, details I can see too like Maedin but not as noticeable as he said, are maybe/possibly only slight differences in the thickness of the high altitude clouds. Sting (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No lager highlighted areas due to shadows from other high mountains. This shot was done with Cokin gradient filter. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous! Steven Walling 21:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural

File:Huizen Walstraat.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2011 at 14:35:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hanneke - uploaded by Hanneke - nominated by Basvb -- Basvb (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator - some nice stepped gables, with a nice dutch sky. - Basvb (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor compo/crop. W.S. 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much posterization. Jujutacular ^talk 19:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad compo.--Claus (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is clearly an artistic choice and not meant to show off the whole building, but I somewhat agree with Jujutacular about the posterization. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. --Karelj (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jujutacular.--Snaevar (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --shizhao (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —stay (sic)! 05:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flying Submarine Cormorant Model 40.png

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 21:17:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by W.Rebel - uploaded by W.Rebel - nominated by W.Rebel -- W.Rebel (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- W.Rebel (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnecessary border and I would rather support an SVG (like this one, for example).--Snaevar (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[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 is too small. The picture has also an unnecessary frame and watermark. -- Sting (talk) 11:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

1) The edge image can be changed (unless specifically required). 2) The rules for the nomination did not provide for the format SVG images. 3) Conditions do not provide the desired image minimum size for drawing. --W.Rebel (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you put here the raster version, don't you agree that 720x720 px is really far from the 2 MPx requested for the candidates? Sting (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is 2 megapixel can accepted, but this is a drawing. For comparison ... similar dimensions as File: Animated gun turret.gif. You expressed your opinion. I said to you, that's all. --W.Rebel (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flor de Melância, Watermelon Flower (São Luís - Brazil).JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 23:52:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Micael Lopes - uploaded by Micael Lopes - nominated by Micael Lopes -- Micael 106 (talk) 23:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor quality (unsharp and noisy) --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:QuébecPanorama2011-02-2317-16-10.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 06:04:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the St Laurent in Québec in Winter

Info created by Cimosteve - uploaded by Cimosteve - nominated by Cimosteve -- Cimosteve (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cimosteve (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of the poor quality (why did you appointed the camera settings so illogical and bad? ISO 3.200 and f/25 by day image can't turn out all right, why not f/8 and ISO 100??) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Йосингфиорд.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 05:49:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Vitold Muratov

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry, but this is too small (only 1.49 megapixels). All candidates need to be atleast 2 megapixels - JovianEye (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

That is wrong. The File of mine is 2,03 Mp. See this one at COMMONS :-@ Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 11:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You, Muratov, are not writing about the same thing as JovianEye. Sure, the picture is 2,3 Megabites, but what JovianEye is talking about here is Megapixels. Resolution, but not file size. Do you get the difference between those two?--Snaevar (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red rockfish.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2011 at 09:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonym - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lack of details.--Snaevar (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Donald Pleasence Allan Warren edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 02:03:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Allan warren - restored, uploaded and nominated by PETER WEIS TALK 02:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor tight crop at the top, some noise, WB seems a bit off to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too much blue in the wb. --Aktron (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fixing the crop would only require a solid black line above his head, and is only one request away. The levels are blue, because the jacket is blue. WB and histograms always show same amount of colors as is in the image, obviously.--Snaevar (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong expression, good composition, good arrangement of the colours --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm fine with the wb, though it would be nicer to have a less tight crop on the top. Otherwise, very good portrait, just not quite there for FP maybe... Steven Walling 21:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info it's the framing of the original image - the space above in the original version is of pure black, which indicates this is part of the medium used for digitisation (kodachrome slide or else). this is a restoration not a retouched image, therefore enhancing the the framing is not going to happen. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 09:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noise, crop, CA, WB. W.S. 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good restoration of a 1973 picture.--Jebulon (talk) 22:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its restoration of more than 20 Mpx photo from 1973. Check some 2000 eur camera at 16 Mpx, would be funny to compare noise issue. --Mile (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dont like the tight crop on top. --JovianEye (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muammar al-Gaddafi at the AU summit.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2011 at 15:28:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jesse B. Awalt - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC) we need high quality pictures of any and all politicians from any stripe from all over the world, never mind if we consider them good or bad. This is a quality portrait picture of a man that is currently very much in the news.[reply]
Support let the controversy begin. regards, PETER WEIS TALK 15:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --Snaevar (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed my vote becouse of Steven Wallings comment to
Oppose blurry at the hat and collar and bad crop, some of the hairs on his head are cropped on the left edge of the image.--Snaevar (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture... that represents a bad character. --Citron (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good picture, no controversy for that ;) !--Jebulon (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cropping at the left and top --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Despite the tight crop at the left, a great and striking portrait -- MJJR (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad IQ, tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carschten. Relevant and timely, but let's not lower our standards here just because it's interesting or exciting. Steven Walling 21:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support On this picture Gaddafi looks like a wax sculpture. --Von.grzanka (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven Walling. W.S. 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support encyclopedic, showing us how the strongman looks like ha ha Andyso (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Steven Walling -- Marmoulak (talk) 03:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per all above O's......Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dictators shouldn't deserve special treatment. —stay (sic)! 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photograph. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 18:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alicia Silverstone (nude).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 14:50:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dave Meyers - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bit overexposed in her hair, but generally very good. I will check the commons policy on nudity though.--Snaevar (talk) 01:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is it still considered nude even if the breasts and genitals are (partially) covered? —stay (sic)! 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She's not wearing clothes, is she? lol -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The source file from which this was taken has been deleted: File:Alicia Silverstone lässt die Hüllen fallen.jpg, as it was determined that the OTRS tickets did not give proper confirmation of its license, see: Commons:Deletion requests/Images in Category:People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Jujutacular ^talk 00:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support :) —stay (sic)! 05:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If the license allows for it. Tastefully done. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice woman, well captured, BUT Blown highlights in the main subject. --Cayambe (talk) 10:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because resolution under 2 MP --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just 1.8 MP, per Wladyslaw --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Concerning the possibility of hiding certain images, I fully agree with Muhammad that FPC should be work and family safe. However I started a discussion some time ago about how to deal with pornographic nominations (not the case, I know) and, as far as I remember, no clear consensus was reached. From what I recall (can't find the thread though) the majority of editors was of the opinion that no special treatment was due to such nominations. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice subject, of course, but blown highlights and resolution a bit low. I expect something better from a posing model like this. --Cephas (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No value for Wikipedia. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not featured. Deleted copyvio. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Herceg Novi - Crkva Svetog Arhanđela Mihaila (portal).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 11:46:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 17:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really big and distracting cable to the right, pidgeon to the left and finally dark parts in the engravings. The last one is not your fault, but all those three things add up.--Snaevar (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed those too. I thought they blended into the background and were ignorable. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:360º Pano Auenfeld Hochtannberg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 11:36:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alex.vonbun - uploaded by Alex.vonbun - nominated by Alex.vonbun -- alex.vonbun (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- alex.vonbun (talk) 11:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose strong halo between sky and landscape, even if it's otherwise a very good image --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. --Aktron (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes to me. Beautiful view... --Danny (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Carsten, plus some overexposure.--Snaevar (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) one time is enough --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oh sorry, hat mir so gut gefallen.... --Böhringer (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support--shizhao (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Clitocybe-odora.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 13:18:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by -- H. Krisp (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good DOF, intersting lighting. Wenn Du vielleicht noch die Zweige etwas beiseite geschoben hättest, wäre es von meiner Seite eine 1+ geworden. Aber auch so, echt ein starkes Bild! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 06:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor (flash) lighting and not very exciting overall. - Benh (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mushrooms tend to grow in darker, moister areas (to no one: why are mushrooms in plants in the featured pictures?). The use of flash is reasonable. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash light per Benh. W.S. 14:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh, plus unsharp edges.--Snaevar (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Tamba52 (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --LeavXC (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Dendroconus figulinus 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 19:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dendroconus figulinus, Conidae, Fig Cone; Length 8 cm; Originating from the Indo-West-Pacific.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Even though Benh hates your style (and might sometimes make a decent point). -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yuh, I don't hate the style, and it's even pretty attractive. But when there are technical faults, one must mention them right (Since we can't trust you on this) ? And it's not like Llez can't repeat the shots easily. - Benh (talk)
- No, I have criticized Llez's pieces that I thought might've been flawed before. The difference is that my primary approach is visual whereas you criticize from a technical ideal justification. For example in one case you claimed that, despite visual evidence that to me seemed to indicate otherwise I had provided, that a piece Llez nominated was unsharp merely and solely because of the technique that was used. It also seems a lot of your issues with Llez's pieces are that an even number of shots usually isn't used like you would prefer. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It really was unsharp in that case... And I justified because of the technique used. You're the one who thought that shooting at narrower aperture was enough to improve quality and DOF, the one who mistake perspective issue with architectural feature and the one who ask people to use measure unit that isn't provided... That's why I think you're not trustworthy as a FPC reviewer... and yet you dare looking down on others as making decent points. Where are we going ?? - Benh (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And there you go again, posting more attacks and snobbish opinions like an expert, but not only were you unable to read my comment to W.S. about the image he linked on that candidate where I explained that I mistook that user's intention of adding that image like an alternate candidate, you continue to make quite loud your ignorance of issues that can occur with panoramic imagery that lead myself and another C:FPC user who's been around here far longer than you to make such a mistake. Oh, and, myself excluded, six people disagreed with you that the image was unsharp. You aren't making decent points and we wouldn't miss you if you left, you're just being smug, trollish, disruptive of polite conduct that we are accustomed to here, and I think that funny-looking bridge might be the only image you've ever supported anyway. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are skirting very close to personal attacks here IdLoveOne, please tone it down. I'm not sure who you mean by "we", but you certainly aren't speaking for all of the FPC community when you suggest that Ben should leave. Further, you may wish to check your facts: Ben has been here for quite a while, and has supported plenty of images in his time.--99of9 (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And what of Benh's attacks on me, 99? I try to be civil, but I do not apologize for what I said because he doesn't and it annoys me. Almost any other user here I can have polite disagreement with, but oh no, not Benh. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people mentioned that the image was sharp... and the people who were against clearly mentioned it was unsharp. Anyways... You can read any article you want about anything, nothing betters experience in my opinion. I believe I have some when it comes to panorama, whatever you might think, and the records speak for myself. The link you provide proves nothing about the Carcassonne FPC... and I'll risk myself into saying the other user you mention doesn't know much about panorama either. When you try to prove something at least check the facts better, as advised by 99. This isn't the first time you're a bit too quick to come to a conclusion. Benh (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... I wish I could know what it feels like to know everything. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Such fantastic illustration can be helpfull to determine an exact species! Thank you very much! (You have really a huge collection, haven´t you :-)?)H. Krisp (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with pleasure.--Jebulon (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring and by now trivial composition. You want an FP of every shell on earth? There seem to be over 60000 different snails alone! W.S. 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same. As already mentioned in my previous assessments, are we going to feature all shells out there ?. If at least they were properly shot... Here however, quality is acceptable (I still think there's focus issues on two first views) and lighting seems a bit better. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. Let's limit the shell pictures to 5 per year! As there exist 4 times as many gastropod species as birds, not more than 2 pictures of birds can be allowed to be nominated per year. And Homo sapiens is only a single species. In relation, not more than one single picture of a human being every hundred years! ;-) -- Llez (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but these shells are empty...I would love to see them full and in their natural environment.These are not fossils. --Citron (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - They still have EV on their own and look nice. Might also be weirder to get the multiple angles unless Llez just did one POV.. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 11:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainly. But for me a gastropod isn't only a beautiful shell.--Citron (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you have a look on the recently featured Picture of a Fingerprint Cowrie you can see, that the shell is completely covered by tissue, it isn't visible! And this is the case in many marine species. You can't make photos of the shell of many species when they are alive, and you can't "see them full and in their natural environment". Nevertheless, a shell is very important for taxonomy, visible or not in living specimens. So it is quite different to photograph shells and to photograph living animals. It always depends, what you want to show. I photograph shells, there are other photographers, which make pictures of living gastropods. We need both on Commons! --Llez (talk) 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 07:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:CRAY-2 IMG 8915-8913-8912a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2011 at 19:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cray-2 at the EPFL. created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No sense of scale whatsoever... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support reading the linked article provides a sufficient sense of scale. --JovianEye (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really would be nice if it had something to help viewers know how huge these things are per Maurilbert. Also some metadata so users can judge your technical choices and equipment you have on hand instead of the image itself. /sarcasm -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 12:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:20100803 La Castella Crotone Calabria Italy 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 12:13:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ggia - uploaded by Ggia - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 12:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 12:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral thanks for the nomination.. since it is my image.. I would comment that a better lighting conditions can make a better image (i.e. without the sun shadows). Ggia (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would say lack of DOF, but I can´t see any details to be captured. Instead I am going to agree with Ggia and point out that one stone window is partially cut out on the left edge of the picture. The oppose vote comes from that I don´t think the quality is up to par.--Snaevar (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sky seems darker than it should be. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 10:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Perspective dans le parc de Bercy.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2011 at 17:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Romanceor - uploaded by Romanceor - nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Cephas (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Steven Walling 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Miss some FT factor. --Mile (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per previous. W.S. 14:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issue as the timber pillars guide the eye to the center of the picture. I belive the timber and the arch above it is what the picture is supposed to be of and in that perspective, it just doesn't work the way it should do.--Snaevar (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically, it's alright, but as others already mentioned, it has little encyclopedic value -- Marmoulak (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marmoulak--shizhao (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sella group panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 10:01:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Too bad, I see more trees than the Sella group --Böhringer (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 12:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 06:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes to me. --Danny (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, and I like the trees too --Schnobby (talk) 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Borboleta (São Luís - BR).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 19:01:45

Info created by Micael Lopes - uploaded by - nominated by Micael 106 (talk)
~~Strong support~~ -- Micael 106 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but a minimum of 50 edits is needed to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The vote was 11-9 against that idea. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dear Micael Lopes: I regret to inform you that your account is a "suspicious account" [[8]] due to the fact that it is either less than 10 days old or you don´t have 50 edits, or both, therefore you cannot vote in your own nomination, least people think you are stacking the votes in your favor. You must do hard time by waiting 10 days and do at least 50 edits, meaningless if you want. After you comply with the rules, you may cross over to the camp of the not suspicious accounts. Regards. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is out of focus and underexposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a matter of principle. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Citron (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brown Bear Nationalpark Bayerischer Wald 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 00:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Aconcagua - IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Top left corner severely overexposed, but I like the different perspective. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Severly overexposed in the top left corner and motion blur on the bear (although I agree that the perspective is good.)--Snaevar (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this because of the motion blur. It's a major aspect in the "1000 words" of this photo and shows a well-known couple of behaviors of bears: Their ability to swim, their ability to withstand the cold and, well, the pretty much only way they know how to dry themselves off. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Alternate with levels changed any good? Or this one? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This guy sees overexposure of ice and snow as natural. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you completely misunderstood what he wrote about. Sting (talk) 12:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Snow and ice are white or rather when light hits/enters snow or ice crystals they reflect back white light. Therefore a photograph of ice is to be expected to be white and radiant and seem overexposed. That page is more about his method of compensating through deliberate underexposure, but I'm just making a point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I´m talking about overexposure in the top left, just as THFSW voted on. The first alternative picture is better than the second, but I must agree with Sting, that you are not quite getting the idea.--Snaevar (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...What in particular do you think I don't understand? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Wait, do you mean on the bear? If so you could've just said that. You three had me wondering about the ice, and that's his (her?) right BTW. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overexposed in the top left and motion blur on the bear, yes. (changed the wording of my vote to reflect this)--Snaevar (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@IdLoveOne : what the guy wrote is that if you take a picture of a very clear subject (here ice), the exposure meter of the camera will try to get a middle gray scene, underexposing the ice, so usually the photographers compensate a bit to get back the correct balance of the scene and a bright subject, but Mr Zuckerman prefers not applying that correction and he never wrote that ice/snow should be overexposed, on the contrary as a burnt photo is lost. Note that for a dark subject it's the contrary, the meter trying to get it gray... and it's what happened here as the bear is in the shadow while the upper left corner is in the sun, that's why this area is blown as no compensation was made. Sting (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, I didn't say the snow should be overexposed. I said that because of how light works with snow when photographed without a compensating method it will appear to be overexposed. He underexposes his snow imagery and then digitally enhances them later. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

« with snow... without a compensating method it will appear to be overexposed » at the contrary !! « ...sees overexposure of ice and snow as natural » well, your first comment leads to misunderstanding, but that's ok. Sting (talk) 00:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Aconcagua (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the overexposure in the top left, because the overall contrast it creates adds to the expression of the picture. Nice circular motion blur, clearly shaking its head MerlinCharon (talk) 12:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lovely! MartinD (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see a blurry bear and partialy overexposed background, which all together makes an impression of a quckly made snapshot. Masur (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moers, 2010-12 CN-I, Nebel Schwafheim.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2011 at 13:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten. Fog over fields next to the town Schwafheim in Moers (Germany) during the sunset. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - low educative value. --Спас Колев (talk) 08:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Спас Колев Andyso (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dont think this picture has low educational value. I can think of a dozen of potential places it can be used in. For example - this can be an example picture of a fog that forms in low temperatures. Or any other kind of fogs. Or the Tyndall effect. Or some kind of halo (I may be wrong, I'm not a specialist). Or a mornig. Or colloids. Or anything, really. The possibilities are limited only by one's imagination. --Von.grzanka (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Von.grzanka. Moreover, very nice. Shame of the cars left, and looks a bit tilted to the right.--Jebulon (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice view, too cold..?? ...Captain......Tälk tö me.. 08:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems tilted but the major reason for opposing is the overall composition (the road in the right makes a confusing composition). Ggia (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Velopilger (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring composition and dull lighting - Benh (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Viscum album section 2011 G1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 17:45:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info European Mistletoe, cross-section of a branch with this parasitic plant.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:45, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors, educational value --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems pretty sharp, although I think we should have more standard backgrounds for scientific images than just black and white because the white is a bit hard on the eyes in this case. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with IdLoveOne on the background. Not big enough of an issue to oppose the image, though.--Snaevar (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Megalith in Sweden.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 05:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Vitold Muratov
Oppose Overexposed overall and lack of contrast between the sky and the megaliths.--Snaevar (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support That it is reverted back to the original, I liked it more than I thought I would. This one is oversaturated. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Testa pavone.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 09:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MaryG90 - uploaded by MaryG90 - nominated by MaryG90 -- MaryG90 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MaryG90 (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like it, but it could be brighter. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Anyway. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, there are many details on the top of the birds head who are not captured on this photo. --Snaevar (talk) 00:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris - Sacré-Cœur - Kuppel zur blauen Stunde.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 15:35:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting! -- LeavXC (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose At the top of the dome, where the cross and antenna is not sharp enough.--Snaevar (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Minor flaw, otherwise nice comp and angle. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 17:00:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kristian Peters - nominated by 87.150.250.53 or Palmelampius
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Great subject, but unfortunately it's only .48 MP (minimum is 2). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info There is no such thing as a minimum size for FP --Tony Wills (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the yellow box named Formal things above this nomination, and then try to tell me that it is. And cut the crap.--Snaevar (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Question How about keeping it civil? Read what it says, not what you think it says. Just because various people keep insisting something is true doesn't make it so. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per User:The High Fin Sperm Whale Great subject :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- No explanation or mitiganting reasons for the small size. And I fail to understand why it was promoted to QI -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Start by asking how many microscopic images are candidates for QI, let alone FP. FP doesn't even have a category for microscopic images. Mitigating reasons? Have you ever tried taking microscopic images? One problem is that at high magnification, depth of field is incredibly small, so only a small portion of the object is usually in focus - focus stacking can help. Next the camera on the microscope usually doesn't have any seperate lens system, you can't zoom in, the raw image is a rectangle containing the circular view of the microscope stage as seen down the barrel of the microscope. Unless you want to have lots of black around the edge you crop that off, ie extract a rectangle from within the circle, within the raw image. In this case the object fills the whole cropped image, it is not like an insect or animal that probably on fills a quarter of the field of view at the most. So it is a different category of image, rejecting it out of hand is unreasonable. Is it so common place that we have lost the sense of wonder, of wow!, when we see the insides of a cell? --Tony Wills (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I believe many of us are well aware of the difficulties posed by traditional microscopic imagery. Still those difficulties are not, per se, enough justification for promotion. On the other hand, the fact that a certain image is not promoted doesn't take away any of its intrinsic encyclopaedic or educational value. As for the sense of wonder, which is a major component of the FPC evaluation, it is totally subjective and varies from reviewer to reviewer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bullshit! Try to buy a microscope camera under 2Mpx these days. Not possible. And if not a dedicated system, use a T-mount/C-mount and with a +10 Mpx camera you can crop 3/4 and still fulfil the FP requirements. And then there are stacking and stitching, a breeze on mostly stationary microscopic images. W.S. 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You exaggerate. I found them as small as 0.3MP on eBay. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only symbolic for Tony Wills's point. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Absurd size for FP. W.S. 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ötlingen - Panoramaansicht klein.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 15:33:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --alex.vonbun (talk) 06:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Per QI and no one seems to have discovered any stitching flaws, so hopefully I was right. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High overexposure. Unfortunate perspective because of the bush in the bottom right corner.--Snaevar (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where do you see high overexposure? curious greeetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's just using the histogram. The image has a lot of highlighting, but there's no clipping so there arguably is no overexposure, certainly none that the eye can see. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am using the histogram. Most of it is in the forground, that is in the bush in the bottom right, in the flag next to it and the tree to the far right (all parts that show clearly visable overexposure). But, apart from the houses in the background in the center of the far left of the image and the sky there is overexposure everywhere.--Snaevar (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I look at pictures with my eyes and not with the histrogramm an I can see everythink clearly. Also the sky has a visible painting with blue parts and clouds with different tonality. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Wladyslaw. Also, the medium of photography is an art, which is to be evaluated with the eye to the actual picture, and not with the mathematical charting of the EXIF data histogram. The histogram cannot determine whether a picture is good or not. This picture appears well exposed to me. LeavXC (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support —stay (sic)! 06:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - LeavXC (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

File:Edifice Price.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 22:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very good quality, but I'm not really sure about the compoistion (tight at bottom, to me a bit boring) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Mile (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot. --Aktron (talk) 09:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nothing special --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Cephas (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Altenburg near Bamberg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 01:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Vitold Muratov
Comment Use the nomination textarea in the rules section above next time to create the nomination page. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed, would be better if it was shot at different time during the day, and the fog is working against you on this photo. Good quality at the trees, though.--Snaevar (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice image, but a bit noisy... -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grain, sorry. --Aktron (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clearcutting-Oregon.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2011 at 23:59:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created/uploaded/nominated by Calibas (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Calibas (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is so hard to support such an ugly image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sky is severely overexposed, composition is on the boring side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as the composition being boring, how else could someone show what clear-cutting is? Ideas? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't want to take a gorgeous picture of such an ugly thing. --Calibas (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. I mean, the forest was chopped down leaving a raw wood, so the colors are raw as well :-) Sky is cloudy and it is obviously hard to make it not at least a bit overexposed. Using a grey filter would harm the trees leaving a "black something". But the colors and the topic is an absolute WIN I must say. The only thing I'd like to change here is format: widescreen shot would be a bit nicer. --Aktron (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The top of the trees are unsharp, along with some disortions. There is a cropped clump of wood and a falling tree on the left who are both partly cropped out and a branch out of a tree cropped out on the right giving a bad composition.--Snaevar (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't like the weather - Grey sky -> grey shading on everything = "blah" mood. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is possible to take a nice shot of a clearcut. This shot has some EV, but is definitely not FP level to me, sorry. --Cephas (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Cephas--shizhao (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flor de Melância, Watermelon Flower image 2 (São Luís - Brazil).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 00:12:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Micael Lopes - uploaded by Micael Lopes - nominated by Micael Lopes -- Micael 106 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Imagem melhorada!
Talvez um pouco, Micael, mas ainda muito longe da qualidade exigida numa FP. Neste caso, é a câmara que não é suficientemente boa, o que provoca muito grão (parece areia na foto) e prejudica a nitidez da imagem. Por favor, dá uma vista de olhos às nossas FPs de flores: Commons:Featured pictures/Plants/Flowers. Que tal arranjares uma câmara um pouco melhor? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Over worked, it doesn't look natural. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What happened to this picture ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 04:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Торвальдсен.Амур, играющий на лире.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 21:48:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vitold Muratov - uploaded by Vitold Muratov - nominated by Vitold Muratov -- Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Витольд Муратов (обс, вклад) 21:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

--Snaevar (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gafier Joch Aufstieg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 11:47:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Alex.vonbun - uploaded by Alex.vonbun - nominated by -- alex.vonbun (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- alex.vonbun (talk) 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sigh! Wish I was there ... great shot! -- H005 22:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pretty good, but there's a couple of spots where the shadow suddenly changes? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything that the topography wouldn't explain. --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose uninteresting composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canton tower in asian games opening ceremony.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 09:55:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Everything by Coekon or created by Colin Zhu
Support--Coekon (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks good, but is this how the building looks? From this angle it seems tilted. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is how the building looks, because other buildings are vertical--Coekon (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're right, though some very slight perspective work could be done. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ A building is on the left edge of this picture. I would like a 10 pixel crop on the left side to remove it.--Snaevar (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appears heavily distorted. Either I don't like the structure, or I don't like the photo. Either way, I don't feel the wow. --99of9 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--瓜皮仔＠Canton 06:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alopex lagopus IMG 9019.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 15:00:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Alopex lagopus in captivity. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great picture! --Brackenheim (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! --LeavXC (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear boundry between the fox and the background. Lack of sharpness.--Snaevar (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 06:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar --Cephas (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Uma bela imagem. Parabéns! Micael 106 (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but a minimum of 50 edits is needed to vote --Citron (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 11-9 -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Euh...10-9--Citron (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Don't strike my comment! I've been here months and have nearly 2,000 edits! Anyway Downsampled only struck their vote to make a point. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        XD ... I don't understand--Citron (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL check under support vote #4 on the talk page. Apparently Tomascastelazo did not get the joke. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        LOL!! But I did IdLoveOne! ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like it, I like the dog, but I don't like the shadow on the head. And why is the background so swirly? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 10:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just guessing, but the patterning in the background might be from taking the picture through a mesh. --Avenue (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:236084main MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg, not featured

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 17 Mar 2011 at 13:36:41 (UTC)

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/R. Hurt - uploaded by Flame99 - nominated by Andyso (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Encyclopedic and educational -- Andyso (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking details and the colors are not as strong as on the original Spitzer telescope photo.--Snaevar (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The grid overlay with the Sun at the center is interesting. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Query: the largest image I can see on the Spitzer site is 2400 x 3000 pixels. How did we get a 5,600 × 5,600 pixel version? --Avenue (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muumitalo 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 13:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 13:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Child's idyllic summer paradise in Naantali, Finland. —kallerna™ 13:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much sky, feet cut off on girl in front. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The girls feet don't matter IMO, but I think this needs white balancing. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pictures in theme parks are always tricky. Pictures taken there should have a small number of people, but also be photographed at the right time of the day. Inevitably, this calls for an compromise sometimes between those two factors.--Snaevar (talk) 12:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too pale colors --Aktron (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carcharodon carcharias caught by fisherman.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 22:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dr. Dwayne Meadows - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info It's a great white shark.
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depends. If this is a profile picture of the shark, then well done. But if the picture is of the shark shown in whole, then it´s body isn´t sharp enough, particularly on the edge between the body and the floor.--Snaevar (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's supposed to be an action-y shot. -- One, please. (Thank you.) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's a profile picture, as this one.--Citron (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my previously written comment.--Snaevar (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy, average compo. W.S. 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Save the whales. --Mile (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ??--Citron (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dont like such trophy-kind of pictures...research wannabe. --Mile (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S. --Cephas (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Citron (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reineckeia eusculpta 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 10:08:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Middle Jurassic Ammonite, Reineckeia eusculpta

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gives an unsharp impression and the masking is to crisp cut. W.S. 06:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisp Masking? The Ammonite was photographed in some distance in front of a black background, as descibed here: http://www.femorale.com.br/femorale/phototips.asp. --Llez (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some minor noise but good. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shrapless. Why f/18 in plane shot ? --Mile (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plane? Ammonites are 3-dimensional objects. --Llez (talk) 12:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about setting a scale beside, to get real feeling about it. You know, like mugshots. Would be better than dim. stated in description. How much of 3rd dimension did You get at this perspective ? --Mile (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Diameter (as indicated in the description!) 7,5 cm, thickness about 2 cm (how to add a vertical scale for thickness?). --Llez (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe it could be sharper. I think f/18 is wrong setting for an object where almost all the relevant points fall into or are very close to the focal plane. - Benh (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What would you suggest instead? I chose f/18 for the DOF was at the limit, but still acceptable --Llez (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd use the "sweet spot" of the lens. It's often at around f/8, and I don't think you'll get DOF issue with such setting. Only trying will let you know ;) - Benh (talk) 19:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh--Snaevar (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luxembourg City courtyard Musée d'histoire de la ville.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 20:20:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Cayambe -- Cayambe (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Spring atmosphere under the stem-grafted purple beech (Fagus sylvatica f. purpurea) in the courtyard of the Luxembourg City History Museum
Support -- Cayambe (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quite noisy (ISO 1250) and there is CA in the branches. --JovianEye (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Agree with JovianEye. --Cayambe (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HŽ 2044 between Turcin and Sveti Ilija.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 06:05:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very sharp and detailed, nice composition. --Cayambe (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, colors, sharpnes and ... everything! Lijepa slika :-) --Aktron (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lepa, dobra, da. --Mile (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job! -- MJJR (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Meandrina meandrites (Maze Coral).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 22:43:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chromatic aberrations. -- One, please. (Thank you.) 07:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've already corrected it! There's still?--Citron (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, along the fringes. Noted some or most of them. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Another Believer (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Salix caprea Male.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 13:36:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose why masking the context on that one ? I can understand for museum stuffs but for plants ?? - Benh (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC

I is not understand the question.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the black background? --Muhammad (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For there have no interference with a colored background.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good contrast background / object --Llez (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez --Schnobby (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some drawbacks to the use of black like this, but it makes for a rare and interesting compo IMO. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --shizhao (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OMG no usual complaining about a tight crop asking for more dead pixels? :D -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 05:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:27, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Llez. Yours --Borealis55 (talk) 11:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Torre de Hércules - DivesGallaecia2012-62.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 20:32:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 20:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice, but it's blown out. Can you work on the levels? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To me (lightroom 3.0), there aren't blown-out-parts, but I upload a new version and I think that it's better.--Miguel Bugallo 10:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This nice picture of the oldest still active lighthouse in the world. UNESCO World Heritage since 2009. Built by the Romans in the first century of the current era.--Jebulon (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good composition, quality is good, nice colors. If there are blown-out-parts, they're not disturbing to me. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Increase the contrast, and the picture will be fine. I don´t see any blown out parts, though.--Snaevar (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks. New version--Miguel Bugallo 23:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A small (possible) dust spot in the left sky should be removed imo. --Cayambe (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks. I think that all you are right. New version without several dust spots and with more contrast--Miguel Bugallo 22:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...And 10. Close it up. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places#In Spain

File:Sunset london docks.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 19:53:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 19:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 1.09Megapixels, witch is below the expected minium for Featured Pictures of 2Megapixels

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.

--Snaevar (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diocletianopolis The Southern Gate at Night.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 11:52:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Иван - uploaded by Иван - nominated by Иван -- Иван (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Иван (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well executed and eye catching. Maybe someone should do some noise reduction in the sky and foreground, but it doesn't really affect the overall impression. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed and lacking contrast.--Snaevar (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blown highlights in the main subject. --Cayambe (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Ilikeliljon (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image gives a good impression on the object, and the nocturnal conditions give it a fascinating spin. Positive yes. P.S. While the image is not contrast-perfect, it does provide a fine contrast between the blue horizon (dark color) and the white monument (light color). It could also be argued that the highlights in the foreground give the Wikimedia viewership a hint of the fusion between historical traditions (the monument) and modernity (the lights, electricity, and so on and so forth). I do not think those negative comments above should be taken seriously, therefore. --Александър (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone is entitled to their opinion and to their opinion being given fair consideration. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happened to the EXIF data? Has the photo been edited? →Spiritia 11:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've used Noise reduction and Crop commands in a photo-editing programme. That's why the exif-data are not presented, are they obligatory? Иван (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not obligatory, but desirable. You can do all of those operations whilst preserving exif too. Just don't use "Save for web" etc. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've always considered EXIF data in (originally digital) photos as important as the Reference section in the articles. They very much add credibility to the author, as well as helpfully inform the other photographers of parameters like ISO, speed, aperture, etc. See Commons:EXIF :) Maybe you can upload the original photo (under a different filename) and let us know the name of the editing program. Thus you may obtain a more particular advice of how to preserve the EXIF data. →Spiritia 13:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I've no time to come back to this file again, but I'm going to preserve the exif data in all pictures, which I'm going to upload in Wikimedia Commons later. Иван (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support Encyclopedic and educational --Stanqo (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting seems unnatural. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As IdLoveOne. --Moros y Cristianos 06:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image:Landscape of Florence.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2011 at 23:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fabio Ginestrini - uploaded by Fabio Ginestrini - nominated by Fabio Ginestrini -- Fabio ginestrini (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fabio ginestrini (talk) 23:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I can understand that this picture had to be rotated a few degrees CW to correct the tilt. Yet, I believe a top-and-bottom crop would've been the finishing touch. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Maurilbert, you are absolutely right, crop done. -- Fabio ginestrini (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lacking areal perspective and too blurry.--Snaevar (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality not good enough, disturbing motive --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Motive? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a panorama? This actually looks like a regular scenery photograph. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is an 82 degree photo stitching panorama (8x3 +/-2ev 55mm 3872x2592 exposures). To me it seems very sharp and rich of details. The main historical buildings of the city are visible. Cypress and olive trees in the near field are among the most popular features of the Tuscany land. In my opinion the major technical flaw is the overexposure of white walls of some buildings hit by the sunlight, visible at the pixel scale. -- Fabio ginestrini (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems well-stitched and lacking of distortion. A bit hazy though. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fuchsmanguste, Cynictis penicillata 1.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 20:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fuchsmanguste all by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, sorry. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice photo for me --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened, incorrectly white-balanced Tiergarten image. W.S. 06:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Please check - cloned hair and cloning artifacts at the top and left bottom of the photo :) -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Annotations please. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dmottl, plus unsharp boundry between the fox and the background.--Snaevar (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Böhringer (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lokrum - cliffs 2.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2011 at 15:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pale colors and composition does not convince me to vote support either. --Aktron (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bad composition, should be cropped somewhere between 35-65 pixels on the left edge, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Pudelek (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KTM Quad 990 neutral.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 18:30:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ritchyblack - uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pro2 (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —stay (sic)! 14:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good except for that one possibly blown spot. Very good composition. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Age airain Auguste Rodin MBA Lyon.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 23:50:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Auguste Rodin c. 1875 - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by IdLoveOne
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ultra tight crop. W.S. 06:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, the background could possibly be removed, stretched out and replaced with all black or something? Or maybe the same color as the building in the background? Opinions, Commons? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 07:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WS plus a modest issue of the highligts/reflections on the statue.--Snaevar (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's tarnished bronze, I don't think it can reflect, and according to the histogram the high and low-lighting is fairly even. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Birds pappaya small.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 05:37:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Challiyan - uploaded by Sreejithk2000 (Originally uploaded at ml.wp by Challiyan) - nominated by Praveen -- Praveen:talk 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Praveen:talk 05:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Junaidpv (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vssun (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I don't like the white background and the small size of the individual pictures -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar.--Snaevar (talk) 13:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Difficult to capture --Kiran Gopi (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Easy image (birds are easily attracted to a ripe fruit) but poor quality, much too small and bad white balance. W.S. 14:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --Cephas (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like this compilation, but I don't like the white background either. It negates otherwise interesting images but not so much that I want to oppose. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that white background is not intentional but sky, one can see a blue patch behind White-cheeked Barbet. Anyway that background help the birds more sharp.--Praveen:talk 07:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prayer flags Hogle.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2011 at 22:19:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by LeavXC - uploaded by LeavXC - nominated by LeavXC -- LeavXC (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- LeavXC (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only one of the flags is in focus.--Snaevar (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's for effect...an example of it is shown in this picture. Only one of the soldiers are in focus. LeavXC (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I get the idea and I like the colors. Plus at F6 it must be very sharp! -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 06:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent - colors and composition. --Aktron (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice effect, colours and textures. --99of9 (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose so bad--Coekon (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why Coekon? --LeavXC (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spider vs Fly.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 09:35:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DerkArts - uploaded by DerkArts - nominated by DerkArts -- Derkarts (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Derkarts (talk) 09:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, account not old enough (10 days and 50 edits necessary to vote) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Dear DerkArts: I regret to inform you that your account is a "suspicious account" [[9]]due to the fact that it is either less than 10 days old or you don´t have 50 edits, or both, therefore you cannot vote in your own nomination. You must do hard time by waiting 10 days and do at least 50 edits, meaningless if you want. After you comply with the rules, you may cross over to the camp of the not suspicious accounts. Regards.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 11>9 -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image quality is poor (too much noise) and the species is not identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've uploaded a new version with some more noise reduction, also, I know it's part of the Salticidae, but not sure what sub-species exactly, was hoping an expert could identify it.

Comment -- The problem here is the too high ISO settings. Please take a look at our FP gallery (here) and at this picture in particular, to see what kind of quality is expected. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Alves. You are scaring him away --Muhammad (talk) 13:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you use that image as reference I see only one picture on this entire page that would qualify to be a featured image, and you could scrap almost the entire featured image list, because there are very few that can hold up to that standard. But Alas.--Derkarts (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a fine and featurable image. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Muhammad (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The II animal (not the spider) isn't on focus... I cannot even recognize it... --Llorenzi (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Llorenzi--Citron (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. W.S. 07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Llorenzi.--Snaevar (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the foreboding composition - well-done. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:StephenMerchantAltNov09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 01:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of comedian/actor Stephen Merchant; featured on English Wikipedia.

Info Created by Carolyn Djanogly; uploaded and nominated by Nehrams2020. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Creepy, but most of the time regarding photographs, that is a good thing.--Snaevar (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see little educational value in this. —stay (sic)! 14:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it may not be of a more interesting topic, the image properly illustrates the subject in a well-developed portrait. It is rare to get a high-quality head-on image of an actor to be released under a free license, and this one seems to me to illustrate the encyclopedia article well in a similar manner to the other actor portrait FPs. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pro-quality portrait at an interesting angle. --99of9 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lokrum - cliffs.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 14:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rocks on the left look overexposed to me. --JovianEye (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JovianEye.--Snaevar (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support They're right about the overexposure. Good otherwise. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rheinhochwasser Januar 2011 - LEV Autobahnbruecke 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2011 at 11:02:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by A.Savin
Support A.S. 11:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bunch of tree branches and the trash at the bottom left to bottom center makes up a bad perspective. Cropping the image will not solve the issue.--Snaevar (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a flood. Despite, you expect something more aesthetical than trash and tree branches? ;) A.S. 11:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do expect more aesthetical than trash and tree branches, yes, but it is a perspective issue, like I wrote previously. At least one of your pictures do satisfy this requirement, and that is this one: File:Rheinhochwasser Januar 2011 - LEV Autobahnbruecke 04.jpg --Snaevar (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Tower night winter 2011 G1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2011 at 17:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info The former water tower in the center of Vinnitsa, Ukraine. View in the winter evening.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Personally I think is too dark --Llorenzi (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture does have it´s flaws. It is a bit dark, I admit, but it is illuminated by lights on the building and along with the blue hour it makes the picture interesting.--Snaevar (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this panoramic or just a shoot? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 05:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too dark. W.S. 07:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support night is dark... --Pudelek (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it needs a slight crop on the top IMO, so that the building is less centred vertically. --ELEKHH^T 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Armillaria-mellea-hallimasch.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 16:58:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Created and uploaded by -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC) - nominated by --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (now my nomination)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! :) --Citron (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks so natural. --Von.grzanka (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks huge. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a problem with the sharpness/details of the schrooms at the left quarter of the image. Colours and atmosphere are good and promising however. W.S. 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S.. The crop at left also seems too tight. --Avenue (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WS.--Snaevar (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Bufo-alvarius-coloradokröte.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 16:45:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Incilius alvarius, Syn.: Bufo alvarius, Family: Bufonidae

Info All by -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unclear boundry between the frog and the background.--Snaevar (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The toad looks good, but that black area at the top of the image is annoying and makes the image seem strange to me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 08:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bland centred compo with dodgy WB. W.S. 07:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

File:Oiseau8.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 11:07:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MirandaAdramin - uploaded by MirandaAdramin - nominated by MirandaAdramin -- MirandaAdramin (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MirandaAdramin (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition even though this is a portrait picture and lack of contrast overall.--Snaevar (talk) 12:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inadequate file documentation. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's categorized as Gyps fulvus. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a category and not a file description. There is no mention where this animal is. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're wanting geocoding then. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Really, do all pictures of everything have to look the same and be predictable? There are many different types of aesthetics out there. A bird-lover could use this as a wallpaper. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 15:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ouch! Sad crop. W.S. 07:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's just meant to be a portrait, not a full body shot. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 10:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good portrait--Claus (talk) 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop, even for a portrait. --Avenue (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Three votes that all compositions have to be the same, then. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:01 202 bei Otelfingen.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 05:49:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wires, grass, crop. --Mile (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nothing that can be done about the wires, the grass isn't really much nuisance and I don't see a problem in the crop. DOF on the left is a little lower than it could be though. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral DOF is not the problem, the image quality of the lens at F3.5 is. The grass at the bottom could be removed if necessary (I can't, I don't have access to my desktop PC for two weeks), but the modern catenary spoils it a bit. Not sure what the problem with the crop is. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a bit reddish hue and also seems a bit underexposed to me. Yet, the composition is really good. --Aktron (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Aktron.--Snaevar (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well focused, exposed, composed and ballanced picture. Иван (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grass too distracting. --ELEKHH^T 21:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CCGS Amundsen2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2011 at 22:30:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be whiter but w/e. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting increased a bit. --Cephas (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that does look better. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly okay, but IMO not enough wow for an FP. --Avenue (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Anenue --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I share Avenue's appreciation, but my conclusion is that the subject is sufficiently rare and the photograph sufficiently useful to warrant a FP. Rama (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Canada Goose (Branta Canadensis).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 14:07:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad crop and fade colors, especially for this common species. Can you improve this? --Cephas (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Crop has been changed. I have tried to adjust the colours. --JovianEye (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Ok, better, but Canada Goose is relatively common and it should be possible to work out a better picture for FP. --Cephas (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --JovianEye (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Type C Orcas.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 04:28:59

Info Reason to delist (Original nomination)
~~Delist~~ -- 123.22.19.191 04:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC) No anon votes --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree it's not FP quality, that's why it's not a FP in the first place. 123.22.19.191, are you sure you understand what delisting is about? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This image isn't featured. It can be archived. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Not featured and not delisted. Wrong nomination -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-09-fort-du-lomont-10.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 13:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Inside the fort du Lomont, near Pont-de-Roide, France.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. W.S. 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think good enough to become FP. --Aktron (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose， per Wetenschatje--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:2011-03-09-fort-du-lomont-3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 13:32:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support----Jebulon (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. W.S. 07:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough to become FP. As well as the picture above. --Aktron (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the artificial highlighting of the side arches. --99of9 (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's not some artificial highlighting but some real highlighting. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough to become FP--Coekon (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Dreilaenderbruecke 002.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 15:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems a bit ccw tilted, perspective distortion, not really sharp and a bit noisy, vignetting. Nice mood though --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 16:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
perspective is not distorted, the bridge is not symmetric, look e.g. at: [10], I can reduce noise. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Blurry people ruined a good picture. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 21:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Only because of the people. If you have another snapshot of the same place at around the same time without people, I'm going to vote positive without any hesitation. Иван (talk) 14:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely prefer to have the people blurred, is a good technique to direct the attention of the viewer to the bridge (i.e. subject). Nice to see they follow the traffic signs :). --ELEKHH^T 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Prefer to have the people blurred, but I'm not quite confident of this picture as FP, as it isn´t really one of the best on commons.--Snaevar (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate, the picture is by now curtly four years old and both equipment and my personal skills had enhanced. I will try to make a new one. I withdraw my nomination. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ketch sunrise.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2011 at 10:49:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please redescribe the descriptions on the filepage --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unnatural colors (isn't it?) - also not in favor of center composition of underexposed ship. Ggia (talk) 13:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the colors are unnatural? Looks like a stereotypical sunset to me, 'cept maybe the blue part. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the colours - Benh (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like the colors and mood too. Who said that the colors should always look natural? Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 17:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schloss Beuggen Schlosskirche (Deckengemälde) 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 15:15:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this a painting? It seems abnormally smooth. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it is a ceiling fresco --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My mistake, I was thinking it was meant to be on canvass. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's such a pity you cut the tips off the corners on the left. --99of9 (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 08:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Coekon (talk) 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even if I agree with 99of9. What does it show ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support despite the tiny error pointed out by 99of9. --ELEKHH^T 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Concluding the STS-133 mission, Space Shuttle Discovery touches down at the Shuttle Landing Facility.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2011 at 21:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Jatkins - nominated by Thomas888b -- Thomas888b (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know the picture isn't perfect, but I belive some exceptions should be made as it is a special picture. -- Thomas888b (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not level. But can be easily edited. --Aktron (talk) 09:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It might cut the tail I think. :( Also, the plants in the foreground are level... -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 15:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that some credit should be given to the photographer, as this is a pretty good pic for an event that was over in seconds. -- Thomas888b (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aktron actually has a good point here. Sure, the space shuttle lands at speeds above 300km/h, but just as with racing track pictures, I imagine that the camera is in a fixed place, witch makes the level of the picture a preparation issue. Also, there is plenty of commons pictures of space shuttle landings who do satisfy this criteria.--Snaevar (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlevel per Aktron.--Snaevar (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The levelness clearly cannot be judged by this picture per me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Level issue. Could be easily edited and, frankly, missing space can probably be reconstructed with a bit of work if cropping the tail is an issue. Rama (talk) 07:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info Level? The runway is not a horizon! The photo is taken looking on an angle up the runway slightly, instead on straight across, at right angles. The camera is very slightly tilted too, which can be judged by looking at the red/white marker post and the steel tower in the background. You can rotate the image by about 0.69degrees clockwise to correct that, but visually it makes very little difference to how the image looks and the slight JPEG processing just decreases the image quality, a small gain in one area, a small loss in another, why bother?. You could do a 'perspective correction' and get a nice horizontal runway, that makes it look as though the shot was take at the exact moment that the shuttle came abreast of the photograher ... except for the paralex error, you could still see the far rear wheel rather than it being hidden by the near rear wheel. So are people complaining of a 0.69degree fault or the runway not being horizontal? Why not accept the image isn't technically perfect (what image is?), and judge it on the value - the historical significance and un-repeatabilty of the image? --Tony Wills (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rotated to make verticals, vertical. Runway still not horizontal.
Rotated to make runway horizontal. Parallex error with rear wheels.
Perspective correction to make runway horizontal. Parallex error with rear wheels.

alternatives, NB I haven't trimmed all of these. --Tony Wills (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grapsus grapsus Galapagos Islands.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 21:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lieutenant Elizabeth Crapo - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Its not so sharp, but i like the contrast. --Mile (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely looks like a FP. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 23:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support toll --Böhringer (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors ! Just wish to know how big it is - Benh (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive colors --Llez (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good!--A7N8X (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! --Aktron (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  19:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Gagarin town - Gzhat River 02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2011 at 11:00:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by A.Savin
Support A.S. 11:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition problem - a lot of nature can be seen but only a few houses and if so, most likely in the distance. Technical quality is good, I like especially the colors. Aktron (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be a little sharper and composition issue in regard to the houses on the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a nice picture, and anyway look at the title - Gzhat River, so it shouldn't be surprising to see a river here. ;-) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 09:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well composed, ballanced and exposed image, excellent dynamics. Иван (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice composition, but strong CA, what type of lens are you using? --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see "strong CA"? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 11:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the right side at the gable of the house --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very simple 18-55 which I do not use anymore - A.S. 18:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not striking, sorry. --99of9 (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fulguropsis radula 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 14:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sorry, I was several million years too late to get a living specimen ;-)

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 08:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Iwatayama Monkey Park baby monkey.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 13:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:e2eamon - uploaded by e2eamon - nominated by e2eamon -- E2eamon (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as creator and nom-- E2eamon (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the colors and also exosure could be a bit shorter (time) to make the picture a little bit darker. --Aktron (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thumbs up for insane cuteness, even it doesn't make FP. :) Steven Walling 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only problem is the other chimp in the background. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background distracting. Monkey in the background is completely out of focus with its head obscured. Please use lower case jpg for file names as is recommended on en wiki, and to which commons refers to. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Snowmanradio.--Snaevar (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archers frieze Darius 1st Palace Suse Louvre AOD 488 a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2011 at 00:22:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me except the artwork ! -- Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Left part of the frieze (the Immortals) of Darius the first, achaemenid emperor of Persia, ca. 510 BCE, Musée du Louvre-- Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 01:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this borrowed from Iran ? --Mile (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's persian so I'd say yes - Benh (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

I think you know it comes from Iran :) I don't know if it's been borrowed from Iran. Sorry ;) - Benh (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please have some further informations on the file description page. It was excavated by french archeologists circa 1885 in Susa, former Persia, now Iran, and restorated by Le Louvre. Now, fortunately, it belongs to all the mankind. --Jebulon (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Benh, it was "borrowed". For mankind as i see. --Mile (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and borrowed from who/what/where ? ;) Abandoned sand, as I know...--Jebulon (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colors. Now I would like to see the whole thing. - Benh (talk) 08:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful and well captured. --Cayambe (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have some similar images from the Persepolis in Iran which I should also publish ;-) Ggia (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. --ELEKHH^T 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and great value -- MJJR (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Properly executed. W.S. 08:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 01:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jonathunder (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:James McNeill Whistler - La Princesse du pays de la porcelaine - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2011 at 22:03:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by James McNeill Whistler - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Claus
Support -- Claus (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support -- if this is the whole painting, noticing a piece of her robe is cut. Nice, big and a lot of detail. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 02:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed --Llez (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mexica Dancer Claudio Giovenzana www.longwalk.it.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 03:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Giove - uploaded by Giove - nominated by Giove -- Giove (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Giove (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Gorgeous in general, but there are big spots blown out, especially on the body paint and in the background. Steven Walling 03:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose, I'd have FPXed it: infraction to Commons:Image_guidelines#Image_page_requirements: advertising URL stuck in every available place: the file name, the file description and the author field. At least, no watermark... Only one instance of giving the URL should suffice! Grand-Duc (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Struck, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a Request - Actually this is more underexposed than over according to those histograms Snaever loves so much. But I would like to see the title changed to remove the URL. That could just be put in the image source so it's not SOAPBOXing. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 17:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose url should be removed from file name and may constitute spam. Image should show all of head gear and not have feathers cut of. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have moved the file to File:Mexica Dancer in Ixcateopan-23Feb2011.jpg to bring it into line with wiki standards. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset at Kucherla lake.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 00:33:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dmottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice view but a portion of the snow looks over-exposed. I am not sure but the colour of the water makes it seem oversaturated. There is slight noise visible in the sky. Aditionally, I would like to see a geocode. --JovianEye (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am convinced that the intensity of the colo(u)rs is not completely natural. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not a fan of the composition. - Benh (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am, but like Maurilbert I want to ask if any work has been done to it. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a little amount of HDR-like tone mapping --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Image toning is a bit on the unrealistic side, but this is nice enough for me. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well the colors and contrast might be a bit unrealistic, but truely, it prevents the picture from large over or underexposed parts. And this is just fine. --Aktron (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image toning is unrealistic. W.S. 10:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alphonse-Desjardins.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 18:08:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very majestic. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ice make it thru. --Mile (talk) 09:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 12:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good, but I am kind of waiting for something special on those ice ship photos.--Snaevar (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

File:Trientalis borealis, Québec (Matthieu Gauvain).JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 12:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Falcoperegrinus -- Falcoperegrinus (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Falcoperegrinus (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not much wow, and I don't like the black context around the subject. - Benh (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Info image not retouched: the black is natural contrast in underbrush -- Falcoperegrinus (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the composition beautiful and I don't wanna hear any lip about cutoff leaves! lol -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per One, please.. Yours --Borealis55 (talk) 11:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glad to have the seventh pro --Llez (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Illustrative, pretty, well lit, and sharp. An excellent combination. --99of9 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 18:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Zrenjanin, Svetozara Markovića, starý dům.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2011 at 20:12:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Mile (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is so great about a flaked wall? --Snaevar (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Composition, colors, spirit of old/abandoned...if You get this kind of fotos. Some dont, some do.--Mile (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed or a shadow at the door to the right, should be taken at a different time of day, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean underexsposed part ? Well, its shadow, no harm, wouldnt call it underexsposing. --Mile (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support look impressive -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality could be better, seems a bit unsharp. I have no problem with featuring things people might just think of as common like a door, but I wish this were less fuzzy for FP. The composition is good, but maybe QI? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can not orientate my way around. It should have an occompanying picture showing the whole building. I do not immediately see high educational value and no importance or historic significance is indicated in the file documentation. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Well it documents architecture in a larger city in serbian Banate, especially from the closer point of view. Yes, it might seem a bit flicker-y, but I can imagine Wikipedia or WMC projects' pages where such a picture would be well used. --Aktron (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagoa e duna no Parque Nacional dos Lençois maranhenses (São Luís - BR).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 01:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Micael 106 (talk) - uploaded by Micael 106 (talk) - nominated by Micael 106 (talk) -- Micael 106 (talk) 01:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Micael 106 (talk) 14:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose distorted sky, background is overexposed, the sand marks in the forground lack detail and the dark spot at the left edge spoils the composition.--Snaevar (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm curious here, how do you claim the sky is distorted? --JovianEye (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a rendering bug or something like it there. There are faded lines along the blue sky. Am I the only one that sees that?--Snaevar (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Desculpe, mas você analizou a imagem de forma incorreta. Isso é ação da natureza. Claro que isso é causado por ventos cisalhados que ocorrem muito nessa região. Isso causa o efeito de riscos no céu azul. Não há motivos para discordo certo?
    - Sorry, but you analyzed the picture incorrectly. This is the action of nature. Of course this is caused by wind shears that occur in this region too. This has the effect of risk in the blue sky. There is no reason to disagree right?
(Response to User Snaevar) (Português) Desculpe, mas a foto esta plenamente boa o que para algumas certas pessoas que só querem mais a plena perfeição, o que essas pessoas dificultam muito. E a sua conclusão sobre céu distorcido, você foi longe de mais. As manchas pretas que você fala são pegadas de pessoas. (algo que não incomoda a leitura da foto). Sobre a tal escuridão no canto da imagem sobre a água você esta sendo precipitado. Ok?!!(English - Sorry, but the photo is fully sound which to some certain people who just want more full perfection, what these people very difficult. And his conclusion about fuzzy sky, you went too far. Theblack spotsthat you speak are footprints of people. (something that does not bother reading the photo). On this dark corner of the image on the water you're being hasty. Ok?!) Um abraço Micael 106 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to clarify a few things. First of all, if the Portuguese comment would have been in spanish, then I would have understood some of it. The existence of the black spots as such is not a problem, I would just like to see them better. And the dark spot in the center to the left edge of the image, is actually the last thing I noticed and you would be wrong if you you think that I haven´t thought about it before I posted my vote. Plus, I can´t belive that you would not accept to make a few changes to the photo, like cropping it to on the left edge. FP is the place that has the most demands for photos for a reason, and one of those are that FP´s are all included in the Featured pictures of the day, witch are displayed on the front pages of the majority (if not all of them) of the 279 wikipedias out there. There are less demands for pictures on QI, than here. Finally, I can´t see why I should make a compromise meanwhile there is no sign of that you would be willing to make one yourself. --Snaevar (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snaevar, Sobre o português escrevo porque é minha lingua nativa, talvez alguem que seja português venha a ler essa mensagem. A imagem acima foi modificada por mim. tentei melhorar a qualidade, mas infelismente não chegou com bons olhos para alguns. Carreguei a versão original mais acima desta página. Por favor seja honesto em sua votação e não faça comentários desnecessários que possam desvalorizar a imagem sem sentido algum (Como céu distorcido, sem lógica) obrigado Micael 106 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Inglês) Snaevar, write about the Portuguese because it is my native language, Portuguese is that maybe someone will read this message. The image above was modified by me. tried to improve the quality, but unfortunately did not welcome for some. I loaded the original version of this page above. Please be honest in their vote and not make unnecessary comments that might devalue the image without any sense (like sky distorted, illogical) thanks

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bigben.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 20:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like it, but it's tilted, and there is nasty glare and part of the tower is obstructed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This picture quite literally screams for more exposure. Also, quite unfortunate to have car roofs on the bottom of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Glare. Hard to see detail of tower. --Another Believer (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Glare? Or contre-jour silhouetting? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor composition: bottom crop, tilt, random framing, random glare, etc. --ELEKHH^T 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "glare" is an intentional silhouette technique, read my comment two lines from this one. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted, bad lighting, poor quality. Certainly not FP, sorry. -- MJJR (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Comment I did a bit of tilt reduction here. The car roofs can easily be cropped out. Also, I could not expose the tower any more without blowing the clouds. This version needs the smudges removed and the perspective distortion corrected. Anyone willing to help? I'm not really that advanced with GIMP so I can't do this stuff myself. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop above.--Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same issues as above minus the tilt --ELEKHH^T 01:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Same issues as I wrote previously minus the bottom crop.--Snaevar (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Snaevar--shizhao (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Good at showing grey clouds over London, but the contrast does not work for me. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cray 1 IMG 9126.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 17:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cray-1. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Cray supercomputer is so fast, it can execute an infinite loop in under 2 seconds! Btw, is this the one that stood in the IFW building at ETH Zurich until recently? --Kabelleger (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this one has been on display at the entrance of the computation services of the EPFL for years. Rama (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 14:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jovian Eye (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 18:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erdmännchen, Suricata suricatta 1.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 15:51:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info noch ein Tiergarten image: Erdmännchen, Suricata suricatta - all by -- Böhringer (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, but as Alvesgaspar would say... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... the poor things are suffocating! ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support So cute... --Schnobby (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop. W.S. 09:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tight crop doesn't bother me too much here. --Cayambe (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- They'll live. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support not disturbed by the tight crop here, maybe because the background is of similar colour as the foreground. --ELEKHH^T 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 18:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

File:IIT Machinery Hall 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 06:09:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 06:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of sharpness at the top of the building.--Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The colors did not convince me. Looks to compact-y. --Aktron (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Katmandu procession 4.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 10:01:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Smiley.toerist - uploaded by User:Smiley.toerist - nominated by User:Smiley.toerist -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of bad crop, bad exposure, too much noise and several dustspots

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.

--Berthold Werner (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri Mariamman Temple Singapore 3 amk.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 16:58:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (座谈) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Detail view on the gopuram at the entrance of the Hindu Temple Sri Mariamman in Singapore.
Support -- AngMoKio (座谈) 16:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice and colorful object, well done photo -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just how big is this wall of figures (or gopuram, like you choose to call it)? Would it be possible to capture the whole thing?--Snaevar (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the view on the whole thing (not one of my photos). Have to check if I have a good photo of the whole tower. --AngMoKio (座谈) 08:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the picture is good as it is.--Snaevar (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Steven Walling 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful. W.S. 08:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support So rich with colors, lively. --Mile (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support great! --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Deror avi (talk) 08:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support  Richard  [®]  19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 22:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Stadtpanorama von der Deutschherrnbruecke am fruehen Abend-20110310.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2011 at 22:43:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frankfurt on the Main: Panorama of the city as seen from the Deutschherrnbruecke (Teutonic Knights Bridge) in the early evening
Panorama of 4 images taken with Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II and Canon EF 70-200mm 4.0 L IS USM at f8, stitched with PanoramaStudio 2 Pro
Support -- Mylius (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support In my opinion it's quite hard to make Frankfurt look good :). --99of9 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Skyline Frankfurt 2011-01.jpg has the same perspective as this one, and is already a FP.--Snaevar (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Colors and framing are different. --Zyephyrus (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for an FP, but nothing more than that.--Snaevar (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 license permitted? --JovianEye (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... My understand is that non-commercial restrictions were disallowed on Commons. Steven Walling 08:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this CC-By-NC-ND license is usable - as long as at least one allowed license, here the GDFL 1.2, is used. One allowed free license allows for every other license, even if the other license(s) is / are as much restricted as possible. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noise, WB and above all the overly restrictive (though valid as it is GFDL too) license. W.S. 09:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:the view is bad--Coekon (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose License. Yann (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support License! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition and dynamics. Иван (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not worth the non-free license. This is nice, but it's not sufficiently hard to take that I would consider it necessary to accept a less than completely free file. Steven Walling 01:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Walling: do you know the free license FAL ? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but I do not agree with the smorgasbord of licensing approach. In the Americas the FAL is almost entirely unknown and untested legally. Almost everyone here intending to use the image who would show up and see the NC clause in the CC license would be discouraged from reuse, and I find it to be on shaky ground to say one license does not permit commercial reuse while the other does. Legal freedoms are not a buffet to pick and choose from: you either have the right to do something commercially or not. Steven Walling 02:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Steven Walling--shizhao (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Belfast - Wheelhouse - Pelorus.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 06:10:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Korrigan - uploaded by Korrigan - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy in the dark parts, blown in the windows. W.S. 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S.--Snaevar (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per W.S.--Berthold Werner (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting perspective and nice interior, but the overexposure in the windows is a no for FP. --ELEKHH^T 20:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Per comments above. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 15:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ULaval flag.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 22:31:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too basic to me for FP - Benh (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I was just trying someting else. --Cephas (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hesperiphona vespertina CT3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 00:05:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I know, it looks very much like this other one, but I find this pic better. -- Cephas (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The color scheme is better on this one. Good quality, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous color. Steven Walling 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some overexposure but good. I usually don't like excessive lead room but it works here somehow.. The branches? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work again! --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is excellent. I agree the composition is much superior to the existing FP. --99of9 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is excellent.--Miguel Bugallo 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, jumping on bandwagon but how could I not? Daniel Case (talk) 05:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work, bird is well positioned in relation to the background. --ELEKHH^T 20:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

File:Dubrovnik - city walls 1 by Pudelek.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 15:14:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Somewhat overexposed and DOF could be better to capture the details of the wall a bit better.--Snaevar (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--shizhao (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakened support -- Beautiful scenery and composition, but it's a bit unsharp and blown out. Otherwise would be full support. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp impo. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:STS-133 Discovery Lift Off Launch Pad 39A KSC.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 18:28:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Discovery lifts off for the final time.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! --Aktron (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think File:STS-125 Atlantis Liftoff 02.jpg which already featured is much better. Additionally, we already have 5 or 6 FP of space shuttles. --JovianEye (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +90°. --Mile (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this one too and I think the only reason it doesn't look to be 90 degrees is because of the photographer's perspective and anyway it's not a bad view. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 00:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request what about a little correction of perspective? The water tank on the right should stand straight and not tilted as it is. I'll ~~happily support~~ such an edit because I like the composition making wise use of the steam and smoke clouds in nice colours. Grand-Duc (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Could anyone please correct the perspective of this image per above? I don't really know how to do it properly. Originalwana (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 13:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It is a pity that the NASA employee used such a strong JPEG compression, there are visible artifacts, I've annotaed two points where there could be seen when zoomed in at 100%. Additionally, there is some banding in the sky... So I really do not know at this moment if the uniqueness of this moment and the atmospheric lightning are enough "mitigating circumstances" per COM:IG for me to support. I'll pore over on it. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JPEG artifacts per Grand Duc, plus grainy clouds.--Snaevar (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per JovianEye. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aplysina archeri (Stove-pipe Sponge-pink variation).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 09:15:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:23, 18 March 201 (UTC)
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and colors - and the topic is of an interesting shape... like Torre Agbar ;-) --Aktron (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Somewhat grainy and lacks the DOF that the sponge images from Citron had.--Snaevar (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Snaevar. Steven Walling 02:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly blown and unexposed some places, but great composition. I disagree that this is grainy, plus medium DOF was used. Especially love the fish swimming in the background. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Global Hawk, NASA's New Remote-Controlled Plane - October 2009.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 09:25:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sp33dyphil - uploaded by Sp33dyphil - nominated by Sp33dyphil -- Sp33dyphil 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sp33dyphil 09:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose hmm, created by NASA actually, not the nominator. In any case the lack of contrast between the subject and the background, makes it less than outstanding. --ELEKHH^T 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Elekhh, plus a bit grainy under the wings of the remote-controlled plane.--Snaevar (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagoa e duna no Parque Nacional dos Lençois Maranhenses (Imagem original).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 23:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Micael 106 (talk) - uploaded by Micael 106 (talk) - nominated by Micael 106 (talk) -- Micael 106 (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sim pessoal, ninguém irá votar não??
Oppose Good scenery, bad artefacts. What software was used to save this file? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Usei o Intelli-studio da Samsung. (tirado com câmera Kodak) Na verdade não fiz nada, acho que só aumentei a nitidez. nada mais. Que tipos de artefatos você diz? obrigado. Micael 106 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(inglês) I used the Intelli-studio from Samsung. (taken with Kodak) Actually I did nothing, I think only increased the sharpness. nothing more. What types of artifacts you say? Thank you. Micael 106 (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compression artefacts, you can really see them on the water. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hum estranho! Mas tudo bem é a sua opinião.Micael 106 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, but your opinion.Micael 106 (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, lo siento. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meu filho problema seu! Sabe de uma coisa essa wikimedia é muito chata, quero dizer os participantes parecem muito metodicos isso é meio ruim. Nunca mais usarei este recurso fraco e anti-democrático onde pessoas não dão valores. (My son is your problem! You know that wikimedia's really annoying, I mean the participants seem very methodical that's kinda bad. Never again will I use this feature weak and undemocratic where people do not give values.)

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Larus ridibundus Low Key 2010-10-18 Crop rule of thirds.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2011 at 22:21:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ,uploaded by and nominated by Grand-Duc -- Grand-Duc (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info some bright stones and mussel shells are visible in the shallow water, the depth at this place less than ten meters from the bank is not more than 30 to 40 centimetres.
Abstain as nominator and author. Regards Grand-Duc (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - contrast too high, unnatural colors; whites on the bird overblown. Composition is also less than satisfactory for me with the standard centered side-shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~overblown whites~~, but mostly the standard, centred composition of a common bird, taken from a not so good angle, makes it below FP to me. --ELEKHH^T 20:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question What do you mean with "overblown"? There are actually only three pixels in true white, I've screenshotted a histogram, see here: ; the contrast may come from the spot metering on the gull which was illuminated by the sun. As for the composition, the eye sits exactly at the intersection of the upper and the right line of thirds. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, must have been the monitor sorry, withdraw that part, but stand by the other. --ELEKHH^T 21:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too little contrast. The histogram that Grand-Duc provided tells the same story, as there is just one peak in the whole histogram.--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Apatite verte sous UVC 2 (Portugal) .jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2011 at 10:01:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Surrealistic picture of a greenish Apatite under ultraviolet light created by Parent Géry - uploaded by Parent Géry - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 10:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Supersaturated, bad cropping, low depth of field.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is no need for a large DOF to illustrate the behaviour of a material under UV illumination, I believe that you do not need to play on the saturation to get those colours, people in dance halls are glowing like this when illuminated with UV... Grand-Duc (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I believe this is a macro shot, hence the apparent low depth of field. And I don't believe it's over saturated either. Not ultra sharp (maybe because of f/16) but fine given the size, and interesting subject to me - Benh (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Benh. Uncivil/unnecessary comment removed.[11] It is by no means macrophotogrphie, this type of specimen is around 10cm. The subject is oversaturated because neither siderite and even less wolfrmite are fluoresent. Now it appears here in a beautiful purple. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Yes, I should have searched before. I've also checked for size. There seems to be smaller than 10cm specimens. I've also checked that filling an APSC size frame at 60mm with a 10cm big subject can require to be rather close (depending on the point of view and given it's not 10cm an all sides), hence the DOF issue. I also found that some apatite crystal glow the same way under UV waves, but the photos I found weren't this saturated. Changed my vote to reflect. - Benh (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, it's a good stuff, but unfortunately, not a good for a FP. I mean, I made quite a lot of pictures oversaturated like this one, all my friends told me, they are "psychedelic" and now I hate my self for uploading them few years ago :-) --Aktron (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose also for me not a FP, but of course a QI. Low DOF, bad crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info An idea: I think it will be better so see both: the sample under UV and the same under daylight. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Info Hi Alchemist-hp, that "other version" (same mineral under daylight) is to see in the picture description. -- Ra'ike T C 11:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad crop --Wladyslaw (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Both the daylight photo and this one don´t have even sharpness over the whole apatite specimen. I think though, that the photographer has mounted the stone on the bottom (to keep it steady), so I'm not completely sure about the bottom crop.--Snaevar (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Invalides nuit night.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2011 at 17:54:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me Architecture by Jules Hardouin-Mansart -- Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The main entrance of "Les Invalides" in Paris, by night.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition, I particularly like the waving flag. -- H005 18:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but a lot of areas are noisy and unsharp. Boring composition: the foreground wall is a no go for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The wall is not a "no go" (?), it is only one of the walls of the moat, and gives sense to the presence of a cannon...--Jebulon (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The way the cannon manages to capture attention while being darked than its background is interesting. The wall-cannon-flag trypctic gives both a sense of perspective and renders the military atmosphere of the place. Rama (talk) 07:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I know, walls of an building should not be yellowish in color. Seems overexposed that way.--Snaevar (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original color of "les Invalides" is a light yellowish/brownish. This is inforced by the lightning. I like the warm colors. BTW, does "walls of an building should not be yellowish in color" mean, that pictures of yellow buildings can not be featured? --Llez (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly. What I mean is if a white building is illuminated to the point that it looks yellow, then it gives the sense of the picture being overexposed. That does not mean that I would oppose an yellow building.--Snaevar (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Alchemist-hp--shizhao (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IQ is good, sharp, but composition is not so, flag. --Mile (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not to keen on the composition, and it looks like taken en passant. Average quality, and white balance issue (a bit too yellow here). Not the best timing to get the shot as well. - Benh (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh.--Snaevar (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. --Karelj (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not outstanding. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pedras estrañas. Praia do Hotel Bahía Príncipe, Quintana Roo, México 3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 23:40:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lmbuga - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo 23:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see chromatic aberrations in the image that I have uploaded, but I don't see that in the image of my computer. I can't understand. It is very difficult to work if I do not know what can later be. Can someone explain that--Miguel Bugallo 00:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no problem: it was the cache--Miguel Bugallo 00:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Snaevar (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice H. Krisp (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but I am missing the wow here. --Jovian Eye (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Miguel Bugallo 19:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Limule(dD).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2011 at 11:24:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Horseshoe crab - Limulus polyphemus - Limulidae - 55 cm (Dorsal view)

Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral interesting subject, but masking not as good as usual. Still OK to me given the size and shape. Also why not providing EXIF ? - Benh (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unable to cut around automatically without losing the "pile ". The trimming was done "by hand". For EXIF, I lost data because of the program and I do not keep them.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support — very detailed and well focused image. Иван (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral per Benh.--Snaevar (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor masking (per Benh). Some spines are roughly cut out. W.S. 08:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support--shizhao (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- H. Krisp (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support great Ggia (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor masking (per Benh).--Miguel Bugallo 18:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:Schweiz Karte Baedeker, 1913.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2011 at 18:05:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H005 - uploaded by H005 - nominated by H005 -- H005 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H005 18:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 11:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Minimal visual impact (and as far as I know the original is not notable by itself). Good job, valuable, but not featurable as far as I'm concerned. --99of9 (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as 99of9. W.S. 08:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great quality + useful = Feature-able. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Great Quality = QI, Useful = maybe VI. QI+VI != FP. We should have higher standards than that for our "finest". --99of9 (talk) 23:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...So, no featured maps ever for you? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's strange logic. Where do you think I said that? Are you implying that a map cannot possibly have visual impact or be historically notable? --99of9 (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's an old map. It is what it is. And you can't forget that aesthetic tastes have changed in a hundred years and that for certain object there's a higher or lower need for aesthetic presence. A map is not generally even today something people make so that it can be a gloriously beautiful thing, usually it's just meant to serve a utilitarian purpose, but IMO that shouldn't mean it shouldn't be worth any consideration at all. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If it would be 17th century.--Mile (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. --Avenue (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:SunfishDish1 2 -edit-.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 19:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by TheNHBushman.com on Flickr - uploaded by PaladinWhite and 17Drew, this version by me - nominated by One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Food photography is definitely a tricky domain. I think in this case the lighting is too harsh, making the white plate too preeminent, and giving harsh reflections on the food. The DOF is not optimal : the focus should have been done more on the foreground (fish) ; not on the sidedish (broccoli). The cook's advice : I would never allow a plate to get to the patron with such an unsightly drop of gravy on the side. It would have taken half a second to wipe off. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that a lot of food photography doesn't even use actual food or they spray it with something inedible to reduce the glossiness. :) -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 20:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, AFAIK, it's exactly the opposite : they spray cold food with something glossy to make it look hot and moist, rather than dryed out. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ezio.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2011 at 14:14:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Canon PowerShot SX130 IS Focal length 8 mm f/4 for 1/500 s ISO 80

Flash]]

Info created by Overlord12 - uploaded by Overlord12 - nominated by Overlord12 -- Overlord12 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- Overlord12 (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but a minimum of 50 edits is needed to vote--Citron (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is not up to FP standards -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Can you please give an explanation of how it's not up to standards, Alvegaspar? -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 18:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you will be perfectly capable of doing it, if you think it is worth. I don't. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - One, besides this is a suspicious account anyway ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:CRAY X-MP IMG 9135.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2011 at 07:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cray X-MP48 on display at the EPFL. created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as author and nominator -- Rama (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but boring. I can't see any technical datails from inside. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image illustrates the computer badly, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it looks visually very good. Strange and mysterious. Well, I like this, and the composition too.--Jebulon (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per jebulon--Citron (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will make the same comment than last time: no sense of scale whatsoever. It could be a few centimeters high, it could be a set of futuristic seats for the waiting room of a train station... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert -- Sdgjake (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Alchemist-hp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular ^talk 12:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lençois Maranheses (Barreirinhas - Brazil).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2011 at 22:02:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Micael 106 (talk) - uploaded by Micael 106 (talk) - nominated by Micael 106 (talk) - Micael 106 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Micael 106 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion as a nominator, the image is good to be elected. I hope the vote and comments. Thanks you.
  - It's not that it's a bad image, just that there's noise that's not so pleasant to look at. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 22:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I used the Windows photo gallery to enhance the image. I used the automatic correction. I'll upload the original image and put it in your talk page. A hug Micael 106 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lots of noise in the sky. W.S. 09:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed.

--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabia que essa regra é fracasso? Eu poderia muito bem entrar sem usuário algum e coloar várias imagens apenas trocando o IP ou acessando de outro computador. Um fracasso. (Sabi that this rule is failure? I could very well go without putting a user and a number of images just by changing the IP or accessing another computer. A failure.)

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:HMS Belfast (C35), London, England-16Dec2005 cropped.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 06:18:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Raymond McCrae - uploaded by IxK85 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Urgently in need of substantial noise reduction. W.S. 09:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a little noise in the darker areas particularly in the water and some other places where it does not spoil the image of the ship. Overall, I think the image is quite good. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landsendcliff.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 20:46:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 20:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I think this is one of your best yet. Still, there are strange discolourations, and it seems pixelly and grainy (not your fault - camera phones aren't really known for striking quality). The cliff is cut off at the edge as well. Sorry mate, --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request to remove the ropes in this picture and in the one below (file:Landsendtyw7.JPG)
Comment Well, since all those images are from the same location and presumably taken from the exact same spot, I do think that stacking the photos to build an panorama would be a good way to go.--Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were not taken from the same spot unfortunately, although File:Landsendtyw7.JPG and File:Landsendcliff.JPG are of the same scene from different angles. --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 01:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternates:

View towards tourist attraction
Cliffs 2
Sunsetting on Land's End

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landsendsunset.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2011 at 22:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tyw7 - uploaded by Tyw7 - nominated by Tyw7 -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 22:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too dark. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose And not all that exceptional an image. Daniel Case (talk) 02:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 09:51:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although some don't like yellowish buildings ;-) --Llez (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GIMP's white balance sees nothing wrong with it. =\
Support --Cephas (talk) 12:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support wie schon in der deutschen Wikipedia. The tree at the left is a little bit disturbing, but that's a really irrelevant fact --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Slightly blown out, but nice. -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good all around. Daniel Case (talk) 05:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality.--Snaevar (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support maybe a little perspective distorsion on the lamp in the right corner below ? No, I'm kidding. Flawless. An I like it very much. Only a question: Do not we have an already featured picture of this building ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we do already have a featured picture of this building: File:Gatineau - QC - Museum of Civilisation3.jpg --Snaevar (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Featured quality, though not quite as great as the already Featured take on the building. Steven Walling 01:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am missing the wow here. W.S. 08:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow - here's one for you. --Von.grzanka (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support here is the "wow" ;-) --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support good --W.Rebel (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Strusta Lake - Panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 20:52:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by zedlik —zedlik (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support —zedlik (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Pleasure for eyes. --Mile (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request there aren't the colors too saturated?--Miguel Bugallo 01:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, seems a little oversaturated to me as well... Steven Walling 03:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. This is likely because of recovering of darker areas. Here is bit desaturated variant. Does it look better? —zedlik (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, with obvious unevenness at right and blown highlights on clouds. Ranges from unnatural to almost hallucinatory. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice scene but overprocessed and blown highlights. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sky is dark blue at the left and gradually changes to light blue to the right. Of course, there are several possible explanations for this, but witch one is it?--Snaevar (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sun was just over the right top corner, so the sky looks brighter on the right side, and additionally a polarizing filter makes the sky look darker on the left side. By the way, the sun in the reason why the trees on the left and on the right look a little bit different—those on the right side are in their own shade. —zedlik (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Colorful, and that's nice. --Aktron (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Karelj (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated W.S. 08:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oversaturated? Quite possibly, but altogether a picture with nice colours and a great landscape imo. So: yes to me. --Danny (talk) 11:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated and per others--Miguel Bugallo 23:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oversaturated --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Volcan Villarrica.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2011 at 14:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by elemaki - uploaded by elemaki - nominated by elemaki -- elemaki (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- elemaki (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Candidate for CA removal (especially on the small figures to the right). W.S. 15:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much noise in the sky. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad perspective. Just about anyone can take a photo of group of people hiking in a distance.--Snaevar (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2011 at 03:05:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Featured picture candidates/ Commons:Featured picture candidates/

Info created by Sreejithk2000 - uploaded by Sreejithk2000 - nominated by Praveenp -- Praveen:talk 03:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Praveen:talk 03:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problem is, that the eyes are hardly visible. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposed, glare in his eyeglasses and blurry at the sides of his head (at the ears, and so on).--Snaevar (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Overexposed, glare in the eyeglasses and blurry head --ELEKHH^T 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

File:Rajpoots 2.png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2011 at 22:33:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support No flaws whatsoever. Kind of sets the standard for scanned images, really.--Snaevar (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jujutacular ^talk 18:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Snaevar. --Avenue (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

File:Ardea herodias -Illinois, USA -flying-8.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2011 at 16:46:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PhotoBobil - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Snowmanradio -- Snowmanradio (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Snowmanradio (talk) 16:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Surprised to see quite a bit noise in the sky even at ISO 200. There are JPEG artifacts present along the beak. --Jovian Eye (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a difficult picture to plan for. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I would crop a bit from left side. Noisy a bit, but i like it. Its nesting seson. --Mile (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support A imagem é muito bonita e representa bem o vôo da ave, além de estar carregando o graveto no bico o que é uma cena de difícil capturação, Parabéns ao autor da imagem. Inglês -> The picture is very beautiful and well represents the bird's flight, and be carrying the stick in the nozzle which is a difficult scene capturing, Congratulations to the author of the picture. This edit unsigned by User:Micael 106 at 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm fine with the noise, but it looks off focus, and left wing is in the shadow, making for an unbalanced subject. - Benh (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Mile. --Cephas (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Benh.--Snaevar (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A above. W.S. 08:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the picture is featurable. Ggia (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, and it is not wrong that the left wing is in the shadow --Schnobby (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment indeed not, but it is not right that the bird is not in focus. W.S. 16:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The resolution is 3,781 × 2,502 pixels. Snowmanradio (talk) 18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes? W.S. 09:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contrast halo (borders)? Too dark wing? Noised?--Miguel Bugallo 22:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Snapshot and observation --W.Rebel (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support--Miguel Bugallo 23:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, especially at full resolution. There are tons of great photos of Ardea herodias available, and this is not among the best. I would nominate for VI. Steven Walling 01:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose body is quite noisy and the back wing is so dark. --99of9 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment I made some cleanup of original foto, also i try this alternative, due to wingspan i think its better portrait mode. --Mile (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

The chosen alternative is: File:Ardea_herodias_-Illinois,_USA_-flying-8.jpg

File:Fernmeldeturm Nürnberg3.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2011 at 11:54:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but other than that, I'm not thrilled. Part of the spire is blurry, probably because this is a stitched image with one of the source pictures being blurry - Benh (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV-Towers thrill me at all time :-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- One, please. ( _{^{Thank you.}}) 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but dislike composition, with the upper half occupied by the antenna. --ELEKHH^T 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]