Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2009
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
File:Nikola Zrinski Sigetski - spomenik u Čakovcu.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 07:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by User:Silverije - uploaded by User:Silverije - nominated by User:Silverije -- Silverije (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Support -- Silverije (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting, overexposed in some areas, noisy background. -- Sdgjake (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
File:Canal Street (Manchester) Sign Post.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 01:10:32
- Info created by wrboyce - uploaded by Frao61 - nominated by Frao61 -- Frao61 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Frao61 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Transfer to CollegeHumor --JY REHBY (discuter) 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality etc. —kallerna™ 17:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is more about the supposed humour of the mising 'C' rather than the subject of Canal Street. If the 'C' had been there then it might be okay for showing the degradation of this part of Manchester. fr33kman -s- 20:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
File:HollywoodSignJAN09.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 21:38:20
- Info created by Zaui - uploaded by Zaui - nominated by Zaui -- Zaui (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Zaui (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Don´t like perspective and lighting. --norro 11:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose have to agree with norro. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 14:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Vandtårnet ved Ringgadebroen 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 21:49:36
- Info created by Villy Fink Isaksen - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I can support this FP request. Its a great image with no noise. But I wonder what is the building? --Korman (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is a former water tower in Århus in Denmark, now an office.--Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 14:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose it is for sure a QI, you should nominate it. But for FP there is really a bit of wow missing. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree, quality is good but it's not very exciting. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it your bike ? (-; Nillerdk (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Nils - det er ikke min cykel (Nils - it is not my bike) --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is now norminated as a QI, Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
File:DSCF0P004.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 16:33:06
- Info created by Biso - uploaded by Biso - nominated by Biso -- Biso (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Biso (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the snail is not properly identified. Lycaon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Invalid FPX, not a valid FP criteria (this is not QI) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). Lycaon (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Hollywood Boulevard from Kodak Theatre.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 16:18:43
- Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Pedrodude -- Pedrodude (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I know it's slightly smaller than the guidelines but it's really well composed with excellent colour balance Pedrodude (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the file is much too small. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The Canon EOS 5D is able to take photos up to 4,368×2,912px. Why is this file so small? Because it is really good! →Diti the penguin — 16:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Judging by the age I have a feeling it would have been when he had his 20D. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The image metadata says the contrary. →Diti the penguin — 11:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Judging by the age I have a feeling it would have been when he had his 20D. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Too bad about the resolution, it's really nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:Girl and dandelion.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 05:00:20
- Info created by Nelly Motta - uploaded by Jorelo - nominated by Jorelo -- Jorelo 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jorelo 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Manuel Belgrano.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2009 at 03:43:47
- Info created by Francois Casimir Carbonnier - uploaded by Belgrano - nominated by Belgrano -- Belgrano (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Belgrano (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poorly scanned, low contrast - Luctor 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Good picture for it historic value. - User:Frao61
- Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Ducks in Frognerkilen 0005.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2009 at 21:50:12
- Info created by Bep - uploaded by Bep - nominated by Bep -- Bep (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Bep (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition doesn't seem right for me. →Diti the penguin — 22:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose horizon is not horizontal, main subject is out of focus --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose + scrap on the objective. —kallerna™ 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose These are no ducks, they are geese GerardM (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Though less prominent, ducks are still in the majority (18 vs.8) on this picture. ;-) Lycaon (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
File:USS TexasSan Jacinto Park in Fog.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 00:48:22
- Info created by Louis Vest - uploaded by The ed17 - nominated by Ottre -- Ottre 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful composition, ties in to lofty "end of the earth" mythology. -- Ottre 00:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
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 does not meet size requirements. MER-C 01:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment from uploader - it is simply too small at 964 x 640. However, no higher resolution is available because the creator is "thinking of pitching to the museum store for prints and postcards." I agree, it's a great photo, and I hoped that he would release a high-res one...but he can't, and this one does not meet the standards. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk) 02:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- *Sigh* Add this one to the list of images that coulda, woulda, shoulda been. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Snowflake moray in kona close up c.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 15:27:45
- Info The head of w:Snowflake moray eal. It is an underater image taken in the wild.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The motive blends in too good with the surroundings to make this a good picture. The composition of the photo is sub optimal due to being shot straight from the nose with the rest of the moray blurry. -- Peipei (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I prefer this enwiki FP --Muhammad 18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but not so good to be featured. --Dezidor (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As others. —kallerna™ 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
alt 1, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Better lighting, DOF. Shows good camouflage. --Muhammad 19:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Decent shot of a challenging subject. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CA. —kallerna™ 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info If CA means camera artifacts, there are no camera artifacts in the image. It is w:Caustic (optics). Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Kallerna (talk · contribs) may be referring to the Chromatic aberration apparent on the dorsal fringe near the end of the tail-- the bluish-purplish blotches. I still reaffirm my support, though you may wish to consider cleaning up that part of the image. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Notyourbroom, for kindly explaining to me what CA means. I guess I'll let go on it. I do no know how to correct it in such an inconvenient place as a dorsal fringe. If the image gets promoted fine, if it does not fine too. The image has already done its job. It was used to create stuff eel to educate kids in Hawaii. Here's the image of my eel and the kids in Waikiki Aquarium. These are the reviewers I'm always happy to take pictures for. :), and all of you too of course. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Coarse woody debris 5062.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 17:44:22
- Info created and uploaded by Walter Siegmund - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- color noise, nothing really interesting in the picture and it feels a bit blurry overall. Peipei (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's so dark. --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:CastelloMontechiaro.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:45:50
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor image quality: no detail, excessive softness. Again: please use maximum avalibale jpeg quality -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
file:OdledalGabler.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 23:01:25
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry. For 2 reasons i can't support this actually nice pic. First there seems to be a lot of noise, especially on the rocks. The second thing is that I don't like the composition. If you crop the left part away to get the hut in the lower left corner you have a much better composition (imho). A big panorama is not everything... --AngMoKio (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- To give you an idea i uploaded a cropped version here --AngMoKio (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a pity that the quality is so poor because the composition of the cropped version is quite good -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:OldeEstate1.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:54:52
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality, no detail (high jpeg compression) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Marmotta nelle Odle.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:52:49
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Can you add the species name to the description page? As a reminder, the FPC guidelines state that "Quality images must be categorized, have meaningful title and description. This should include the scientific names for minerals and taxa naming for organisms." --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is FPC not QIC, different requirements --Tony Wills (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because the image quality is poor (no detail, unfocused subject) and the species is not identified -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Comment - Please use highest possible jpeg quality in your pictures, otherwise the chances of promotion are small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Edited FPX, species ID has never been a requirement of FPC --Tony Wills (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Re-edit FPX, species ID should be a requirement of FPC. Lycaon (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:ChiesaTarces2.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 22:47:19
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality, disturbing shadow, not the best point of view -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:STS-119 EVA1 Arnold01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 18:29:33
- Info Astronaut Richard Arnold, STS-119 mission specialist, participates in the mission's first scheduled session of extravehicular activity (EVA) as construction and maintenance continue on the International Space Station. During the six-hour, seven-minute spacewalk, Arnold and astronaut Steve Swanson (out of frame) made important work on the International Space Station. Created by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - uploaded by Alessio Rolleri - nominated by Natural RX -- Natural RX (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support There's something breathtaking about this picture. -- Natural RX (talk) 18:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral but leaning towards opposition. There's some pretty severe CA and the picture is blurred as though the camera had been shaking. That's all a pity to me, because it's otherwise an incredible shot. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Might I suggest one of these instead? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I may nominate this one, but not until after the community has spoken on this image. I'll remind all to not let the double/triple reflection on the astronaut's headgear throw you off. Thanks for those suggestions! Natural RX (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- My pleasure. It's annoying, I know, when you think you've found a great image, and the community doesn't agree (see the link on my userpage for evidence!). But stay a while, and you'll learn fairly quickly, though it might not be all fun and games. *Winks at Lycaon*
- I may nominate this one, but not until after the community has spoken on this image. I'll remind all to not let the double/triple reflection on the astronaut's headgear throw you off. Thanks for those suggestions! Natural RX (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition isn't that great. Sarcastic ShockwaveLovers suggestions were much better. —kallerna™ 14:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Kallerna. First alternative is a potential candidate. Lycaon (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-1987-0703-507, Berlin, Reichstagssitzung, Rede Adolf Hitler.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 16:31:58
- Info Adolf Hitler in Reichstag during his speech against Franklin D. Roosevelt and United States, December 11, 1941.
- Info Image of Deutsches Bundesarchiv (German Federal Archive) - uploaded by BArchBot - nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima Msg 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Béria Lima Msg 16:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
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 less than one half of a megapixel-- less than 25% of the normal cutoff. Are we certain no higher-resolution version exists? I would think it would be a shoo-in at an adequate level of resolution, so in that regard, this is a great find. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment Please read Commons:Bundesarchiv. Higher resolutions are unfree. →Diti the penguin — 17:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Thank you for that information, Diti-- your assumption that I did not know about the size restriction was correct. I leave anyone to challenge my FPX if they desire to, but I do feel it would be inconsistent with the concept of a FP to promote an extremely low-resolution image simply because a higher-resolution version would be unfree. An argument could be made that it would be a sort of provisional promotion in lieu of the higher-resolution version (which- one assumes- would be made available after a certain number of years) but at the very least, that would necessitate a template along the lines of "This FP must be replaced with a higher-resolution version when such a substitution becomes legal." All in all, I'm uncomfortable with the idea, and I do not withdraw my FPX. I appreciate your information on the matter, though. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- To expand upon my above comment slightly, I do think it would be good to have a category or template marking images such as this one as promising FPCs which simply do not have free high-resolution versions at this point in time. I don't think there ought to be any kind of formal voting process for this designation, but it could be a good idea for the future to mark relevant images for future consideration once a larger version of the image becomes available. I am a new member and do not know the best way to formalize this suggestion, but I encourage anyone interested in this idea to articulate and expand upon it in the appropriate forum. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have considered creating a page where people could list those types of images; however the number of great images that are hamped by small size is tremendous. Maybe something like Commons:Larger Needed? People could search for larger versions of those existing images. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting image, but perhaps more suitable for VI. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 18:23:27
- Info Fountain of Dª. Estefânia Square (in portuguese: Largo de Dona Estefânia) at night. In center, the statue of Neptune.
- Info created by To lobato (user from Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Beria -- Béria Lima Msg 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Béria Lima Msg 18:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the quality of the image is poor: general unsharpness and noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Pulsatilla grandis.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 15:46:19
- Info created by Ria - uploaded by Ria - nominated by Ria -- Ria (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Pulsatilla grandis in Kobylinec, CZ
- Support -- Ria (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. Composition is a bit cluttered, the flower doesn't really stand out in front of the grass. You also have to take care that the sharpness is on the main object. Don't give up and try again ...welcome to FPC :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 17:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You might also want to crop out the cut-off flower on the left, and some of that unused space. It's all about balancing the picture. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Pro2 (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Image:The tea junction DSCF2110.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 07:25:34
- Info created by Tmaurizia - uploaded by Tmaurizia - nominated by Tmaurizia -- 79.45.43.199 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
* Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 07:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) please log-in to vote. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because the image is underexposed, has a poor jpeg quality and is tilted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment - Please use the best available jpeg quality of your camera -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5 days). --Karel (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 18:18:16
- Info Subject created by God, picture created, uploaded and nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 18:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition - animal looks misplaced, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The composition could have been better, but I like the eyes!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Richard. You are in insect heaven over there. Can you find this fly again for a another shot? Lycaon (talk) 08:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly heaven; I live in the city ;) I haven't seen the fly again. As Richard said, it looked a bit misplaced but when I tried to straighten it out, it zoomed away --Muhammad 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- If it was mine I had tried to retouch it before uploading - looks doable --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not exactly heaven; I live in the city ;) I haven't seen the fly again. As Richard said, it looked a bit misplaced but when I tried to straighten it out, it zoomed away --Muhammad 08:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Muhammad 18:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 21:29:25
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Dimitri Torterat. The photo takes place underneath the Eiffel Tower, during a rainy, windy, but sunny day. The place is very often filled with plenty of people, so I had to chose a wide aperture for isolating the subjects of the photo. Digital editing was possible to give this photo a lower exposure, and a « better look », but it resulted in quality loss. I decided not to include a person on the left side while taking the photo, maybe that was a mistake. →Diti the penguin — 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 21:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I am aware of the discussion regarding the last image of this type that was nominated, but this just seems like a tourist snapshot, albeit a much higher quality one. It's annoying you can't get the Eiffel Tower in shot. :( Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Everything, except the radiant smile of the child. Like Sarcastic ShockwaveLover, I can't see anything more than a snapshot. You can shoot Tour Eifel, "mais seulement quand elle n'est pas illuminée" (only when it is not lighted) - that is the weird French law -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please keep trying though. I think that there is an FP here - it just needs finding. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sry, I have to agree with Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. —kallerna™ 11:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination And I'm looking forward to taking a better photograph later, then. Thank you for your comments. →Diti the penguin — 16:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Giant Tortoise.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 18:31:31
- Info An Aldabra Giant Tortoise (Geochelone gigantea). Picture created, uploaded and nominated by Yotcmdr -- Yotcmdr (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Yotcmdr (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
{{FPX|the tortoise is not sufficiently identified.}} If you find out the species, please also recategorize accordingly. Lycaon (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)fixed. Thanks. Lycaon (talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)- Info fixed. Yotcmdr (talk) 06:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 06:42:39
- Info Looks like an ant, but not one. A katydid mimicking an ant. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 06:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Kuvaly (talk) 11:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small subject (and too little detail) for the smallish file size. Doesn't reach the current standards for macro photography. It is a very interesting capture though which would make a handsome VI. Lycaon (talk) 13:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The katydid was only 4mm long. Better details would require a larger magnification than 1:1 --Muhammad 14:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- That's a pity. Still interesting image. Lycaon (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The katydid was only 4mm long. Better details would require a larger magnification than 1:1 --Muhammad 14:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose hmm details should be better. --Aktron (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The colors are great.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support from me, though speaking from an unscientific perspective, I would have liked a slightly different angle focusing more on the anterior than the posterior. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose There could be more and finer details and a tad more DOF for that small image size with the amount of unused background ... flashlight is 2 harsh for my taste, otherwise nice colors and good composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think that it's a decent size for such a small insect + wow. --Lošmi (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon + Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 14:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As other opponents. --Karel (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose little noisy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, great composition and colours. --Aqwis (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - per others -- Pro2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:First flight2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 23:24:14
- Info The first airplane flight. Created by Wilbur Wright and Orville Wright - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Wrightflyer highres.jpg. Would replace current featured version File:Wrightflyer.jpg nominated for delisting below. -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Support Should've been like this in the first place! Thanks for following proper procedure. Lycaon (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)- Things move along much more smoothly if you communicate via normal channels. Please do so in future. :) Durova (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 09:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Support wowcan you please add the EXIF ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)- What do you mean by EXIF? Durova (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- was just kidding...Digital cameras store EXIF-Data with the pic in which you can see technical details about how the pic was made (aperture, shutter speed and so on..). Btw do u agree with my statement about the lost nuances? --AngMoKio (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, joke. :) Re: detail, might be a matter of monitor settings? Durova (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- hm..I have a
calibratedmonitor. But even when I increase gamma or brightness in the new version i can't see the details of the old one. Look at the jacket details of the guy on the plain. There are several details lost that you clearly see on the original (at least with my monitor). --AngMoKio (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- hm..I have a
- Ah, joke. :) Re: detail, might be a matter of monitor settings? Durova (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- was just kidding...Digital cameras store EXIF-Data with the pic in which you can see technical details about how the pic was made (aperture, shutter speed and so on..). Btw do u agree with my statement about the lost nuances? --AngMoKio (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean by EXIF? Durova (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose after a second look i found out that the restored version lost quite some details and nuances. It is very obvious when you compare the guy on the plane in the original and the new version. I guess this shouldn't happen when you restore photos. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)- Oppose - agree with AngMoKio. It's most noticeable on the man on the right, but you can also see it on the engine. Something's wrong with the levels/contrast. Otherwise a fine job. Lupo 16:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support GerardM (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 15:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Changed my mind per AngMoKio. Lycaon (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 19:47:41
- Info created by Jonathan Mallard (on Flickr) - uploaded by Andrew c - nominated by Yarnalgo -- Yarnalgo (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Yarnalgo (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm opposing this on grounds unrelated to the subject matter, though I'm sure there will be at least one or two who oppose it for being "military-glorifying propaganda" or some such related notion. My view from a quality perspective is that the whole image has a muddy, noisy feel to it, and I don't much like the composition, either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose lack of composition and war pics can't give me wow. I am not in general against war photos, if they document a war in a realistic way, cruel and senseless as they are, then I can support them. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A rare high quality image from Afganistan. Of course the wars are cruel and horrible. Too bad that sometimes there's no other choice, but to fight the war.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - poor composition (Two cutoff figures on the right) and the lighting is not good - Peripitus (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Sry, this one is much better. Needs editing (I'll try do something). —kallerna™ 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Well, it's bit better now. —kallerna™ 13:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As much as I enjoy military photography, I must concur with Peripitus and Notyourbroom. The photo is cluttered, the subject obscured and minimised and the lighting detracts from the quality. The current FP, as Kallerna pointed out, is superior. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Supportvery good picture.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
image:TestonMonteRudo.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 19:43:28
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Peipei (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral -- Good composition but subject's lighting (should I say shadows?) is not the best -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Foggy background. --Karel (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great composition, decent quality. —kallerna™ 09:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, too much contrast between the dark house in the front and the excessively bright sky - i.e. poor light conditions. --Aqwis (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
image:Sorapiss e lago.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 19:35:51
- Info created by llorenzi - uploaded by llorenzi - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor framing, boring composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Welcome to FPC, llorenzi! Please don't consider the criticism as unecessarily harsh. But these are supposed to be the best of the best images in Commons. Go on trying, but pay attention to details and try to get the best possible from your camera (better yet if you get a better one...) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A good interesting image. --Korman (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add english description? Geolocation would be nice. —kallerna™ 14:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of I-Mages (talk • contribs) 23:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but please add "heading" to {{Location}}. --Kjetil_r 07:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate crop at the top. Lycaon (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, agree with Lycaon. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but what you (generally) mean with the term crop? I cannot understand...--Llorenzi (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Supportoverall good but needs more sky at the top.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ISS-11 Discovery heat shield photograph.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 13:23:50
- Info created by NASA- uploaded by Finavon - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks as if NASA has problems with focussing and cropping ;-). I'm used to better quality from their hardware. Lycaon (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I`m fairly new to examining photos, so could you explain where the focusing is wrong? The cropping I can understand, though I personally don`t think it detracts very much. On a side note, if you have time, it would be helpful if you could examine some of the other images I plan to nominate, see the link on my user page. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too grey. --Aktron (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I overwrote the original picture with a slightly more contrasty version. —Pixel8 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support No matter what a great image.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I would like to see whole space shuttle in the photo. —kallerna™ 13:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very poor composition. --Karel (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Mywood (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Schloss Forstegg Salez Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2009 at 15:03:54
- Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by D-Kuru -- D-Kuru (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support a bit dark but still nice -- D-Kuru (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Cool --Muhammad 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Stitching errors on phone/electricity line. -- Peipei (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Indeed too many stitching errors. Lycaon (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose for stitching errors. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Chicken February 2009-1.jpg became a fp and this not, because of stiching errors? {{Confused}} --D-Kuru (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- No template yet for confused ;) --Muhammad 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I'd say that that picture is more diffuse in what's wrong with it, I for one would have opposed it. But stitching errors are such a clear way of noticing that the picture is sub-par and should not be classed as a featured picture. -- Peipei (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Where do you see similarities between those 2 pics? --AngMoKio (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- No template yet for confused ;) --Muhammad 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Stitching errors. —kallerna™ 15:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Kallerna. --Estrilda (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral gets my support when stitching errors are fixed. I really like the composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral, same as AngMoKio. --Aqwis (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info I have dropped a request that the stiching errors get fixed. You may don't move that page to the old discussions now if you close it. --D-Kuru (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 01:03:24
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Never underestimate the force of the green galaxy
- Oppose Sorry ;-) -- Richard Bartz (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The storyline is not well. The picture should be flipped, in the way that Dart's line goes before Luke's. --Lošmi (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice resolution, natural appearance. EV seems quite high. Did you use Google translator set on translate from insect to english? --Muhammad (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- request: Can you please also make a pic for the scene with Jabba the Hutt and Princess Leia on the planet Tatooine? Would love to see that ;) --AngMoKio (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong info Princess Leia is mating right now, but how about that ? --Richard Bartz (talk)
- lol...we should start a new category the Lolbugs. But now fun aside: The picture for sure has encyclopaedic value but unfortunately it is tilted and furthermore geotag has to be wrong. I saw Luke lately here. I seriously doubt that he was in Bavaria. That's why i can only give a weak Neutral --AngMoKio (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- C'mon that's not fair !!! --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- lol...we should start a new category the Lolbugs. But now fun aside: The picture for sure has encyclopaedic value but unfortunately it is tilted and furthermore geotag has to be wrong. I saw Luke lately here. I seriously doubt that he was in Bavaria. That's why i can only give a weak Neutral --AngMoKio (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete That's no insect. That's a space station. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Max Rebo Band member
- Oppose Not serious enough for Commons I think… but I laughed hard! xD →Diti the penguin — 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong neutrality I like one of the bugs but not the other. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => Withdrawn not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Hamilton hill wa gnangarra.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 11:20:01
- Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded & nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnangarra 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 11:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think it needs lightning & colour adjusting. Do you agree? —kallerna™ 11:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Could be my imagination, but especially in the thumbnail, there looks to be some vignetting as well. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it was taken at sunrise to avoid people in the photograph, there's isnt anything wrong with the colours. Gnangarra 23:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (roule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Thomas Bresson - Stal-2 (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 19:20:00
- Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you please give us more informations from where the picture was taken e.g. geocoordinates & geological particularities because the image name (image should be renamed) and the image description isn't really telling, thanks. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info It was already geocoordinated and I have enhanced the description. --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose well taken picture, but there are much better exemples of this IMHO (perhaps if the description explained why this particular one is unique ...) --ianaré (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg.wmv.OGG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 02:23:38
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Any chance of a high-res one for downloading? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Adam. May I please ask you, if you ment that you yourself would like to download the video?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- On hold Fantastic and useful file (penguins are rare here), and it's nice to see you improved the quality, but why did the video resolution decreased? VGA format was cool, and for now I don't think I'd feature a video with such a small size. →Diti the penguin — 18:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah Diti the penguin , to tell you the truth I doubt this video could be featured. I did it mostly for you because I know you like penguins. With videos higher rsolution does not always mean a higher quality, it might be just the opposite. The only video format Commons accept is OGG. Here's the highest resolution I was able to get after I converted my video to OOG: File:Pygoscelis antarctica trying to get to iceberg edit1.OGG. I cannot play it at my computer at all, so I cannot say anything about the quality. It is for you to decide which one is better. I only like to add that we had a big fun watching those penguins. I do not think penguins had fun too. There was a w:Leopard Seal nearby, and somebody even saw a w:killer whale.Thank you for watching, and please feel absolutely free to oppose, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info I've been on a category-restructuring frenzy lately, and I just shuffled around a lot of penguin-related categories and images. :) I also made a category for penguin-related videos. This is a good starting point to explore the new category tree, and of course feel free to make any alterations you want. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! May I please ask you, if you were able to watch the higher resolution of the video, and which resolution you liked better? This question is for everybody, please. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did indeed watch the high-resolution version-- it's a very fascinating scene. Almost like watching salmon try to jump up small waterfalls to go upstream. I'd call it very valuable, but alas, the lack of a tripod to keep the camera steady- as well as just the distance between the camera and the subjects- gives it some technical problems. Still a joy to watch, though, and I envy these experiences you have :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Notyourbroom. Which one worked better for you the nominated or a higher resolution one? --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I did indeed watch the high-resolution version-- it's a very fascinating scene. Almost like watching salmon try to jump up small waterfalls to go upstream. I'd call it very valuable, but alas, the lack of a tripod to keep the camera steady- as well as just the distance between the camera and the subjects- gives it some technical problems. Still a joy to watch, though, and I envy these experiences you have :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! May I please ask you, if you were able to watch the higher resolution of the video, and which resolution you liked better? This question is for everybody, please. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- (undent) I'm not sure I understand your question, Mbz1 :) both versions play fine to me, and it seems to be that as in photography, the highest-resolution version ought to be the preferred archival version. Please clarify your question if I have missed your point. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I was trying to understand what version you as a viewer would prefer, but you already answered my question. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is also the issue that my monitor is set to 1920*1080 resolution, so anything of relatively low resolution seems even smaller to me :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I guess I was trying to understand what version you as a viewer would prefer, but you already answered my question. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Mono lake tufa formation.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 18:21:17
- InfoTufa at w:Mono Lake
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Composition so-so, poor quality due probably to fanatic de-noising. Detail is also affected by (too much?) light in the main subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment and for your vote. I tried to do de-noising only on the sky and on the water. I guess my efforts failed. BTW this image was taken in the good old time, when I knew nothing about Commons, and what is even more important Commons knew nothing about me :) Back then I just took the pictures, shared them with friends and removed them from my computer most of the times. This one somehow survived. Now I think it might have been better off, if it did not :)--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Monument to slaves in Zanzibar .jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 19:23:26
- Info Monument to w:slaves in w:Zanzibar
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose intersting place...but the composition doesn't convince me. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info
This "composition" should convince, I mean it'd better does that nobody in the world would go through slave auction ever again. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)Sorry. AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one, so I retract my words and I am sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I judged the picture not the monument. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, the picture was taken with such a perspective that shows how "people", who came there to buy humans were looking at the slaves staying in this horrible hole. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I judged the picture not the monument. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with AngMokio. The framing and angle don't emphasize the symbolism of the sculpture. Looks like a snapshot to me. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mbz1. --Ahnode (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now it is strange that you opposed my own image per me. I supported my image and I'm still supporting it. No matter the other image has a better composition, the nominated image has much, much bigger EV, but thank you for your vote anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I meant this: "AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one" . Sorry for that. --Ahnode (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's absolutely nothing to be sorry about. My bad. I should have said AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one, but mine image has a much bigger EV." Best regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I meant this: "AngMoKio just found an image that has a much better composition that the nominated one" . Sorry for that. --Ahnode (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now it is strange that you opposed my own image per me. I supported my image and I'm still supporting it. No matter the other image has a better composition, the nominated image has much, much bigger EV, but thank you for your vote anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:RacovițaHartăToponimică.svg Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apache Lake 02.jpg
File:Sadat and Begin clean2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 16:07:02
- Info created by Leffler, Warren K. - cleaned up version of File:Sadat_and_Begin.jpg, uploaded and selfnom by User:Jaakobou Jaakobou (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat at the Camp David Accords. Jaakobou (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: Added a cropped version without the border. Jaakobou (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question why did you darken the face of the man in the middle (Anwar Sadat?)? Is this sth that is "allowed" in a restoration? (original(?) <-> restoration) --AngMoKio (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Original had the tonal details washed up a little (due to old age probably). At first I left it the same and his skin tone looked very similar to Menahem Begin's, but then we had a bunch of TV shows with clips from those days (we're celebrating 30 years of the peace accords) and he's not just a bit dark like Begin but more Black like Michael Jordan. I used tonal details from the original to dilute the over-exposure a bit and get a more natural (and closer to real-life) tonal output. Hope this answers your query. Jaakobou (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I am just wondering if a restoration should keep the colours (or in this case the grey nuances) as in the original or if the picture should get adapted to reality. I tend to say that historical documents should get restored in a way that tries to make them look as they were before time, light, dust,.. changed them. A restoration should remove the influence of time on a photo. As you only change this one persons face, I think it was rather a adaptation to reality (imho). But this is really a difficult topic and I am really no expert concerning restoration. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thought I'd link a sample photo where you can see the tonal features File:Sadat Carter Begin handshake (cropped) - USNWR.jpg. Jaakobou (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a normal effect of histogram adjustment, which is a normal step in restoration. Durova (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Histogram adjustment affects the whole picture, I guess. Here it is just the face of one person that is affected. When you only change one face you change some "facts" compared to the original. In the original the face was quite bright maybe bcs of a spotlight or sth. In the restored version this is not that visible anymore. I just wonder if this is sth that should be done in a restoration. I am not really sure about it...guess we should discuss it with others too to get to a point. To judge a restoration is a bit different than judging a photos made by commons users. Maybe we even have to add sth in the text about how to judge pictures. It can't be only about wow, composition and technical quality. You always have to compare it with the original to judge the work. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is a normal effect of histogram adjustment, which is a normal step in restoration. Durova (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thought I'd link a sample photo where you can see the tonal features File:Sadat Carter Begin handshake (cropped) - USNWR.jpg. Jaakobou (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I am just wondering if a restoration should keep the colours (or in this case the grey nuances) as in the original or if the picture should get adapted to reality. I tend to say that historical documents should get restored in a way that tries to make them look as they were before time, light, dust,.. changed them. A restoration should remove the influence of time on a photo. As you only change this one persons face, I think it was rather a adaptation to reality (imho). But this is really a difficult topic and I am really no expert concerning restoration. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - Original had the tonal details washed up a little (due to old age probably). At first I left it the same and his skin tone looked very similar to Menahem Begin's, but then we had a bunch of TV shows with clips from those days (we're celebrating 30 years of the peace accords) and he's not just a bit dark like Begin but more Black like Michael Jordan. I used tonal details from the original to dilute the over-exposure a bit and get a more natural (and closer to real-life) tonal output. Hope this answers your query. Jaakobou (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Keep in touch DSCF2453.jpg
File:Thamarai-Namam2.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:31:39
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vaikunda Raja -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info This is the religious symbol of Ayyavazhi, a South Indian Dharmic belief system. This Image, I feel, the best, and of highest-resolution among all the similar Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC. This is already a featured Picture in English Wikipedia.
- Support -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a good idea to promote religious symbols and national flags, imo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, Though I agree with the point of User:Alvesgaspar, I like to inform that the reason I nominated the image here was verymuch more than it being merely a religious symbol. This image, I feel is also much more than a mere outlined symbol like this or a less complex (in design) National flag. This is more a 'religious art' than a symbol or an emblem. For instance, the small greenish spikes, the green circular border and the brown background is not part of the "emblem". But it was justified here since it was more a 'religious art'. Of course it (or) part of it may be a religious symbol. But, I like this image to be featured here is not for the reason that it is a 'religious symbol' and for the reason that I believe it's beautiful and very much deserves to be featured as a 'Religious Art' as so in English wikipedia, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That is no valid reason to oppose Alvesgaspar. Under your criteria so much could be censored. Art is a reflexion of a culture, religion included, and as such, a theme where creative activity takes place. Religion and art have had a long walk throughout history and I doubt that it will stop anytime soon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is just my opinion, not an attempt to introduce censorship. There is so much beyond the strict graphical components of such symbols that I'm afraid we cannot isolate them from the whole. Of course, we can say if we like them or not, in a strict aesthetical sense. But will that procedure be acceptable, when compared with what we do when assessing bug and building pictures? In this particular case, I find the image quite kitschy but that is probably because I'm not aware of its detailed symbolism. Should I be? Both a simple cross and Bach's Mass in B minor have strong religious content. But while I can still enjoy and understand Bach's masterpice being unaware of that component, that is obvioulsy not true with the cross. The same goes with national symbols and, for example, Tchaikowsky's 1812 piece. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me ask an academic question, which will make my point clearer: would Vaikunda Raja consider nominating this picture as a purely abstract creation of his own, saying nothing about its religious content? And would the chances of promotion improve by doing so? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If I understood you correctly, any-work which could create a symbolic ideology such as religious sentiment or Nationalism should not be given any featured or special status? Am I correct? If so, further sharpening your views, if I understood rightly, not even an outstanding photograph (or) a well written article that of a religious (or national) building or symbols shall be featured.
- But it is not the case here in wikimedias. Here every thing including the ones which you neglected enjoys the featured or similar status; It be article, Category, List, Portal, Images or videos. The only thing is it should meet the appropriate criteria. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you didn't understand correctly. My examples clear show that I'm not against featuring works with religious content. I'm only against promoting religious, national and partidary symbols or emblems. And I don't make any distinctions between the national flag of Portugal, the swastika or the Christian cross. As for the rules and criteria governing these issues they are not shared by the different wikis. There is an enormous difference between featuring an article on the Nazi ideology and featuring the swastica! Because the first can be neutral but not the second -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- All religious images imply a transmission of ideology, the recipient, however, may or may not accept the symbolisms that such images convey. There are many variables involved. Protestants, for example, may take offense at catholic imagery, or jewish people at nazi symbols. However offensive the symbols may be to certain people, they exist outside an ideological realm and can be appreciated from different contexts, cultural, historical, etc. To suppress nazi symbols does not make the past dissapear, and in fact, may even contribute to forgetting the terrible events, which in turn, as we say in Mexico, the medicine would be worse than the illness. So in this small FPC world IMO it would be better to limit support or oppose votes strickly on technical and other relevant criteria aligned with the advancement of knowledge and preservation of history in general and not rely too much on the small world of personal opinions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The point is not whether they have an ideological value for FPC, that doesn't matter. The point is that once FP, they will become POTD, nolens volens one day and at that time make publicity for that particular ideology and that would be wrong. Lycaon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that introducing the ideological variable to FPC is foolish. It is hard enough to agree on aesthetic, cultural, historical, encyclopedic value as it is, and to throw in the possible implications of ideology of images on some people is a recipe for disaster. A cross, or an image of a cross could be an insult to muslims, a swastica to jews, nudity to puritans, and so on and so on... yet, neither crosses, swasticas nor nudity cease to exist or dissapear from history. Unless of course we turn over FPC to the Talibans and have them determine acceptable content from now on and have them delete what they don´t like. Much of graphic creation, sculptures, architecture, photography, drawings have an ideological base, consciously or unconsciously, and even if they come from the most abhorrent political spectrum, the work itself, the thing, does not necessarily lose its qualities as a work of art, or neither because it comes from there can it constitute itself in a piece of art. By exersicing good judgement by the community offensive material can be filtered out, ans solely based on technical and cultural quality. Unless of course we stick with the birds and the bees... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- @ Lycaon - But the same is true of every image we promote. Shots of Catholic stained glass windows get promoted, thus making 'publicity for that particular ideology'. The same could be applied to shots of dead chickens, PETA may come after us saying that we approve of animal slaughter. But it was still promoted. There are American military aircraft Featured, when those reach POTD, will we be accused of favouring the US? Whether or not we realise it, each image that is promoted could be 'publicity for that particular ideology'. Singling one out is just hypocritical. Everyone seems to forget that this is Commons. If one side thinks that there are too FPs of one particular thing/idea/faith/country, they can always upload some of their own, and nominate them. It's a about quality and message, and I don't have to be religious to appreciate a religious photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose You've got to ask yourself - would this picture even be nominated if it was not a religious symbol? If the answer is "no", then oppose. If you think it would be worth featuring without it's religious connotations, then support. This has nothing to do with censorship as far as I am concerned, it simply "has no wow". Plrk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose should be SVG --ianaré (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Originally I created this image using Adobe Illustrator. But due to 'forced rasterisation' of certain parts (the flower petals) while converting to SVG, the whole image was converted to a PNG and was uploaded. I also made a trial in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab but failed. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, Plrk said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment mistake in typing - it's not featured. --Lošmi (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jul 2019 at 17:54:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical#1940-1950
- Info created by Oren Jack Turner - uploaded by Jaakobou - nominated by Fluffy89502 -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 17:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain Albert Einstein in 1947; Similar image nominated in April of 2009 and failed; I have no clue at how likely it is that this image will succeed. However a similar image is featured on both the Arabic and Persian wiki's and is a valued image on Commons. -- Fluffy89502 ~ talk 17:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Not in this state. This is certainly a potential FP, but it needs restoration first. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Abstain Per Yann for now--Boothsift 03:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs cleaning, per Yann. Daniel Case (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, per others.--Vulphere 07:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Lake Tenaya in Yosemite NP .jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2009 at 17:30:12
- Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Are you God? ;) Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
* Support Looks very slightly tilted CCW, but it's probably just the way the uneven shoreline messes with my perception of the horizon. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Removed support because the "Edit 1" version has sufficient support to become a FP.
- Comment - Maybe so, but the picture would benefict from a slight CW tilt, even if formally incorrect. I found the composition a bit boring, with the horizon dead centered in the frame. A little crop on top? I'm not sure it works. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A great photo of mother nature. --Korman (talk) 05:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree. --Karel (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow --sevela.p (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I can't help but feel the white balance is a bit off. --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 Alvesgaspar suggestion, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Much better now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this one better, but I will support either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes. --Karel (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Much better indeed --Muhammad 05:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 10:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A fantastic photograph. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry - poor optic quality, big CA. Also don't composition - seems too flat and too tightly cropped at top (original is much better). But I think it is really great place :) --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I can't help but feel the white balance is a bit off. --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer the original. Can't we have a happy medium? Tilt, but no crop. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The original nomination is clossed already. I'm not sure I have the right to overwrite the image with a new version at this point, or do I? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (the orignal one has higher support) Mywood (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Untersberg panoramic view winter.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2009 at 11:07:52
- Info created and uploaded by MatthiasKabel - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 11:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Kadellar (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose photographing snow is not the easiest thing, especially to get it white, as it should be. On this pic most snow is kind of bluish (bcs of underexposure I guess). Furthermore the composition also doesn't really convince me. It is a very big panorama for sure and it might be difficult to get all those pictures together ...but also in panoramas there has to be a convincing composition imho. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- CommentI wouldn't agree with AngMokio abt the composition, but the snow should be white. Might be a white balance problem? --Muhammad 16:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The snow is white in the sunlight. If I would change the white balance to turn the bluish snow in the shodows to white, the snow in the sunlight would red/yellow. MatthiasKabel (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I cannot see the image in the full resolution. Does somebody else has same problem? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I do. It´s probably to big (39 MB). If you use Firefox and it crashes: I already files a bug for this and it will be fixed in Firefox 3.1beta3 and later versions. --norro 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- For some reason I cannot see the image in the full resolution. Does somebody else has same problem? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Love the composition --norro 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice. -- Pro2 (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Great quality, but I'm not sure about the composition. —kallerna™ 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I've seen lots of snow but never like this - are we on earth...? is it a natural phenomenon?--alpinus5 (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Color, structure, anything else? MatthiasKabel (talk) 19:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Blue snow?--alpinus5 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Supportinteresting photo--CnrFallon (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Gasshukoku suishi teitoku kōjōgaki (Oral statement by the American Navy admiral).png, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 03:25:04
- Info created by unknown ukiyo-e artist - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Extremely rare example of Japanese art depicting Commodore Perry's visit which led to the opening up of Japan. Restored from the Library of Congress copy, which is, at most, one of only a handful of copies. As time has not been kind to it, I have not attempted a complete restoration, as the unrestorable parts would look awkward next to the restored ones. I did, however, do substantial work in the name of readability and to remove highly distracting damage, such as a large stain. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful work. It's always amazing comparing the initial uploaded version with your final product. --Notyourbroom (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose – Until the present ambiguity between the intrinsic value of a picture and the quality of a restore is resolved by a vast community consensus and proper assessment criteria. That ambiguity has lead to the unilateral creation of this page (which is a showcase of Commons to the outside world) and the self-promotion of its two members. In the process, the concept of "Feature picture" and this very forum were abused in a way I consider to be unacceptable. If someone considers this vote to be just a POV, please strike the vote but leave the protest. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)No longer applies -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- And what, precisely, does this have to do with this image? Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Wikipedia has this "rule" that you should not Wikipedia is not there to make a point. I find that Alvegaspar is not assessing the picture but making a point. Arguments about restorations as I understand it are about what makes a great restoration. They are hardly about what makes a featurable picture. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia, sorry to disappoint you. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, this is not wikipedia but the points discussed in POINT IMO apply here as well. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- I always thought that the base policies on Wiki carried through the entire project. Am I wrong? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, this is not wikipedia but the points discussed in POINT IMO apply here as well. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is not Wikipedia, sorry to disappoint you. Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC) This is a fine pictue it has relevance for the WMF projects and it is therefore featurable.. It is a fine restoration as well.
Oppose – WikiCommons is not there to make a point. And that is exactly what this page is set out to do. So I will join Alvesgaspar in his protest vote. And on another note, why do you have to fill your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each (sic) within a few days before you are satisfied? This can better be done off line. If you must preserve the history of your different attempts, then why not upload those at lower jpg resolutions? Lycaon (talk) 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Looks as if the main reason for this dissident vote has been removed for now, so is this opposition. Lycaon (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lycaon, I have not participated in any discussion related to that page in a week, because I only started it as a favour to a friend. There is a thread on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates that you are, of course, able to participate in. This is not the place for such discussion, and as you say, WikiCommons is not here to make a point, which is what this hijacking of a Featured picture candidacy to harass someone can only be described as. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are conflating issues. Your very argument is what may make the featured picture candidates a battle ground. This is to argue the merits of THIS picture. You are using your vote as an instrument to protest, to make a point. Please desist from such nonsense because this damages Commons. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lycaon, your actiona are unbecoming of an administrator. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- What has this to do with being an admin? A bit confused? Admins are regular users that have taken upon them to perform extra maintenance tasks for which extra access is required. Am I not doing my job? Are admins supposed to be opinionless? Lycaon (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- This is not a comment appropriate to the context of FPCs, but I have to second what GerardM has said, and what several others have said before him in other threads. I have only been an active Commons member for about a month, but Lycaon's behavior has often confused and bothered me as well. In this thread in particular, his sniping about "...fill[ing] your upload history with 16 versions of 15Mb each" boggles the mind. As I understand it, one of the pillars of Wiki-style collaboration is having a rich version-history archive to work from. In providing a gradual buildup to his final restoration, Adam Cuerden enables future restorers to branch off from his work at a point of their choosing, rather than having to pick between fully-unrestored and fully-restored versions. I think it's commendable, forward-thinking behavior, and is not something to be belittled. How an administrator could become mixed up on this point is beyond my comprehension, and so his words just come off as a weak attempt at a personal attack. I have no prior investment in any of these controversies, so I hope this viewpoint is accepted as a third-party assessment of the situation. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- So nice not everyone joins in the Lycaon-bashing day today :-)). Lycaon (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Not bashing, merely examining your conduct and attitude, in light of your admin status. I agree wholeheartedly with Notyourbroom; we are here to judge pictures on their own merit, and not let anything else influence that. Whether or not you agree with the establishment of Meet our Restorationists (who do a fine job, by the way), that has no bearing on this picture. Evaluate the picture, nothing else. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Please, please read the discussion page before commenting on this! It is precisely the object of evaluation in FPC that was implicitly subverted by the way the page was created! Sorry to be so bold but I'm already tired of repeating the same thing over and over again: one thing is to assess the value of a picture, a completly different thing is to assess the quality of a restoring. And these two things cannot be mixed up in FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Will you PLEASE stop disrupting FPC, and go to the talk page? Furthermore, as this message by Alvesgaspar continues his harassment and disruption campaign even after I disowned meet our restorationists and removed my name from that page, it is clear that appeasing Alvesgaspar is not going to work. I hence have resored my name to Commons:Meet our restorationists, and will fight for the right of restorationists to be recognised with every tooth and nail. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar you conflate two issues and you are wrong in doing so. You can assess pictures that are to be featured, that is what this is about. If your point is that you cannot assess restorations, then do not do that. It is not possible to technically assess restorations anyway because Commons does not have the technology to make that possible. We are slowly moving in that direction because we can now upload the work files as a tiff. These file cannot be shown in a thumbnail or otherwise yet. This information is not new to you. Now desist of further nonsense, you agree that these pictures are important, the only argument you are left with is being uncomfortable that restorations are in a category of their own and that there has been no lengthy discussion about it. As you already implicitly agreed that restorations are in a category of their own, there is not much to discuss. My problem is that you make it seem as an "us and them" conflict. Commons needs digital photography, illustrations and restorations. We need a friendly atmosphere in order to do well and this bickering is counter productive. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- If no one can assess restorations, how are the MOR members elected? By the number of FP's? Then, anyone who has uploaded at least five vintage pictures which have become FP's may claim a membership, provided he/she makes a statement that they were all restored by himself/herself (one to go, in my case). Better call the page "Meet Our Uploaders"! Can't you see that the absence of clear and just election criteria, based on the quality of the restoring job, makes the proccess arbitrary? Before accusing people of saying nonsense and trying to interpret their own discomforts, please have the humility to admit that you just don't understand (or don't want to). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Making this page the battle ground for this issue was inappropriate. At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations. The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present. This is the wrong place for this argument, this is the place to assess if this picture may become a featured picture. Now, let us discuss this at a proper place the criteria for what makes an appropriate and best practices based restoration. This seems like a good place to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- What was wrong with the location that I proposed? I even proposed criteria for the assessment of restorations !! What do you hope to achieve by going elsewhere ?? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Making this page the battle ground for this issue was inappropriate. At this moment it is technically not possible to assess the technical merits of a restoration in Commons. This does not mean that restorations cannot be assessed as restorations. The problem with choosing the wrong battle ground is that your argument is defeated for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the argument you try to present. This is the wrong place for this argument, this is the place to assess if this picture may become a featured picture. Now, let us discuss this at a proper place the criteria for what makes an appropriate and best practices based restoration. This seems like a good place to me. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Lycaon, I have not participated in any discussion related to that page in a week, because I only started it as a favour to a friend. There is a thread on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates that you are, of course, able to participate in. This is not the place for such discussion, and as you say, WikiCommons is not here to make a point, which is what this hijacking of a Featured picture candidacy to harass someone can only be described as. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- (Undent) It's not that I don't understand, it's that I don't care. At least not in the context of this picture. Whether or not MOR should exist and how to run it has nothing to do with the issue at hand; that is, judging whether this image is worthy to be Featured. The FPC talk page, or MOr talk page is where you want to be for this sort of stuff. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A fine restoration and a protest to the opposition votes based on making a point. --Muhammad 15:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - nice work. --Herby talk thyme 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support More great work Mr. Cuerden; I hope to see more of your (often under-appreciated) restorations. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--sevela.p (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, well done! --Kjetil_r 07:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Mywood (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Sign For sale in Kalapana.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2009 at 04:46:00
- InfoFew years ago Kalapana was a very nice, little town with blooming gardens at the Big Island on Hawaii. In 1990 it was buried by lava flow. Most homes were destroyed, but few including famous painted church were moved to other locations. When active lava flow moved out of Kalapana, few people came back and rebuilt. There are no roads, no any utilities in Kalapana. There is only w:lava, and now new lava is coming back. There are smocks at the background of the image. The smocks come from the vegetation that is getting burned by an active lava flow. Just few hundreds meters down new lava enters the ocean File:Three Waikupanaha and one Ki lava ocean entries w-edit2.jpg. It is interesting, if any adventurer soul will buy this property.
- Info Everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Very blurry. Do you have another version? —kallerna™ 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality, blurred, OOF, overprocessed? Lycaon (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments and for vote. I have no other better version. I'm afraid I do not know what OOF stands for.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Out Of Focus, I believe. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you,Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. Now you see that I am not God :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but you 'created everything', did you not? :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I've learned this format from Muhammad (not the Prophet), but our Muhammad. I guess I need to stop using this now. I did not create anything. The Nature has done 100% of the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, don't let one poor quality joke spoil your fun. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is what I really think about some of my landscape images. The nature does all the work while I only try, but most of the time fail to capture the Nature on film. May I please ask you to continue with your jokes on me? I love jokes, and I would never get upset because of a good joke. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, don't let one poor quality joke spoil your fun. I just couldn't resist pointing it out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I've learned this format from Muhammad (not the Prophet), but our Muhammad. I guess I need to stop using this now. I did not create anything. The Nature has done 100% of the job.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, but you 'created everything', did you not? :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you,Sarcastic ShockwaveLover. Now you see that I am not God :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Out Of Focus, I believe. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments and for vote. I have no other better version. I'm afraid I do not know what OOF stands for.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1, not featured
[edit]- Info I cropped some blurry rocks in foreground. The background is a different story. There is an extreme heat at the background from the active lava flow and fires. It cannot be very sharp. Thank you.
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this version better. --Notyourbroom (talk) 06:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry, but the image is too overprocessed, and there are highly visible JPEG-artifacts. →AzaToth 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not salvageable, sorry. Lycaon (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose A very dark image. The 'for sale' sign by owner is very distracting. --Korman (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I liked the for sale sign, but the quality of the picture is unfortunately not good enough. Lycaon (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Late votes are not counted. Lycaon (talk) 08:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
OpposeHighly visible Sharpening artifact. --Base64 (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)OpposeI find nothing interesting worth featuring on this one. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose => not featured
File:Female Black Lemur,Eulemur macaco at Madagascar.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 04:48:00
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eyes stand out quite well even in thumbnail. Good EV, nice wow. I wish I could explore other countries as much --Muhammad 05:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- You will Muhammad, just trust in this. When I was 17 years old, my friend asked me what I needed to be happy. I wrote a poem in response.I told her that to be happy I wanted to climb Everest and get down skiing,that I wanted to fight a shark in Red sea and dive Great Barrier reef, that I wanted to see Antarctic mountains not only in my dreams, but in real,that I wanted to see flamingos in flight and take images of lions in Kenya and so on and so on. I ended up with telling her I wish I could fly to the Moon.My girl friend made a big fun of me.It was equally impossible to fly to the Moon or to go to Kenya from Ukraine. Well, here I am now, done many things of what I dreamed of, and still hoping to fly to the Moon one day :)--Mbz1 (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The blown background really distracts here and the details are also not spectacular. The lemur is however. Lycaon (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop (the tail isn't on the photo). —kallerna™ 09:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:053 French Foreign Legion.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 11:14:36
- Info created by Jalpeyrie - uploaded by Pfctdayelise - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Rama (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oversaturated… :( →Diti the penguin — 17:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, cropped head. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It almost looks like a shot that the news would use. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- In context of Commons that´s a positive thing, isn´t it? Thinking of Wikinews ... --norro 07:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, to clarify, I mean that it looks like a frame from a video news bulletin; the odd angle and bad framing are typical of the medium.
- Support --Kjetil_r 07:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 08:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Daniel78. —kallerna™ 13:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, lighting and noise problems, oversaturated. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, oversharpened, and per the others. --Aqwis (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think it looks great.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result 4 support, 7 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Assisi San Francesco BW 5.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 16:31:50
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think there is a bit of CA in the image. Am I right? —kallerna™ 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, rather unsharp. --Aqwis (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral little unsharp, good composition --Pudelek (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support A very good image. No shadows anywhere. --Korman (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment One vote was too late. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Asilidae Stichopogon sp.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2009 at 18:38:07
- Info A very small 4mm long Robberfly. This picture was taken at 1:1 magnification and cropped to around 18xx pixels. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Composition is good, lighting is 2 harsh for my taste - would prefer more finer details for the image size which is on the minimum side of life :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, size is small, but I
did not downsample.This is just a crop of a 1:1 shot. --Muhammad 04:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- True, size is small, but I
- Your crop is allways exactly 1200x1800 ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am a bit particular. The image was cropped, to around 18xx pixels (if I remember correctly). After which I slightly downsampled to get my usual 1800px and 1200px, something I picked up from Mr Monk. Sorry if I wasn't clear earlier on --Muhammad 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Your crop is allways exactly 1200x1800 ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Image too blurry with little detail and less than optimal lighting. Probably a QI but not a FP, I believe it is possible to do better than this. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's so fuzzy. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, decent, but per Alvesgaspar in File:Sarcophaga Bercaea2.jpg's FPC. --Aqwis (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- While I respect both yours and Alves' opinions, I think EV should always take precedence over aesthetics. --Muhammad (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Muhammad, but this is Commons, not the English Wikipedia. The fact that EV is relatively unimportant on Commons is a large part of the reason why the English Wikipedia has a separate FP process. --Aqwis (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- While I respect both yours and Alves' opinions, I think EV should always take precedence over aesthetics. --Muhammad (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW. --Karel (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutra; => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wil Altstadt 8375.jpg, delisted
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2009 at 11:01:38
- Info Reason to delist: small size, blurry (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist Pro2 (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist agreed --norro 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist —kallerna™ 14:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep--Lookatthis (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist --Doucus (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
after voting period:
- Keep /Daniel78 (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist Master Ren' (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Yellow Admiral on thumbnail.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 21:41:31
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by and featuring User:Tony Wills -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tony Wills (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Love the idea --norro 07:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, I approve. --Aqwis (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry but I don't like it. The quality and composition are far from excellent and are not mitigated by the originality of the situation. A child looking at a butterfly in his little hand would be much better. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I didn't have a child handy ;-). --Tony Wills (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This picture is an eyecatcher. Clear support --Simonizer (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks ordinary --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Ahnode (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 15:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image! But really, Tony, please do have a child handy next time. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the "child holding butterfly" idea is a bit of a cliché, and unworthy of FP :-). But as the main objection to this image is one of composition, I might see if I can come up with a more pleasing alternative. --Tony Wills (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I'm trying to find a more pleasing crop, so have withdrawn this, please comment on/suggest alternatives on Commons:Photography_critiques#April :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Kazakhstan Altay 2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 13:33:22
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by User:Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! Really amazing! —kallerna™ 10:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, mainly for its encyclopedic value --ianaré (talk) 15:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 07:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, but no wow. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Crisp and clear photograph, saturated colours and simply lovely scenery. --Ahnode (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Thamarai-Namam2.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:31:39
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Vaikunda Raja -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info This is the religious symbol of Ayyavazhi, a South Indian Dharmic belief system. This Image, I feel, the best, and of highest-resolution among all the similar Ayyavazhi symbol images uploaded here in Wikimedia. It looks good too. So i feel better to nominate it to FPC. This is already a featured Picture in English Wikipedia.
- Support -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not a good idea to promote religious symbols and national flags, imo -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, Though I agree with the point of User:Alvesgaspar, I like to inform that the reason I nominated the image here was verymuch more than it being merely a religious symbol. This image, I feel is also much more than a mere outlined symbol like this or a less complex (in design) National flag. This is more a 'religious art' than a symbol or an emblem. For instance, the small greenish spikes, the green circular border and the brown background is not part of the "emblem". But it was justified here since it was more a 'religious art'. Of course it (or) part of it may be a religious symbol. But, I like this image to be featured here is not for the reason that it is a 'religious symbol' and for the reason that I believe it's beautiful and very much deserves to be featured as a 'Religious Art' as so in English wikipedia, Thanks. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That is no valid reason to oppose Alvesgaspar. Under your criteria so much could be censored. Art is a reflexion of a culture, religion included, and as such, a theme where creative activity takes place. Religion and art have had a long walk throughout history and I doubt that it will stop anytime soon. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- That is just my opinion, not an attempt to introduce censorship. There is so much beyond the strict graphical components of such symbols that I'm afraid we cannot isolate them from the whole. Of course, we can say if we like them or not, in a strict aesthetical sense. But will that procedure be acceptable, when compared with what we do when assessing bug and building pictures? In this particular case, I find the image quite kitschy but that is probably because I'm not aware of its detailed symbolism. Should I be? Both a simple cross and Bach's Mass in B minor have strong religious content. But while I can still enjoy and understand Bach's masterpice being unaware of that component, that is obvioulsy not true with the cross. The same goes with national symbols and, for example, Tchaikowsky's 1812 piece. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me ask an academic question, which will make my point clearer: would Vaikunda Raja consider nominating this picture as a purely abstract creation of his own, saying nothing about its religious content? And would the chances of promotion improve by doing so? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- If I understood you correctly, any-work which could create a symbolic ideology such as religious sentiment or Nationalism should not be given any featured or special status? Am I correct? If so, further sharpening your views, if I understood rightly, not even an outstanding photograph (or) a well written article that of a religious (or national) building or symbols shall be featured.
- But it is not the case here in wikimedias. Here every thing including the ones which you neglected enjoys the featured or similar status; It be article, Category, List, Portal, Images or videos. The only thing is it should meet the appropriate criteria. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, you didn't understand correctly. My examples clear show that I'm not against featuring works with religious content. I'm only against promoting religious, national and partidary symbols or emblems. And I don't make any distinctions between the national flag of Portugal, the swastika or the Christian cross. As for the rules and criteria governing these issues they are not shared by the different wikis. There is an enormous difference between featuring an article on the Nazi ideology and featuring the swastica! Because the first can be neutral but not the second -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- All religious images imply a transmission of ideology, the recipient, however, may or may not accept the symbolisms that such images convey. There are many variables involved. Protestants, for example, may take offense at catholic imagery, or jewish people at nazi symbols. However offensive the symbols may be to certain people, they exist outside an ideological realm and can be appreciated from different contexts, cultural, historical, etc. To suppress nazi symbols does not make the past dissapear, and in fact, may even contribute to forgetting the terrible events, which in turn, as we say in Mexico, the medicine would be worse than the illness. So in this small FPC world IMO it would be better to limit support or oppose votes strickly on technical and other relevant criteria aligned with the advancement of knowledge and preservation of history in general and not rely too much on the small world of personal opinions. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The point is not whether they have an ideological value for FPC, that doesn't matter. The point is that once FP, they will become POTD, nolens volens one day and at that time make publicity for that particular ideology and that would be wrong. Lycaon (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that introducing the ideological variable to FPC is foolish. It is hard enough to agree on aesthetic, cultural, historical, encyclopedic value as it is, and to throw in the possible implications of ideology of images on some people is a recipe for disaster. A cross, or an image of a cross could be an insult to muslims, a swastica to jews, nudity to puritans, and so on and so on... yet, neither crosses, swasticas nor nudity cease to exist or dissapear from history. Unless of course we turn over FPC to the Talibans and have them determine acceptable content from now on and have them delete what they don´t like. Much of graphic creation, sculptures, architecture, photography, drawings have an ideological base, consciously or unconsciously, and even if they come from the most abhorrent political spectrum, the work itself, the thing, does not necessarily lose its qualities as a work of art, or neither because it comes from there can it constitute itself in a piece of art. By exersicing good judgement by the community offensive material can be filtered out, ans solely based on technical and cultural quality. Unless of course we stick with the birds and the bees... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- @ Lycaon - But the same is true of every image we promote. Shots of Catholic stained glass windows get promoted, thus making 'publicity for that particular ideology'. The same could be applied to shots of dead chickens, PETA may come after us saying that we approve of animal slaughter. But it was still promoted. There are American military aircraft Featured, when those reach POTD, will we be accused of favouring the US? Whether or not we realise it, each image that is promoted could be 'publicity for that particular ideology'. Singling one out is just hypocritical. Everyone seems to forget that this is Commons. If one side thinks that there are too FPs of one particular thing/idea/faith/country, they can always upload some of their own, and nominate them. It's a about quality and message, and I don't have to be religious to appreciate a religious photo. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- IMHO Even with that point, why a religious symbol can't be featured? Then why articles and portals of religions and beliefs are featured in wikipedia? It is not the reason that wikipedia is promoting particular religion, but that accrediting the way it was presented (as per respective MOS). That is the very same case here I am thinking about. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose You've got to ask yourself - would this picture even be nominated if it was not a religious symbol? If the answer is "no", then oppose. If you think it would be worth featuring without it's religious connotations, then support. This has nothing to do with censorship as far as I am concerned, it simply "has no wow". Plrk (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose should be SVG --ianaré (talk) 04:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Originally I created this image using Adobe Illustrator. But due to 'forced rasterisation' of certain parts (the flower petals) while converting to SVG, the whole image was converted to a PNG and was uploaded. I also made a trial in Wikipedia:Graphic Lab but failed. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, Plrk said it well. --Aqwis (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment mistake in typing - it's not featured. --Lošmi (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chrám svaté Barbory - Kutná Hora.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 12:23:09
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question do you also have a upright shot made from the centre of the church? Because on this pic the arcs are cut-off at the top and part of the altar is behind the benches - which kind of bugs me. :) --AngMoKio (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- no, I have only this photo of main altar. Benches are OK for me - simply a different perspective on the altar --Pudelek (talk) 16:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support grotesque --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)after voting period --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Albert Einstein Head cleaned.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 10:04:47
- Info created by Oren Jack Turner - File:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg - cleanup, upload and selfnom by User:Jaakobou -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Image is a rare portrait shot of Einstein at the old age of 68.
- Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but it's below size requirements. —kallerna™ 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notice: Did some extra work in 32bit, output file is a bit bigger now as well. Jaakobou (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info For the consideration of other voters: the image above is 2.066 megapixels and the image below is 2.043 megapixels, so they meet the letter of the guideline, though just barely. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed but that is after the original nomination was upscaled. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info For the consideration of other voters: the image above is 2.066 megapixels and the image below is 2.043 megapixels, so they meet the letter of the guideline, though just barely. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Notice: Did some extra work in 32bit, output file is a bit bigger now as well. Jaakobou (talk) 12:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done I split the two images into two headings before someone opposes or FPXes due to the combined nomination. I'm copy/pasting Jaakobou's own self-vote below as well, but I'll leave it up to Kallerna whether to copy down the opposition vote.
- Oppose Valued yes, but I do not think the quality is good enough for FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate quality. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Cropped Version
- Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Valued yes, but I do not think the quality is good enough for FP. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel78. Lycaon (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of five days). --Karel (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chapito.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 05:25:26
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is how Chapito wanted to be photographed, pointing toward the mountain caves. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, yet bit unsharp --Aktron (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sharpened a bit.... still getting used to new camera ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I don't think this is going to get the votes it needs, and I didn't feel the urge to support it the first time I came across it, but I've clicked back to this a few times since then. I find it compelling and haunting, and that's why I think it should be a FP. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as Notyourbroom --ianaré (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support As above. --Lošmi (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nicely done. --Dori - Talk 19:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
End of voting period was here --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Timely shot, captured the moment! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Doña juanita.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 05:04:33
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support why not? It is a solid and interesting portrait of an interesting person with a nice composition. Would like to see more such pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - For the human component (which is scarce here) and despite the distortion made by the lens, which I don't like Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Alvesgaspar, thanks. As far as the distortion, it is the lesser of two evils.... in order to get the whole view I use a wide angle setting, and move the subject up close so to separate her from the background. Once I get the proportion I want, that is, main subject large enough and within her context, I click... and yes, wide angles pointing down or up distort, but in this case it was unavoidable. By lowering camera angle I would have lost the environment, same with lowering her, the visual effect would not have been the same. The only way to shoot with rectilinear precision is with perspective correction lenses or view cameras... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The strong posing looks unnatural to me. Lycaon (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support best of the 3 --ianaré (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Lycaon (& Alvesgaspar). —kallerna™ 10:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support As AngMoKio. --Lošmi (talk) 00:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support One of the most "talking" images - speaks a lot to viewers! Should be more photos like this one... --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Baker beach at twilight 41.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 01:22:52
- Info The image is more about w:twilight and reflection than about the bridge. I do not think we have this kind of reflection represented in FP. It is reflection over wet sand.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose OOF. Lycaon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
1 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative 1, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Decisions, decisions! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like I've done something wrong once again. I believe I should have nominated one image, wait until few opposes (or no votes at all for that matter) and then nominate an alternative. I would never learn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think this is the right way to do it. They're both awesome, that's why it's so hard to choose. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks like I've done something wrong once again. I believe I should have nominated one image, wait until few opposes (or no votes at all for that matter) and then nominate an alternative. I would never learn :)--Mbz1 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good colours --Muhammad (talk) 07:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Golden Gate is falling to right. Please rotate counter-clockwise. Pretty in preview, but not technically good at full-size. Seems out-of-focus --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 10:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks really nice on thumbnails, but isn't enough sharp on full size. —kallerna™ 11:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose OOF. Lycaon (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, there are some odd artifacts on the bridge towers. Has this picture been through a lot of JPEG compression? --Aqwis (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am afraid I do not know what JPEG compression is or how to do it. May I please ask you in what parts of the towers you see "odd artifacts"? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 2
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted. —kallerna™ 11:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Stained glass - Kutna Hora.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 17:10:20
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Are the bottom few panes in each set meant to be tilted in odd directions? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- SupportBasik07 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. --Ahnode (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Gazania rigens var. rigens.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 12:55:13
- Info created by Noodle snacks - uploaded by BetacommandBot - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I really think that this focus stacking went too far in this imagine. It looks too artificial for me, concerning sharpness and maybe also concerning exposition (not sure about that). It is a nice technique, but it should only get used when necessary. And I think here it is not necessary at all...at least not to that extend. The photo has a nice composition but the focus stacking ruins it imho. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Through heavy stacking the flower looks cut out somehow, otherwise nice. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful --norro 16:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ok. —kallerna™ 11:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support though smallish ... Lycaon (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 neutral, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Bellows macro.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 11:15:06
- Info Here is the secret of my superb bug pictures: a vintage camera plus a bellows! Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I thought you were the one, who takes superb bug pictures, and now I see it is actually your camera that does :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It has 2 much pink tint for my taste, lighting/exposure is a bit sad and could be more snazzy. Sharpness is average for a studio shot, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Bellows macro-edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 16:43:38
- Info created by Alves - uploaded & nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, no, no, no: way too overexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
0 support, 1 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Basalt columns in yellowstone 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2009 at 01:24:12
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Support--Savant-fou (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)after voting period --AngMoKio (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Toshiba Vacuum tube Radio.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 23:18:32
- Info created by [[User池田正樹 (talk):masaki ikeda|]] - uploaded by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - nominated by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] -- 池田正樹 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaakobou (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support but you could have added some space to the lower part of the image. --Ahnode (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maybe a QI, but not special enough for FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Doorknob buddhist temple detail amk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 22:29:27
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support This is a very powerful image- lots of "wow" factor- but the angle of the shot bugs me a tiny bit. I feel like the camera was probably a bit too high and to the right. I can't deny that it's FP quality, though. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support because I would not knock :-) --Böhringer (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Symbolic Doorknob! 멋지다(cool)! ;) --FriedC (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Dirce Beauty Colobura dirce.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 19:53:16
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Dirce Beauty (Colobura dirce)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I wish I had the kind of equipment (and patience!) necessary to create images like this. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - Not enoigh to oppose but I don't like the framing and tight crop. Let the poor thing breathe (and fly)! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support sauba --Böhringer (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lookatthis (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support great --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Image is in excellent focus with brilliant colors. --Korman (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 1 neutral, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 13:27:14
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- InfoPale form of Striped Oak Bug (Rhabdomiris striatellus)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Excellent composition, sharpness and detail. But I don't like the first plan being unfocused. Maybe we arw all spoiled by focus bracketing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--AngMoKio (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Hoverfly May 2008-8.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 12:21:29
- Info A female Marmelade fly (Epysyrphus balteatus) on flight, hovering near a Hebe sp. flower. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, focus. Proud to support :-) --Muhammad (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support very good details for a flying subject.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW !!! --Umnik (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW !!! --Böhringer (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice catch combined with a nice composition...well done! --AngMoKio (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really cool --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent image. --Korman (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:TV station on Chopok.jpg,not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 11:24:04
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Some problems with image, but the ice crystalls are great. BTW do you know what kind of crystalls those are?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't now - crystalls are crystalls :D --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Do you have a less cropped version? So more sky around the subject? --norro 17:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- no, I have only this version :( --Pudelek (talk) 09:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support but with the stipulation that the CA could still be neutralized a bit. The purple fringing is minor, but should be pretty trivial to clear up. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done Also, I created a new category for this image. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The crop is too tight IMHO. Sry. —kallerna™ 21:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree about the crop (left side). /Daniel78 (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really like how the snow/ice coats everything.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Support I love this picture, but there needs to be more on the left. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. It is a well spotted scene but for several reasons I have to oppose: tight crop, artefacts/noise(?) and snow is in my opinion underexposed. Still a nice shot! --AngMoKio (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I like it and think it's good enough to be a quality image, but I have to agree about the tight crop. Jonathunder (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Llorenzi (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too tight crop. Lycaon (talk) 09:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But do photoshop it and add some sky to the left, it would look great. --Ahnode (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose due to composition, as mentioned. --Dori - Talk 19:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 7 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Cat eyes 2007-1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 10:45:57
- Info Close-up portrait of a tabby queen. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is too close to the objective resulting in a bad framing .. at least the chin shouldn't be cropped , sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The image name is "Cat eyes" and the eyes do show great details and the framing for the eyes is good. If we would vote according to a nominator past voting history, I am afraid all my nominations should be opposed at once :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can has Support?? ;) --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose have to agree with Richard. I also don't like the harsh light of the flash. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Richard --norro 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 11:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose after I saw this one. --Ahnode (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
4 support, 6 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Rusty train in Koprivshtitsa.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2009 at 00:38:44
- Info created by TwoWings - uploaded by TwoWings - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunately. --Korman (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Any particular reason? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- InfoPlease recall the FPC voting instructions, which request that you "include a few words about why you liked/didn't like the picture, especially when you vote oppose." Not including an explanation doesn't invalidate your opposition, but explaining what you find to be deficient will be helpful for everyone in order to better frame future discussion. Thanks! --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support looks OK --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough depth of field (which is weird, given the aperture the photographer used…), lack of artisticness. →Diti the penguin — 21:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info I'm glad that some people like this picture (and this nomination is already a honour, thank you Sarcastic ShockwaveLover!) but I have to say I don't think it's technically good enough to be a Featured Picture. I took it with a rather average automatic camera since I didn't have a better one at that time. By the way, this train wasn't abandonned and it may still be used in Bulgaria. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- InfoIt is...it is...unfortunately. --Laveol (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think he means it's still in service. Laveol is Belgian, and I'm guessing that he or she has been 'fortunate' enough to ride on the pictured train. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- What do you mean? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- InfoIt is...it is...unfortunately. --Laveol (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry to miss nominator's question. Dominating, rusty and dilapidated trains don't really catch my eye. If it was a smaller man-made object, I could have supported it. We all have our personal preferences. --Korman (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- You really only support pictures of small objects? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- @ Korman : when we vote for or against a FP, we should only deal with quality, not with personal taste. If you don't like tennis and if there's a great picture of a tennis player nominated, do you oppose? Well, it's the same here! That said, I don't think my picture (technically) deserves the FP status. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- You really only support pictures of small objects? --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting but not special. Not outstanding from the huge amount of railway pictures we have and technically far from perfect. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment How about HDR? I think it would look great. --Ahnode (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm...interesting. I'm afraid that my knowledge of HDR is very limited, can it be applied after a photo has been taken? But yes, the effect would be unique. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Flowers February 2009-1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 23:53:45
- Info Flowers and buds of Freesia sp.. Everything by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely image!--Mbz1 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lovely flowers, but flash lighting is not proper IMO --Muhammad (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Master Ren' (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Muhammad. --Ahnode (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 3 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Schloss Forstegg Salez 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2009 at 10:51:23
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, somewhat underexposed. Is properly exposed in this panorama of yours: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schloss_Forstegg_Salez_Panorama.jpg . --Aqwis (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This image benefits from looking at it in the full resolution. I like the contrast between white and dark. Overall quality is great.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too dark, exposition? --Karel (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made edited version. —kallerna™ 11:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment very good edit - you do not want to nominate Kallerna? --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can nominate it if you want. It's your picture :). —kallerna™ 11:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment very good edit - you do not want to nominate Kallerna? --Böhringer (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 2 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lacock Abbey view from south.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 20:01:25
- Info created and uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by Kadellar -- Kadellar (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great picture of this abbey-- Kadellar (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the sides of the tower on the
leftright should all have the same size, because that's how it is in reality. Something went wrong with post-processing I guess... --AngMoKio (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC) - Support --ianaré (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Mainly because of the distortion at the right side on this nominated edit . --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like Richard --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly due to distortions. --Dori - Talk 19:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
3 support, 4 oppose => not featured. MER-C 08:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 17:29:14
- Info Morning fog and steam getting out of hot spring created Solar Coronae
- Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support interesting solar phenomena aside, I'm half-expecting to see a T-rex lurking in there somewhere ... --ianaré (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! —kallerna™ 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting picture. I learned something --Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but Question Do you think you could geotag this picture? I would love to know where it was taken. Yellowstone is a big place. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark and foggy, no wow. Lycaon (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Foggy!!!??? Is the image really foggy!!!??? Well, I guess it is. It is the image of the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose Don't like the composition. --Dori - Talk 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Too late.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wendelstein 20090320 SK 002.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 14:23:04
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Simonizer (talk) 14:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support No visible CA, very little noise, and the white balance looks good to my eye. I think the composition could be a little better, but it's not a big issue here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support An intersting place.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Being Simonizer the master of composition, there must be some logical explanation for this one being somehow unbalanced. Was it the only possible shooting spot? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No it was not. But it was the only spot on the same hight of the church. There are some more spots below the church and another one some meters above (but not at this day because of snow). I have taken several other pictures with more landscape visible but then the church is only a small part of the picture. I will upload them shortly. Maybe you like them better! ;-)
--Simonizer (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Awkward composition, Mediocre sharpness at full size, snow is under exposed. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition doesn't 'do it' for me --ianaré (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Per Notyourbroom. —kallerna™ 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, very interesting. --Aqwis (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good picture. --Korman (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Llorenzi (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. I think the unbalanced composition works here, as it adds to precarious feeling.Jonathunder (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 2 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Soyuz TMA-13.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Savant-fou - nominated by Savant-fou --Savant-fou (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Savant-fou (talk) 13:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Support For some reason, I don't find this image to be as stunning as I would have expected. However, this does look like the best image of its type on the Commons. The value should be self-evident, and there's nothing too bad I can say about the photographic quality, either. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Support removed as a matter of process, because this version is tied with the Edit version for support, and I prefer the latter. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)- Comment Of the launching, perhaps, but I think this one might also have a chance at FP. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Notyourbroom.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -Two reasons: (i) look at the sky at left (low jpeg quality?); (ii) Let the poor thing fly - give it more space above! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I seem to have started a run on space images! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Agree with Alvesgaspar. —kallerna™ 08:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support the edit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose could be sharper (they're not really that fast just coming off the pad) --ianaré (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose => not featured (Edit has more support votes) --Simonizer (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit, featured
[edit]- Info - Noise reduction on the sky, upper part of the sky digitaly added. --Lošmi (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, I think this version is superior. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, much better. --Aqwis (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Savant-fou (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Biso (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely shot. --Ahnode (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Praha Orloj DSC 0528.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 08:00:12
- Info created by Tmaurizia - uploaded by Tmaurizia - nominated by Tmaurizia -- Tmaurizia (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info I fixed the image's categorization as well as its English description. You can see many other images of this clock within the category I linked to. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I believe this is superior to other images of the same subject such as this one. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor framing, needs geometric correction, some parts are underexposed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks to --Notyourbroom who fixed right category, It's not easy for me to find right ones :) -- (talk) 08:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 16:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I may be biased as I have uploaded a picture of this clock to Commons myself (which not suitable for FP either, due to a slightly odd composition), but I feel this is a bit too ordinary for a featured picture. It should be photographed not from ground level (to minimize distortion) and under better light conditions, and preferably also with better sharpness. --Aqwis (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --AngMoKio (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as opposers. Lycaon (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is distracting, not aligned, falling to the right. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 5 oppose => not featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
File:TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 08:57:02
- Info created by Ittiz - uploaded by Ittiz - nominated by Than217 -- 69.30.144.106 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Support -- 69.30.144.106 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)Sorry, no anonymous voting, please log in and vote. ■ MMXXtalk 09:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)- Comment, "realistic" how? --Aqwis (talk) 11:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really looks like how Mars would have been yeaaaaars ago. Great work. →Diti the penguin — 13:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well, strictly speaking, it looks like this is the modern planet terraformed only recently into a more primal state-- the distinction being that modern geological features are visible which may not have existed when Mars was a wet planet. In particular, one would expect heavier erosion of all crater features if this were meant to show a "natural" scene. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. :) →Diti the penguin — 18:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question -- Not so quick, please. Even being an artist impression, I suppose it is based in some scientific data concerning the relief of Mars and the water available for filing the oceans. As far as I know, there is no evidence that so much water exists below the surface. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Alvesgaspar: This is not an unrealistic portrayal. Mars is many billions of years old, and there is extensive geological evidence to support the theory that Mars was once much wetter than it is today. Check out the evidence for ancient shorelines on Mars; I'm sure there are many more articles out there. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment And this is really a moot point either way-- although I've demonstrated that Mars once had a comparable volume of water, this is an artist's impression of a terraformed version of the planet, and unless it is specified that the terraformation would utilize only materials extant to the planet, there is no reason to assume water could not be transferred from elsewhere in the solar system. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Question Before I can vote on this, I need to know more about your process. Did you create this image entirely from scratch using a different image for your reference? Did you start with a photograph and then do all of your work on top of it as an extensive modification? Any info along those lines would be appreciated, since the accuracy of the distribution of the existing geological features of the planet is relevant to me. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I was not arguing, just asking. The picture will have much more value (at least, to me) if based on existing data (specially relief data) rather than on the imagination of the author. When I read "terraforming" I supposed this was a future view, not a past one. Bring the water from outside? Well, I'm also a fan of SF but that seems really too much... Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support In article Terraforming of Mars there's lot's of explanations about this and similar images of the same author. Anyway, this is artistic impression, not NASA or some other agency image, but it's a really good job, and looks really convincing IMO. --Lošmi (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Like the terraforming episode of TNG where the layer beneath the salt water gained access to the machinery and started to defensively kill the terraformers for messing with what it really is. It is nice and perhaps even great artwork but its place is not here. -- carol (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose "An artist's impression...." —kallerna™ 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- it's not really possible to take a picture ... ianaré (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- There is no reason a priori to exclude graphical renderings from FP status simply by virtue of their being artificial. If you vote to oppose based upon that criterion, then give a specific reason, please, as to why this image's method of creation makes it unsuitable for FP status. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great to see art of this quality being created for wiki projects. Fits in nicely with article. --ianaré (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support awesome rendering, in a hundred years this might be possible, we went from the first heavier than air flight to the first man on the moon in a humans lifetime.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Carol and also OR. Lycaon (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support very interesting image to say the least. Pbroks13 (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ended here --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 3 oppose => featured --Simonizer (talk) 21:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Very well done. As someone who dabbles in the graphic arts, I know that this must have been difficult (but fun!) to make. It's quality and usefulness is a testament to the skill of the creator. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)- Support--Savant-fou (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Magnolia heptapeta 0903.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 04:16:05
- Info created by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - uploaded by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - nominated by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikedaE|]] -- 池田正樹 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor lighting and framing, disturbing background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - nice composition....it looks like someone holding the flower with gloved hand... Man On Mission
- Oppose - It doesn't pop from the background because the depth of field is too shallow and there isn't enough light on the bottom of the flower. In addition there seems to be some background posterisation. The crop is a little odd too. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
(talk) 10:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice quality and so on, but no wow. —kallerna™ 16:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree about the background. /Daniel78 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like the composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2009 at 02:37:15
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Closeup of Tachina fly (Gonia capitata) while feed on honey. You can see the complex and impressive proboscis very well.
- Support The return of the fly -- Richard Bartz (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support !!!--Mbz1 (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support So cute :-) Lycaon (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Lovely creature! What are those disgusting appendixes growing from the proboscis? And do these critters never shave? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- I assume it's a bottle opener :-) ... Hans ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- ... or some kind of sexual apparatus (mother nature is the great master)? ... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's a tasting organ called Palpi (though the concept of 'taste' in insects is probably completely different to the way we understand it in humans) --Richard Bartz (talk)
- They are actually maxillary palps, which have indeed an olfactory function. Lycaon (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a tasting organ called Palpi (though the concept of 'taste' in insects is probably completely different to the way we understand it in humans) --Richard Bartz (talk)
- ... or some kind of sexual apparatus (mother nature is the great master)? ... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great! —kallerna™ 09:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow! --Lošmi (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support scharf --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support 2nd best macro on wiki --Muhammad (talk) 07:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support amazing detail --ianaré (talk) 16:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, now this is awesome. --Aqwis (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise on eyeball, easily viewed in the thumbnail even. -- carol (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Biso (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --libertad0 ॐ (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW. --Karel (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now wow?? Or is it because its an insect picture? I don't think these kind of votes should be accepted. [1], [2]--Muhammad (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh well, this opinion can be accepted. I condone this otherwise I end like this :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- The quality of a photo which can be summed up as "wow" is exactly what separates a Quality Image from a Featured Picture. After all, the technical quality requirements of QIs and FPs are nearly the same, while FPs have an additional requirement: "interestingness" or "wow". Yes, "interestingness" is subjective, but that is necessary and even a good thing, in my eyes. --Aqwis (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- You are right but I still don't understand this vote... --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps he meant to say there was no WoW? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Seems more like it ;) --Muhammad (talk) 04:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "no WOW" has always been used as a revenge vote --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover is 100% right. --Karel (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps he meant to say there was no WoW? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Now wow?? Or is it because its an insect picture? I don't think these kind of votes should be accepted. [1], [2]--Muhammad (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 2 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wasp October 2007-5.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 23:44:33
- Info Time of males! A male paper wasp (Polistes dominula) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Wasp itself is a very small part of the picture. --Muhammad (talk)
- Composition, Muhammad. This is not a catalogue of insects and aesthetics is a fundamental part of my photos. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- For such a crop, I would have preferred a naturally lit background, but I know I am asking quite a lot ;) --Muhammad (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- No flash fired, only bright sunlight -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Bright sunlight shouldn't lead to a black underexposed background. Mhh... dunno --Muhammad (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Composition, Muhammad. This is not a catalogue of insects and aesthetics is a fundamental part of my photos. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - agree with Alvesgaspar... nice composition -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice composition, colors --ianaré (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral, a bit oversharpened, is it not? --Aqwis (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice resolution and good colours. --Korman (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the composition is not convincing for me. This picture dwarfs in comparison to your Hoverfly pictures. --AngMoKio (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW. --Karel (talk) 21:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Now wow?? Or is it because its an insect picture? I don't think these kind of votes should be accepted. [3], [4]
- Comment - Karel, you should be better stand neutral if you don't like insects. --Man On Mission (talk) 04:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment + 1 --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Luzern-boat-lake-mountains.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 18:57:42
- Info Boat on Lake Lucerne with the Alps in the Back, Switzerland-- Gcmmoura (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gcmmoura (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sry, "This media file is uncategorized." and bad quality. —kallerna™ 20:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Done I categorized the image :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Welcome to the Featured Picture Candidates page, Gcmmoura! What Kallerna was trying to say is that uncategorized images are not eligible for FP or QI status; see point number two of the image page requirements section of the image guidelines for FPs and QIs. I think the image you are nominating has a decent composition, but the image is somewhat grainy and has a washed-out, indistinct appearance. I apologize for Kallerna's abruptness, but it is true that this nominated image is not up to the standard of most FPs. I encourage you to stick around, scrutinize other nominated images, and learn from the commentary voters provide. When you are ready, feel free to nominate another image-- either your own image, or else any image on the Commons which you think deserves recognition. Good luck! --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great landscape photo. Something different than insects at last.Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - bad quality -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality, haze --ianaré (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, a bit too unsharp and a little too much haze. --Aqwis (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to add more opposition votes by this point? Really? Gcmmoura (talk · contribs) is a new member, and this smacks of biting the newcomer to me. To quote, "When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club. Any new domain of concentrated, special-purpose human activity has its own specialized structures, which take time to learn (and benefit from periodic re-examination and revision)." I already linked Gcmmoura to the image guidelines and gave some welcoming and suggestions, so I think we're done here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- And relatedly, I'm sick of images being declined or FPXed for reasons which any editor can fix in less than 30 seconds. To link to another Wikipedia principle, remember that if a rule prevents you from improving the project, ignore it. Don't reject an image from FPC or QIC just because it's uncategorized-- take ten seconds and add the damn category yourself. It's just petty, small-minded, and mean-spirited to insist that everyone get the full submission process correct their first time. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- And while we're on the subject... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunate quality, you may also have waited until the ship was no longer in central position. Lycaon (talk) 09:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 17:44:00
- Info Time of males! Eupeodes corallae male feeding on a Bermuda buttercup flower -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great colors, amazing macro!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 06:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral also here DOF is quite low. But composition is very nice! --AngMoKio (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good composition :) —kallerna™ 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Korman (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Though I don't normally frequent insects nominations (they generally have enough avid voters), this particular one caught my eye. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Hoverfly April 2008-3.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 17:47:52
- Info Time of males! Marmelade fly (Epysyrphus balteatus). Notice the grains of pollen. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the pollen.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- weak Oppose Difficult to oppose here but DOF is really too low. The bar for Macro-shots is quite high..also bcs of you :-) But the photo has a nice composition. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- The bar should stay high imo, even running the risk of Alvesgaspar never promote a bug picture again ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak support Agree with AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 16:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, fades in comparison to the other one. --Aqwis (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The above nomination is superior in every way. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like Aqwis --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Alpenmolch Alpine Newt Triturus alpestris.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 15:28:37
- Info c/u/n -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info The Alpine Newt (Triturus alpestris)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Was this Salamander wet?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was raining --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sharpness, position of the critter -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I definitely agree with the QI designation, but I'm ambivalent as to whether this should be a FP. In my very unscientific opinion, the angle of the shot just isn't very interesting to me. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 17:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Positioning of the face/head is not ideal --Muhammad 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral as Muhammad --ianaré (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 14:56:21
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info The Beautiful Demoiselle (Calopteryx virgo) of family (Calopterygidae) is a European damselfly
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great composition and absolutely amazing wings.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Good composition, sharpness so so -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support agree with Alvesgaspar. Sharpness is not 100% Richard-style but composition is great. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Mbz1. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Agree with AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 17:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support as AngMoKio --Muhammad 18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 06:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - amazing colored texture... --Man On Mission (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support good details and composition but could use some noise reduction on the background --ianaré (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support This picture has a real 'wow' to it. --Korman (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wirklich überzeugend --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Crab spider'Xysticus sp.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 14:52:45
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info Crab spider (Xysticus sp)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support again, and thank you for explaining to me what that taxonomic shorthand meant :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support The back of the spider is a litlle bit overexposed IMO, but the dew and the head of the spider made it for me.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Lighting, detail, sharpness, framing -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Agree with Alvesgaspar, but the spider and the composition is really great. —kallerna™ 17:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Weak
OpposeSupport lack of finer details. Wonderful composition though --Muhammad 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC) - Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support, great light and composition. --Aqwis (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --D-Kuru (talk) 19:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Skiing under the Murfreit towers.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 12:20:28
- Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- alpinus5 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- alpinus5 (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made another version with better crop. —kallerna™ 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- looks good but the skiing is gone, do you think I should upload it, how can I display both versions?--alpinus5 (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- SupportI like the orginal.--CnrFallon (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- looks good but the skiing is gone, do you think I should upload it, how can I display both versions?--alpinus5 (talk) 06:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Sarcophaga Bercaea2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 06:09:41
- Info Sarcophaga feeding on feces. Good quality, sharp picture with good EV. FP on enwiki. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad 06:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Only the smallish size is a bummer. The rest is as stated by Muhammad. Lycaon (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- While I understand why it became a FPP on the en:wiki, I don't like the composition and the tight crop. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the composition? The crop is not so tight, there was nothing else to show and this way, the viewer's attentions is focused to the fly --Muhammad 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- For me it looks like an illustration in a taxo box. Boring. Look at the flies of Richard, where the aesthetical component is usually the most relevant one, to understand what I mean. The good news are that you don't need more powerfull lenses to achieve that. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- What is wrong with the composition? The crop is not so tight, there was nothing else to show and this way, the viewer's attentions is focused to the fly --Muhammad 18:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support lighting is a tad too harsh, otherwise good --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Better and better with every shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Ok. —kallerna™ 17:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with Alvesgaspar. --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Obviously, Winter is finished in the Northern Hemisphere, judging by the sudden proliferation of Insect pictures... Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I live in the southern :-) --Muhammad (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. My point, however, remains :). Where are you based? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tanzania, where its summer all year round ;) --Muhammad (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. My point, however, remains :). Where are you based? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I live in the southern :-) --Muhammad (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No WOW. --Karel (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC) result: 3 oppose, Karel has voted twice --Muhammad (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Bowling Balls Beach California 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2009 at 05:55:50
- Info This place calls Bowling Balls Beach, but it has not only the balls, but also few-lane alley to roll the balls, and the player is the Nature.
- Info created ,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing scene and colors. A natural masterpiece. --Muhammad 06:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Tilted -- Peipei (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted, oversaturated and overprocessed (denoised?) with washed out details. Is there an original version? Lycaon (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- InfoCorrected tilt (I guess). The image was not denoised. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose => not featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Llorenzi (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing composition! —kallerna™ 17:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad 17:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Wonderful composition and colors. Rules (of the thirds, for instance) are only guidelines we should defy from time to time. ---- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as long as the horizon is substantially tilted. Lycaon (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support - nice pic! -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 07:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 18:39:04
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A good one, Mila. Lycaon (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info - that's Echinocereus engelmannii actually - compare File:Echinocereus engelmannii 8.jpg and File:Echinocereus triglochidiatus 16.jpg for instance. (Is this picture really FP material? I've got hundreds like it, they didn't seem that distinctive.) Stan Shebs (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing out the right ID. It was corrected. About FP material. This image is more about the natural environments the cactus are growing and about Joshua Tree National Park than about the cactus themselves. Sure it is FP material and of course you're welcome to nominate one of yours "hundreds" :) --Mbz1 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Natural --Muhammad (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --Ahnode (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --189.174.218.43 09:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)No anonymous votes, please -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the composition is a bit too cluttered for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- SupportBasik07 (talk) 08:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Orychophragmus violaceus 0943.jpg featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 15:24:48
- Info created by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - uploaded by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - nominated by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] -- 池田正樹 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support a little small but good colours and composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This one very vivid photograph --Ahnode (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But info need correcting (Description: "un known"). —kallerna™ 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Assisi Piazza del Comune BW 4.JPG not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 09:33:56
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose – composition, perspective, noise. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Anonymous Dissident. —kallerna™ 14:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality.--HouseGhostDiscussion 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Drum set.svg featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 07:04:33
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Pbroks13 -- Pbroks13 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pbroks13 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good work --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Rocket000 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Congreso Nacional Buenos Aires.jpg not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 02:41:43
- Info created by Jacobo Tarrío (Flickr user) - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Belgrano -- Belgrano (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Belgrano (talk) 02:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Bad quality. -- Pro2 (talk) 12:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Pro2. —kallerna™ 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose--HouseGhostDiscussion 13:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pioneers pin.svg not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 23:17:24
- Info created by Ahnode - uploaded by Ahnode - nominated by Ahnode -- Ahnode (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. After seeing this file becoming featured picture, I thought I could get quite a good chance here. -- Ahnode (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support :-) Really cool work --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Isn't this a derivative work? Samulili (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- You are right, I fixed the license. --Ahnode (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have to say this looks great --Laveol (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't like the weird shadow effect. Lycaon (talk) 20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Great work, but as Lycaon, I would have preferred to see a realistic shadow rather than a simple “blur effect”. →Diti the penguin — 21:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't see any thing aesthetic about it --Muhammad (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Me neither. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I don't mind the shadow as is, but I'll like it even more with a realistic shadow. Also, a Question what program was this created with? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Source code says Adobe Illustrator 10.0. --QWerk (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I use Illustrator and Photoshop for graphics. About shadow, I'll try making another version with a realistic one. --Ahnode (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. --Karel (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pioneers pin rs.svg, featured
[edit]- Some of you have said that the picture needs a better shadow, well how about this one? --Ahnode (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no aesthetics --Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Compare with others. This is very nice. And the first shadow is better. --Panther (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- So your vote goes to the first variant? --Ahnode (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think it is not matter. I like both. --Panther (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Goga312 (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. I think this one is better, but both are excellent.--Mstislavl (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support. Great. So realistic (cmp. with Pioneers Member Pin.jpg). — LEMeZza (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good job. --Claymore (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 13:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support this is better --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose => featured Pbroks13 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:PortraitOfAnIguana.jpg featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 21:49:20
- Info created by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - uploaded by Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - nominated by Cy21 -- Cy21 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Cy21 (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support strong atmosphere --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support waouw superbe! --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot! --Korman (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --norro 06:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Looks great on thumbnails, but quality on fullsize isn't enough. —kallerna™ 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose good portrait, but quality is poor / overprocessed. Also, he has a cut on his snout, generally an indication of less than proper captive care --ianaré (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per ianaré (a bad captive care)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose good composition, but quality is poor. Pbroks13 (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per other opposers. Lycaon (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the picture. Probably, most of us don't like bad treatment over animals. If it is a result of non proper captive care, that's informative thing, and I'd like reference for that. The picture itself is not less valuable. Supporting it doesn't mean supporting of cruelty over animals. --Lošmi (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Lošmi -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose While I agree with Lošmi, I'm afraid Kallerna has hit the nail on the head. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, no, yes, no, no, YES --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'm the photographer, and for what it's worth, I can assure you that the animal is well and professionally cared for by specialists in Oslo Reptile Park (Zoo) -- Bjørn Christian Tørrissen (talk) 18:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Buoy bosphorus.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 18:34:28
- Info created by Moise Nicu - uploaded by Moise Nicu - nominated by Moise Nicu -- Moise Nicu (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Moise Nicu (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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 very poor, with extensive noise -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
result: 1 support, 0 neutral, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Saleccia plage DSCF4274.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 14:15:55
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Tmaurizia -- Tmaurizia (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tilted and blown highlights: large parts of the beach are pure white! Lycaon (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The beach looks overexposed and somewhat distracting. --Korman (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is overexposed --ianaré (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment - May be picture doesn't deserve to be supported but... let me say: Corse has many beaches with several color: black, red, grey, white.... Saleccia's sand is very clear looks white, as one can check either on the web or going there personally :) -- Tmaurizia (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I understand this ( there are some white beaches here in the Keys { 'Cayes' pas 'clés' } ), but it shouldn't be pure white, with no details at all in the sand ... see here
result: 1 support, 2 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pale di san martino tramonto.jpg not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 16:26:12
- Info created by Merlo - uploaded by Merlo - nominated by llorenzi -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Llorenzi (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
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 not sharp and very grainy. | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Jardins de la Ménara.jpg not featured
[edit]- Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag --Bgag (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Bgag (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment c'est une très belle photo mais je ne crois pas qu'il soit possible d'obtenir la qualité requise avec cet appareil ... ianaré (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Je suis d'accord avec ianaré. Life is not fair... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support The composition is really good inspite of this sophisticated problems... --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow, bit noisy. —kallerna™ 11:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:MK46 torpedo launch.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 05:31:47
- Info created by Mass Communication Specialist John L. Beeman - uploaded by DanMS - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Visibly tilted and I'm not happy with the war glorification. Lycaon (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- InfoIt's tilted so that the Torpedo (the focus of the shot) is straight. You can tilt it so that the boat is level, but that makes the image seem (in my view) worse. If you feel that the tilt detracts from the picture, may I direct you to a pertinent guideline from Wiki. As for war glorification, neither my views or yours seem to have changed since our last meeting, so I'm not going to waste our collective time debating the issue; viewers are invited to make up their own minds. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It is not the ship which is tilted, but the torpedo and especially the horizon. It gives the whole thing a snapshot quality: straight from the camera onto the net, which is not really FP material. Lycaon (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- InfoIt's tilted so that the Torpedo (the focus of the shot) is straight. You can tilt it so that the boat is level, but that makes the image seem (in my view) worse. If you feel that the tilt detracts from the picture, may I direct you to a pertinent guideline from Wiki. As for war glorification, neither my views or yours seem to have changed since our last meeting, so I'm not going to waste our collective time debating the issue; viewers are invited to make up their own minds. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Why are these guys standing on an inflatable boat? --botzeit (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Probably to recover the torpedo, which is quite expensive. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I made couple things to the photo. —kallerna™ 15:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like Lycaon --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - A reminder that we are always preparing for war (as for HIV)? Yes. But not a glorification of it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't agree. There is a sort of technically fascinating pictures which present military action as a high-tec-game, never showing the destructions caused by the systems. These pictures are professionally produced with high effort. This one belongs to a genre presenting a shot with the flying torpedo, mine, rocket on it. They are sometimes fakes and their basic idea is the fascination of young men for speed, power, hightec. The United States forces produce many of them and place them in films, photos, newspapers as an eyecatcher and a perfect promotion of their work. I'm not against military defence but against the idea to use the commos FP as a container for army-promotion-pictures. Pictures of military action IMHO should show the dirty side of destruction, too, not transform reality in a scene which could be part of a computer game. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue the point that this is a training device, not a real torpedo; it will make no difference in the end. I'm all for showing the horrible side of the military an conflict (and have a few pictures in mind to nominate), but those are not pictures I've really looked into yet. I've only just started my look through the (huge) military galleries, and I've begun with what interests me most; the equipment. Can I just say that I'm not here to nominate pictures that glorify war, I'm nominating pictures that interest me, and (in my opinion) fulfil the guidelines set by Commons.
- Might I also make a point? There are a large number of animal pictures considered for promotion (most of them justifiably so) but I have yet to see any uploaded media nominated which show the various bites, welts, wounds and diseases that animals can inflict. Why is it that people can see the beauty and grace of Kodiak Bear, but seem to shut off as soon as the military become involved? Both are equally impressive in my eye, and both deserve their place on Commons. My apologies for the long post, but I had thought that Commons was about promoting quality and interesting pictures, rather than trying to express one's views about the military-industrial complex. Protesting against a nomination isn't going to make war go away, as much as I wish it would. so why don't we take advantage of the photo opportunities given to us? Give our viewers credit; simply because I think an F-15 is a great and interesting piece of machinery does not mean that I not aware of the destruction it can deliver. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Karel (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral It depends at whom it is fired. It can serve the justice ends as well. Army is necessary, but just for defence and haunting down the aggressors (i.e. Nazis, perpetrators of genocides etc. - these should be stopped and what will you do if you don't have army or weapons - just let them do what they want?). --Roman Zacharij (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:El Gouna Bus R01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2009 at 00:04:46
- Info created by Marc Ryckaert (MJJR) uploaded by Marc Ryckaert (MJJR) - nominated by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info El Gouna (Red Sea, Egypt): public transport bus, customised and highly decorated in genuine Pakistani style. Coach built by Chishti Engineering (Karachi) and decorated by S. Gulzar (Karachi).
- Support I like it because everything in that picture is somewhat organic .. or I'am just a hippie -- Richard Bartz (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - composition, lighting. Sorry. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The composition of the image is somewhat distracting. --Korman (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Would have been absolutely great against darker background. --Ahnode (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it! —kallerna™ 15:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good colors --Muhammad (talk) 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting --Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Colourful! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Kaipan 57 1.8T.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 16:33:47
- Info created by Spock lone wolf - uploaded by Spock lone wolf - nominated by Spock lone wolf -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Spock lone wolf (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nothing to say, it's good. :) →Diti the penguin — 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great pic! Adam1012 (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 04:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Markakol map-ru.svg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 08:56:54
- Info created by Mikhail2009 - uploaded by Mikhail2009 - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well done. --Ahnode (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great work. But, like in articles, don't forget to cite your sources ! Sémhur (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support informative! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Oppeln by night1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 08:51:05
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Its not a bad result for a night picture with difficult lighting conditions. --Korman (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Béria Lima Msg 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is decent for a night picture with difficult lighting conditions, but I think we have higher standards for FP´s (for example File:Hemispheric - Valencia, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg or File:Moscow International Business Centre, Marc 2008.JPG). —kallerna™ 11:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Charming night scenery and quite special location other than just new york and moscow, good for a difference too. --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry. The quality is really good and it deserves to be QI. What bugs me is the composition - if you wouldn't have placed the church right in the middle (of the picture) you might have get my vote. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Have a heart. I`m sure Pudlek didn't build the church there on purpose. :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to take a good picture of a church, you have to know where to build the church in order to make it look nice ...and btw now that you say it, he didn't even finish the left tower. Couldn't he wait until everything is finished? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment renovation has been going a long time :/ --Pudelek (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I know...some churches are always under renovation. But that is not the problem for me. Centered compositions are mostly not a good choice. But your pic gets anyway gets FP, congratulations! :) ...so consider my vote just as a comment. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment renovation has been going a long time :/ --Pudelek (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you want to take a good picture of a church, you have to know where to build the church in order to make it look nice ...and btw now that you say it, he didn't even finish the left tower. Couldn't he wait until everything is finished? :) --AngMoKio (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Have a heart. I`m sure Pudlek didn't build the church there on purpose. :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Begum Liaquat Ali Meets President of MIT.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2009 at 08:55:00
- Info created by US Department of State
- uploaded by Kabuli - nominated by yousaf465 -- Yousaf465 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Nominating and supportingYousaf465 (talk) 08:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support--99.225.103.114 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)No anonymous votes please. --Yarnalgo (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)- Oppose Way too small. --Yarnalgo (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Much too small, compression artifacts, no good composition (two persons are cropped in an unfortunate way). -- Cecil (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, and clicking on the source of this image leads me to another image, not this one. So it also misses a source. -- Cecil (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: after looking at the source I noted that the crop is not the fault of the photographer but of the uploader. The original picture shows the prime minister with his whole head and the president of M.I.T. has both arms. -- Cecil (talk) 08:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image is too small | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Image is too small, anything less than 1000 x 1000 should be opposed automatically. Subject mater is far from exceptional.Sumanch (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2009 at 04:52:20
- Info created by Strobridge Litho. Co. - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Interested parties may find the pre-restoration image here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amusing! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Schwerte-00051.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2009 at 20:45:50
- Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 0 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pigs July 2008-2.jpg, not promoted
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2009 at 08:50:02
- Info A delicate pot-bellied pig resting at the Lisbon Zoo. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good but the current FP is much better for my taste --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, I agree with Richard. --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --tpa2067 (Allô...) 18:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Prefer the current FP. Durova (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
2 support, 4 oppose => not promoted. MER-C 13:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ClevelandDam-lookdownedit1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2009 at 03:52:42
- Info created by Buchanan-Hermit - edited, uploaded and nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Info The edit was a rotation, to fix up the slant on the original. If you think you can do a better job, by all means do.
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow, this is really cool. --norro 07:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info I made another edit: File:ClevelandDam-lookdown edit2.jpg. —kallerna™ 09:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Even better. Feel free to nominate it at your discretion. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Utterly fearless he obviated over the rail and I can imagine how amazing it was to be there. I regret to say that the remains of the real scenario banned on this picture are trivial compared to the scenario what would opened up with a wider angle - or simply said - the perspective is 2 narrow and the average quality doesn't compensate this. Sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, unfortunately, I'll have to agree with Richard. --Aqwis (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Richard. --Ahnode (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Richard. Lycaon (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Chrumps (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support a worthwhile scene - clearly demonstrates the formidable power of nature --Roman Zacharij (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
4 support, 5 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative 1 (File:ClevelandDam-lookdown edit2.jpg), not featured
[edit]- Support —kallerna™ 12:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Same here. Lycaon (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Chrumps (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support amazing, even better than the one above --Roman Zacharij (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
3 support, 2 oppose => not featured. MER-C 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Vegetable seller Porto Covo 2008-2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 22:57:15
- Info Vegetable seller at Porto Covo market, west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it. It's a pity that the transver of goods is cut off because that's an important/sybolic gesture and would give the picture a much better expression. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Richard Bartz and because of the person in the background. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Herbert Ortner. —kallerna™ 11:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment While the face of the woman could be an interesting photography subject, I find three main distractions in the image: the first is the container in the foreground, that competes visually on the firt look into the picture with the old lady. Second, the eyes seem to be closed, so there is no connection with the face and third, the man in the background is a distracting element. Also, other than the title, the is no visual information as to the lady´s occupation, more vegetables, or context are necessary. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 neutral, 2 oppose => not featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Doña ramona.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2009 at 21:56:58
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Doña Ramona, a Seri healing woman from Sonora, Mexico. There are only about 800 Seris left. It is an ethnic group on its way of dissappearing -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --norro 07:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 10:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support Roquai (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Don't like composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I am also not convinced of the composition. why did you chose this composition? --AngMoKio (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I chose this composition because Seris hold a very close relationship to the land, and the cactus in the background is characteristic of their habitat, so I wanted to picture her in the environment that they hold close to them; second, she had just picked up herbs and was chanting in appreciation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose 'Posed' composition. Lycaon (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Lycaon: Since you make two opposes to two of my pictures based on the the “pose” issue I will take the liberty to disagree on your disagreement. First of all, a portrait, according to Webster, is a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face. These pictures are portraits, and in addition to showing the face, they show the environment in which they live and is relevant to understanding them as persons and their culture, which is a disappearing one (only 800 Seris left, as opposed for example to 10,642,836 Portuguese, which you seem to be fond of). They are by no means meant to be featured on Vogue or pretty people magazines, but rather as subjects in a coordinate of time and place. They don´t “pose” with a superficial idea of “looking good”, instead, they just stand and allow themselves to be photographed, as they are. This is how they interact with the camera, this is how they want to be seen. Now, the terms “strong”, “normal”, or “weak” pose are subjective evaluations based on the personal experience and cultural capital, or lack of it, of the observer which may not be connected to reality at all. So if you oppose on the “pose” and fail to appreciate the knowledge value of the image, that is your personal choice and right. Photographically, encyclopedically and anthropologically speaking IMO, you miss the point. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahabvader (talk) 22:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 3 oppose => featured --AngMoKio (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2009 at 23:42:42
- Info Proposed delist/replace with new restoration at higher resolution. (Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Wrightflyer.jpg).
- See featured picture candidacy above to vote on proposed replacement. Durova (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist
and replace. -- Durova (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC) - Delist and replace. --Lošmi (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist and replace. --GerardM (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please show original vote and subsequent delisting attempt. -- carol (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The original nomination is, in fact, listed, and the subsequent attempts to delist this image are not required on this removal page. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not required, but it would be a great courtesy to the reviewers. -- carol (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist and replace. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Invalid request This new file is not the same and was never given a FP stamp so cannot be a replacement of an established FP. Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delist and replace. Let's not create bureaucracy where it's not needed. This process is ample for the replacement of a lower-resolution photo with a higher-resolution one. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you could follow some simple rules instead of trying to circumvent them to push your POV? Lycaon (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Lycaon, but disagreeing with you is not POV-pushing, particularly when four other people have voted that way. Please stop the random accusations of bad faith. Note that this alsio isn't the first time: You actively disenfranchised me in the past, in order to make a FPX go through, saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote in support because I had previously stated that I liked the image. Now, it seems, you want to disenfranchise not just me, but four other people as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a random accusation Adam. It is something I noticed. And My statement was valid, Durova's delisting attempt not. Just facts. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You noticed that I supported things I have said I like? Quel horreur! That does not justify any of your actions, in either case. You shut down a legitimate challenge to an FPX, as per the instructions written on the FPX template, causing it to be closed, and now you want to shut down a vote simply because you don't like it, and want more bureaucracy instead. And both times, your attempts to force first one vote, to prematurely shut down a discussion; and now a whole group of votes to shut down a decision to be declared invalid - clear POV-pushing on your part - were justified by hypocritically accusing others of POV-pushing. Extremely bad form, sir! Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shouting and insulting is not going to make wrongs right. I don't care, but your reputation might. Lycaon (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- You noticed that I supported things I have said I like? Quel horreur! That does not justify any of your actions, in either case. You shut down a legitimate challenge to an FPX, as per the instructions written on the FPX template, causing it to be closed, and now you want to shut down a vote simply because you don't like it, and want more bureaucracy instead. And both times, your attempts to force first one vote, to prematurely shut down a discussion; and now a whole group of votes to shut down a decision to be declared invalid - clear POV-pushing on your part - were justified by hypocritically accusing others of POV-pushing. Extremely bad form, sir! Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a random accusation Adam. It is something I noticed. And My statement was valid, Durova's delisting attempt not. Just facts. Lycaon (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Lycaon, but disagreeing with you is not POV-pushing, particularly when four other people have voted that way. Please stop the random accusations of bad faith. Note that this alsio isn't the first time: You actively disenfranchised me in the past, in order to make a FPX go through, saying I shouldn't be allowed to vote in support because I had previously stated that I liked the image. Now, it seems, you want to disenfranchise not just me, but four other people as well. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you could follow some simple rules instead of trying to circumvent them to push your POV? Lycaon (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- (undent) Before this descends into the commons equivalent of nuclear warfare, can I ask a few questions?
- A) Precisely what is the problem with replacing the image? They look to be the same picture.
- B) Will there be a catastrophic disaster on Commons if the image is/isn't changed?
- C) How is wanting to replace a Featured Image with a better quality version displaying/pushing POV? (With all the negative conotations that word implys)
- D) Why so much tension and drama over such a simple thing?
Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
-
original unrestored image (lower resolution than the source for the new restoration)
-
detail from older restoration
-
detail from older restoration, with uncorrected damage circled
- The older restoration is slightly under 1MB in size; the newer restoration is much higher resolution at over 27MB. The older version has a number of problems, the most noticeable of which is the unnatural and distracting sky. It could be a case study in why reliance on auto levels is not necessarily a good idea. Also at full resolution it has a large number of uncorrected artifacts of aging. Above is a detail showing several of them. The new restoration worked from the highest resolution scan--232MB--which probably wasn't available four years ago when the earlier restoration was attempted. This image is used in several dozen languages and receives 300,000-400,000 views per month. It was possible to do better than the older version, and we ought to put our best foot forward with historic images as important as the Wright brothers' first flight. Durova (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- This section is for discussing delistings only. If you want to promote an alternative version based on different base material nominate that as an FPC as any other FPC. That ought to be a walk in the park, by the way. The reason for being a little stringent on that is that the FPC section has more reviewers and it is only fair that the newly restored version is subjected to the same amount of scrutiny as any other FPC. Although I would be surprised if there were serious issues which could be improved given the normal high quality of the resorer, different contributors should not have special treatment. If some users think this is too tedious and bureuacratic a process and not needed I propose that these users intiate a discussion about opening up for delist and replace on the FPC talk page and seek for consensus for that possibility. --Slaunger (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Amending the nomination per suggestions. To the closer: please evaluate all delist and replace votes as delist only. Durova (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Info - There is no delist and replace procedure in Commons. The delisting of the first picture will not automatically cause the promotion of the second. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...which is exactly what Durova is confirming and accepting in the line above . It is now, a pure delist request after clearing out the intitial misunderstanding, as it should be... --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I saw it too, Kim :). This was just to make clear to the closer that it is not a choice of the nominator but a question of procedure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- ...which is exactly what Durova is confirming and accepting in the line above . It is now, a pure delist request after clearing out the intitial misunderstanding, as it should be... --Slaunger (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
File:Laufwasser Kraftwerk Isarwerk1.jpg featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 22:37:07
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Feeding of river power plant Isarwerk 1, Munich, Germany.
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good image, but not FP in my opinion. My question is why go to the pain and stitch this to such a high resolution? --Dori - Talk 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- By using a pano head and set up everything correctly stitching goes automatically - no pain --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Amazing quality, but numb subject. —kallerna™ 11:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support high quality & thought-out composition...this is getting rare here :( --AngMoKio (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support quality is indeed amazing, plus beautiful and serene autumn (?) scenery --Roman Zacharij 13:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 13:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support the thumbnail alone would not have convinced me ... Klaus with K (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2009 at 04:20:54
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 09:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality. —kallerna™ 11:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting but lacks aestetics (elegance & loveliness) --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean... for me, caterpillars score very high on the loveliness scale. I'm just torn about the composition... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:S. Martinho April 2009-2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2009 at 22:40:20
- Info Back to the tunnel of São Martinho do Porto, Portugal. Which hand has my daughter in the air? (not a candidate!) Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition not that great (head cut off by horizon), besides you've already done this better. --Dori - Talk 01:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Your daughter silhouet is beautiful! Yet I agree with Dori about the image. IMO the other picture is much more powerful composition wise. In the nominated image there also is an interesting element that I like. I mean the camera your daughter has. You asked "Which hand has my daughter in the hair" Did you mean "air" and not "hair"? If you ment air, I'd say she has the left hand up, but I'm guessing only because you asked :) --Mbz1 (talk) 04:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mila. Of course, I meant "air"! This is just a challenge to the deductive power of the reviewers, not a real candidate! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- (off topic) Question What camera is she carrying? Ben Aveling 09:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info - She is carrying a Konica Minolta Dimage A200 (my old camera) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's always nice when children are interested in what interests their parents. Comment As for which hand, I'd guess the right hand - the foot that is on the right hand side of the picture seems to be facing away from us, suggesting she has her back to us, suggesting the hand in the air is the right hand. If that isn't her left foot, and she is heading towards us, then she's stepping forwards, straight legged and twisting and holding her hand up all at the same time - which feels a bit strained. Regards, Ben Aveling. PS. You might like: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22535838-5012895,00.html 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, The Spinning Dancer. Did you know it is a FP at enwiki? --Muhammad (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's always nice when children are interested in what interests their parents. Comment As for which hand, I'd guess the right hand - the foot that is on the right hand side of the picture seems to be facing away from us, suggesting she has her back to us, suggesting the hand in the air is the right hand. If that isn't her left foot, and she is heading towards us, then she's stepping forwards, straight legged and twisting and holding her hand up all at the same time - which feels a bit strained. Regards, Ben Aveling. PS. You might like: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22535838-5012895,00.html 10:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info - She is carrying a Konica Minolta Dimage A200 (my old camera) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 11:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good one. --Aktron (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice picture but nothing special. - Álvaro Morales
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Sunflower macro wide.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2009 at 12:57:54
- Info Everything by Muhammad -- Muhammad (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad (talk) 12:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image and very pleasant colors.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The worm right in the middle makes me want to zoom out. --Ahnode (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come again? --Muhammad (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't understand your question. --Ahnode (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come again? --Muhammad (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support You deliver an interesting image yet again. If only I was any good at/had the inclination for photography...Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Downsampled? —kallerna™ 11:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Among other reasons, I downsampled to be able to upload the image as my upload speed is terribly slow and large files sometimes fail to upload. --Muhammad (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great! --ianaré (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I almost voted neutral... I would crop out the corners, they are distracting elements and no important detail would be lost. A good example of texture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support superb! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Novy most Bratislava DSC 0812.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2009 at 15:04:40
- Info Suspension bridge over Danube only supported by a single pillar placed at extreme angles. At the top a "Coffè" that reminds the shuttle Star Trek Enterprise.
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by Tmaurizia -- Tmaurizia (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - because of the composition. To the nominator: please be more judicious in the images you nominate for FP; every image you've uploaded you've nominated, and all have been opposed for similar reasons. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Plain colours. —kallerna™ 11:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I don't see any negative features of this picture. Well yes, the castle side might be much nicer for FP or night shot would be looking cool but this one is also good. --Aktron (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Wizzard (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support The colors could have been better, but the bridge is really interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree about the colors. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition. --Karel (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not much special or valuable scene --Roman Zacharij (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2009 at 15:29:40
- Info created by Ahgee - uploaded by Ahgee - nominated by Ahgee -- Ahgee (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Ahgee (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Köln -- Pro2 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Master Ren' (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question -- How can the talk page of "Master Ren'" be "Master Ren'39" ? Anyone we already know or really a new user only interested in FPC? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That's a matter of how this user has formatted their signature, there is no user at commons called User:Master Ren'39 (account never created) Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question -- How can the talk page of "Master Ren'" be "Master Ren'39" ? Anyone we already know or really a new user only interested in FPC? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Chrumps (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral why not divide the picture right in the middle and cut away the left part? ...would be more impressive with a better composition. This way it is just big with a quite big uninteresting left part. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - As AngMoKio, I think the left part of the pan is uninteresting. -- Peipei (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 11:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, the composition is not very good and the important parts of the image are heavily tilted/distorted. --Aqwis (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Size (don't like the stripe like format) and sharpness is not the best , otherwise nice --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support See the image with the resolution 1600x1200 Pixel. It is great! Wonderful! --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I do agree with Michael Gäbler - it's an awesome picture!--HouseGhostDiscussion 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 02:11:47
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice colors. Not an HDR? --Muhammad (talk) 04:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- No HDR--Mbz1 (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support with pleasure! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow, this is really cool. --Ahnode (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quality could be better, but really cool photo otherwise. —kallerna™ 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Opposeunnecessary dramatising of the sky with post-processing. A nice picture in general but I don't like the post-processing. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Conan (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 13:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Natural RX 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support visual pleasure & fabulous setting --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Typical "wow"-pic.--HouseGhostDiscussion 12:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as per AngMoKio, looks too much like a conventional "I want to wow someone"-picture to me. With less drama in the sky, I'd change to support immediately. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chersonesos Bell.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 07:23:21
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A brilliant image, and one that made me curious enough to look up Chersonesos. Let's hope this fine picture spurs those interested in Greek history to expand the article. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support impressive picture --AngMoKio (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful --norro 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great photo! The sign "Do not throw stones at the bell" is also unexpected. --Ahnode (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great composition. —kallerna™ 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like good bad weather pictures ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 13:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --NV 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Awesome composition. --Natural RX 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Impressive! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderfull photo --Butko (talk) 09:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)too late --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pano Anakena beach.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 10:48:48
- Info created and uploaded by Rivi, nominated by norro -- norro 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful panorama of Pano Anakena beach on Easter Island. -- norro 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful indeed --Ahnode (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks unfocused. —kallerna™ 11:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, underexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp and dark, trivial composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Dark, unsharp and low quality. Sorry.--HouseGhostDiscussion 12:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chang Chun Shrine amk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 10:46:48
- Info Chang Chun Shrine in the Taroko National Park, Taiwan
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- OpposeThe composition is good, but lots of blown out highlights on the waterfall.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- wow you set high standards. How would you make that picture? Show me a picture of such a waterfall on commons without some blown out highlights. --AngMoKio (talk) 14:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you do not like "blown out highlights", I could change the wording to say that the quality of the waterfall is bad IMO. Here are two samples of how I would like to see a waterfall File:Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg;File:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both have blown-out parts. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- File:Lady Barron Falls Mt Field National Park.jpg, long exposure, no blown highlights. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Both have blown-out parts. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if you do not like "blown out highlights", I could change the wording to say that the quality of the waterfall is bad IMO. Here are two samples of how I would like to see a waterfall File:Fulmer Falls Closeup 3000px.jpg;File:Vernal Falls Rainbow.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral For the waterfall I would have preferred either a faster exposure or a slower one. It seems uncomfortably in the middle somehow. --Dori - Talk 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Faster would make the forest and parts of shrine too dark..slower would blow out parts of the shrine (and i don't think that this waterfall looks nice with long time exposure). --AngMoKio (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info here is a pic (not by me) from the net to show you more surroundings of the shrine and to give you an idea of the conditions. As you can see you also can't really get close to it to take such a shot. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, maybe part of the top should be copped out --Muhammad (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Parts of the top should be copped out. —kallerna™ 10:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 12:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Warddr (talk) 13:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)too late --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Air India Memorial.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 15:23:08
- Info created by Artur on Flickr - uploaded by Flickr upload bot by Indianhilbilly - nominated by ViperSnake151 -- ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Excellent composition. Beautiful timing. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks too artificial for me, the hdr-effect is too harsh in my eyes. --Andreas 06 (talk) 15:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good design, weak realization (crop, lighting, tone mapping .. ) --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Andreas 06. —kallerna™ 10:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful colour transitions --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's too much of a drawn picture to me. Sorry.--HouseGhostDiscussion 11:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Peipei (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Malfunctioned chute.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 15:30:24
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info In most cases reserve canopy can't(!) work with the main canopy working. Three shots above show the process of reserve canopy (yellow) opening while the main one (green) is still working. First shot was made when skydiver was about 100 meters above the ground. This time all happens ok... This shots are of the rarest I've made --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral A great picture but the tight crop + bulky digits keeps me away to support. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Very well put but I prefer some more info before supporting. --Muhammad (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- What info do you want? --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Something like the one given below. --Muhammad (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support →Diti the penguin — 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, but would like to see descriptions for each number --ianaré (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1 - At about 100 m. reserve canopy suddenly unpacks and opens
- 2 - Skydiver decides not to cutaway the main canopy, because of too low altitude. Reserve canopy goes forward and strikes the main canopy.
- 3 - Skydiver fights for main canopy. Main and reserve canopies take position biplane (one of two possible positions when both canopies can work)
- 4 - Supposed: an hour later skydivers of that drop zone drink for health of this lucky man
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Fantastic image but why these digits there? --Roman Zacharij (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The digits show the stages of the event. --Muhammad (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support You've outdone yourself Mr. Mottl. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 16:15:21
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice one --Simonizer (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice composition & quality --AngMoKio (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice. --Aktron (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors, good to have the people for scale too, I had no idea those boulders were that big at first sight. --Dori - Talk 21:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good shot. —kallerna™ 10:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support As Dori. --Lošmi (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 08:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Natural RX 23:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 11:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)2 late --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Homoneura sp.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 16:45:58
- Info 3-4mm long flies. No downsampling done, crop at 1:1. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad (talk) 16:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Good - but I never can cotton up to harsh flashlight aesthetics, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like macro action!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Not the best quality but great subject. —kallerna™ 10:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Is this insect porn? LOL!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not appropriate! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- pas besoin d'enculer les mouches ... --ianaré (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- .. ou de parler du cul -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- "Not appropriate" is not a valid criterion for declining an image. Commons is not censored. I suggest an administrator strike this vote unless Roman Zacharij provides a valid reason for opposition. --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You should go through all other votes and check whether they fall fall within reasonable criteria. --Ahnode (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Insects are not vulgar but the subject of copulation (no matter who is engaged in it) is not appropriate and unethical to be a featured picture. The subject itself is very disturbing! There should not be any associations or hints with porn (see comments above, what it causes people to think or below - what sensations it provokes) on featured picture - and this should be put in nomination regulations. Keep in mind too, that many religions (i.e. Jewish, Bible, Zoroastrian too) strictly prohibit people to observe or watch animal sex (let´s respect other people who watch wikimedia) - and I understand why, tough I am not a Jew. There should be some (mental and sensational) ethics not just quality. Notyourbroom, If commmons is not censored why no pornography is posted here? its plain obvious that there are some ethical rules on commons. Ianere, please use commonly understandable language as not all understand French, esp. if you do speak English, as I see. --Roman Zacharij (talk) 09:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- My comment is not really translatable into English (it's a joke or a pun), but it basically means 'no need to make a big deal over nothing'. I mean, it's flies, who cares ? It's not like it's a woman blowing a horse ... I do apologise for the initial (rather rude) comment, I initially thought you were joking and was responding in kind. --ianaré (talk) 18:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- While I respect your opinion and that of other religious jews and christians, wikimedia is not censored. Many pictures of animals mating have already been featured such as this and this and while I am against pornography, this too has had several nominations in the past. If the reasons for your opposition are ethical, then I suggest you take this matter to the FPC talk page so that everyone can participate and come to a decision without jeopardizing my nomination. --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I fully agree with Muhammad and second his suggestion to start a discussion. However it should be strongly stressed that sex, whenever animal or human sex, is not pornography. Though there is no pornography in Commons (as far as I know), there are plenty illustrations of sex, some of them very explicit. Which is ok, since that are no taboo subjects in Commons. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- You better explain this to Tomascastelazo, cause he is the one here confused whether this is pornography or not. Why don't you correct him? --Ahnode (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not to be rude bit I think LOL means laugh out loud, thereby meaning Tomas was joking... --Muhammad (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- From nomination guidelines: Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others. Are you sure that these copulating insects (!) is the most valuable thing one has to watch? Next thing from guidelines: "An image “speaks” to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc." Can you define what positive emotions this image will evoke other than jokes about porn? Its clear that this image has already led some critics to think about porn (see comments). What about the thousands of people, children included (and the comments that they might have in-between) who will watch it once its on front-page? I repeat that this is not about the insects but about the subject - copulation, which on my opinion is clearly not fit to be the most valuable thing one would be forced to observe and reflect on...--Roman Zacharij (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why is it that whenever someone wants to take away our freedoms, they always do it for the children ? --ianaré (talk) 18:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not all pictures can be the most valuable, hence we have categories of images and different featured pictures in different categories. Now in your opinion this may not be the most valuable image, but are there other images of Homoneura sp mating? True an image speaks to people and this is a perfect example. See how much emotion it has already brought to this page! I seriously don't see anything unethical about this image. For what its worth however, the genitals are not showing :) --Muhammad (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- My main argument was that this image causes some people to think about porn (as witnessed by comments) easily disturbing the imagination and this argument has been ignored. Purity of the thought or consequence of imagination obviously are not a priority here. So I prefer to withdraw from this discussion. --Roman Zacharij (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is one of the
funniestsaddest discussions I have ever seen here. A picture of 2 flies is not appropriate because of religion?! You really think we censor educational pictures because of all the various restrictions all the religions have?! Sorry...You must be kidding. And concerning children: I hope many children watch this picture and learn about nature and its ways and won't get kept away from education by religion! Wikimedia is not censored with a reason - and it is good like that. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC) - I apologize for not respecting Roman Zacharij's wish of ending the discussion, but this matter is way too important to let it go. "Purity of thought" always comes from the inside, not from outside. And how can we consider that the most basic and marvelous facts of life, like reproduction and copulation, can in any way corrupt the purity of thought? Sorry, but freedom of expression and free access to information is so important that I'm convinced that many of us (including myself) would fight for it if needed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support quality could be better, but interesting subject --ianaré (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Almost perfect shot, but some of the insects evoke unpleasant sensations in me. --Ahnode (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unpleasant sensations? Care to explain? --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I really have to explain what an unpleasant sensation is? --Ahnode (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if you want to give an explanation for your vote (which you are not forced to). Not liking insects or being unpleased by their depiction is not a valid reason for opposing. In the present case, your vote should not be considered. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Alvesgaspar, just because I don't like this particular photo of an insect doesn't mean I don't like insects at all. I personally find absolutely nothing aesthetic about this particular one. Using your logic, "unaesthetic" votes on Pioneers pin shouldn't be considered either. So I guess my vote stays and counts. P.S. If it was something like your previous work I'd vote for it. --Ahnode (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, if you want to give an explanation for your vote (which you are not forced to). Not liking insects or being unpleased by their depiction is not a valid reason for opposing. In the present case, your vote should not be considered. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do I really have to explain what an unpleasant sensation is? --Ahnode (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unpleasant sensations? Care to explain? --Muhammad (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I don't find anything non appropriate here. --Lošmi (talk) 07:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 10:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support C'est un vote contre la censure malsaine. Je ne vois dans cette image que la beauté de la vie, l'évolution des espèces, la sauvegarde du patrimoine génétique! Il faut avoir l'esprit vraiment tordu pour y voir du malsain! La copulation est un acte naturel qui fait partie de la biologie. Nous sommes dans une encyclopédie pas dans un livre religieux. --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Pour la même raison bien que l'image n'est pas parfaite - 95.69.98.164 21:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Pour presque la même raison (je ne vois pas d'esprits tordus)... et parce que le français est une langue "commonly understandable" et puis ça m'énerve si les gens s'énervent parce que quelqu'un ne parle pas anglais, soit parce qu'il ne sait pas le parler, soit parce qu'il ne veut pas. Moi, au moment, je veux pas... ^^ --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Where in the Bible is it forbidden to watch animals have sex?! The old Israelites were farmers, not "monks"!
- Support - Unpleasant sensation???? Please....what century do you guys live in? --Silfiriel (Silfiriel)
- Support I fully agree with Alvesgaspar, Luc Viatour and others... -- MJJR (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Though I withdrew from discussion, for those who are interested I will cite the Biblical passage from the Book of Leviticus 11:20: "All the winged insects that walk on all fours are detestable to you." (New American Standard Bible translation '95); "Every swarming, winged insect that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal is disgusting to you." (God´s word translation '95). See [7]. Then next passage Leviticus 20:25: "You are therefore to make a distinction between the clean animal and the unclean, and between the unclean bird and the clean; and you shall not make yourselves detestable by animal or by bird or by anything that creeps on the ground, which I have separated for you as unclean." And these norms were applied not just to ancient Israelites but they are valid for any practising Orthodox Jew today. In Christian mysticism as well all sorts of reptiles and creeping creatures are symbols of unclean and inferior forces - see for example
the Vision of Saint John of Kronstadt (there the demonic forces are represented by wild beasts and scorpions). But I stress that I am not imposing these views upon anyone but simply express my subjective opinion (which in the modern world of freedom of speech everyone has right to, a right of opposition vote too - though it does not change anything). After all any debating between a religious (conservative judeo-christian) and secularist sets of mind (and most of users here seem to be secularists) is not much sensible or productive - and I prefer not to engage in it. --Zakharii 21:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Roman, you wrote earlier "many religions (i.e. Jewish, Bible, Zoroastrian too) strictly prohibit people to observe or watch animal sex", so I asked for biblical references. Now you provide biblical quotes for insects being disgusting--that's not quite the same, is it? As for your comment about most users here being secularists--you may even be right; but judging that from comments made here is pretty tricky: I for one find it very insulting if people think that all religious people have to be offended by sex or generally have conservative views, and that being progressive is somehow secularist. That's totally not the case (even if American conservatives would like us to believe that). --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment Couple of years ago, I read this somewhere in the Pentateuch and remember it quite well, but I dont remember exactly which verse it was, that is why I cant cite the verse immediately (for that I need to go through all the 5 books of Moses) - but if I will, I will let you know. But the fact that insects had been viewed as abomination to Israelites (and are so to religious Jews today) suffices for an Orthodox Jew or alike (me included) to disapprove this kind of image to be featured. And it simply goes against my ethical taste (I cant even look at it) - and as noted, subjective opinions and votes should be allowed, as we are not all the same and do not perceive or think of the reality in the same way. And adherents of secularist religion (after all secularism is also set of beliefs - as nothing can be really proven - see en:Gödel's incompleteness theorems) do not own the world. Ibn Battuta: OK, let's say - between conservative Orthodox Christian and secularist sets of minds. --Zakharii 22:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment – I agree we are not the same (that would be quite boring by the way), but also want to believe that we all share some fundamental values and conventions which are absolutely necessary to keep a forum like this running. I’m especially referring to freedom of expression, intellectual honesty and a neutral (or scientific, if you like) view of the world. Otherwise our judgment will be conditioned by factors that have nothing to do with the aesthetical or encyclopedic value of the images under evaluation. Even worse, those images might be subjected to all kinds of a priori obstructions, depending on the infinitely varying believes of the reviewers. No, I don’t think that all those believes should be here considered as respectable because that would easily jeopardize the objectives of the forum. For example, arguing that only the clean type (non-crawling?) of animals should be allowed as valid FP candidates would be a gross aggression to intellectual honesty and scientific neutrality. As you say, purity of the thought or consequence of imagination obviously are not a priority here. Of course not, and I'm quite happy with it! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Personally I find the subject boring - no wow factor at all: this is a support vote for the freedom to educate without fear or favour. Dhatfield (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Alvesgaspar, the truth cant be double though - two times two equals 4 not 54 or 78 or 2687 or something. The ultimate ethical and moral principles likewise cant be relative or neutral. The problem is that our perception and cognition are limited. The existence of the moral principles implies moral responsibility. And moral, or call it ethical judgment is characteristic only of humans and not of animals - a crocodile that eats a human does not feel guilty, same with tiger devouring antelope - he does not feel sorry. Only humans can distinguish between what is morally good and what is evil. And we should distinguish here as well - we cant just stay neutral, otherwise we will not be humans. All kinds of human moral qualities, for centuries respected in different cultures - all virtues and all vices should be taken into consideration, not just honesty but also forgotten en:chastity for example. You see even yourself that the subject of moral is very sensitive to everyone, that is because it is the only true human one. Visual perception of colours and dimensions is also common to animals but moral-ethical (and aestetical - which flows from the same moral state of human spirit) judgement is not. And of course I speak about FP nominations - as it is the front page and ethical and aestetical requirements should be particularly high as essentially human in the first row. --Zakharii 02:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Again we run into that nebulous concept of 'Truth'. Who says that your truth is the one that equals 4? Why are your morals, out of the entire population's, 'right'? What reason can you give for your set of morals and truths being any truer than those of anyone else here? And as for aesthetics; well, insect mating pictures have been featured on the the front page in the past, and if anyone was offended, then they didn't feel strongly enough to complain. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it is interesting that you say that judging moral "is characteristic only of humans and not of animals" - I always hear from religious people that God is the only one defining the moral standards (through the bible). Which imho can't be true as the moral standards of religious people also often changed in the last centuries, which is proof that those standards can't come from a God but the "Zeitgeist". Humans do kill animals and even humans - some feel sorry for it some don't, so there is no ultimate truth concerning moral, the are no "ultimate ethical and moral principles". But to be honest, I don't know what this has to do with this FPC here. All I can say is that we can never follow religious restrictions here...it would destroy a project like wikipedia. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a side note about math and religion. Godel's theorem does not state that nothing can't really be proven. That is an abusive conclusion and I suspect Godel is now feeling uncomfortable in his grave. Godel's first theorem says that, in a non-trivial formal (logic) system, there are statements which can't be proven to be true or false. That applies to mathematics (to the set of integers, for example), not to religion, ethics or even Physics. Why is it so frequent (for religion and also some phylosophical currents) to invoke mathematical principles in order to be taken seriously? The fact is we cannot have both: revealed truth and intellectual consistency -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment WOW!!!! What if they are just playing around! Piggybackriding does not mean sex!!! If it did, jeez! did I miss some fun!!! LOL!!! Second, the bible quote says "4 legs" and these flies have 6!!!! So they are safe to watch!!! But on a serious note, no amount or moral, virtue or religion makes the natural, biological act of reproduction dissappear, or any other trait that we share with the animal kingdom... Alvesgaspar, I am in this one with you, so I´ll save my opinions, you state everything clearly... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Just as a side note about math and religion. Godel's theorem does not state that nothing can't really be proven. That is an abusive conclusion and I suspect Godel is now feeling uncomfortable in his grave. Godel's first theorem says that, in a non-trivial formal (logic) system, there are statements which can't be proven to be true or false. That applies to mathematics (to the set of integers, for example), not to religion, ethics or even Physics. Why is it so frequent (for religion and also some phylosophical currents) to invoke mathematical principles in order to be taken seriously? The fact is we cannot have both: revealed truth and intellectual consistency -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pseudotsuga menziesii big tree Marki b.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info Hig resolution image. created by Crusier - uploaded by Crusier - nominated by Crusier --Crusier (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Crusier (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe the composition for this photo should have been better explored. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the building is terribly distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose What is this one about ? :-( I've nominated about ten ten times better pictures and all failed. Much likely, a composition with nicely looking sky and without the gas station behind could be successful. --Aktron (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor composition and quality --ianaré (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Alligator mississippiensis yawn.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 18:43:34
- Info Yawning American alligator : created, uploaded, and nominated by -- ianaré (talk)
- Support -- ianaré (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice view --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 10:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support LOL! --Muhammad (talk) 11:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support IO like crocs... and alligators... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A definite one. --Laveol (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was surprised to see that this wasn't Tomascastelazo's... :) Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)too late --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Alligator mississippiensis 2 babies.jpg, featured
[edit]- Info 2 American alligator babies : created, uploaded, and nominated by -- ianaré (talk)
- Support -- ianaré (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lovely :) —kallerna™ 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Mergozzo-0030.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 20:13:35
- Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 10:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- done [x] --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wyethia helianthoides Nutt in west yellowstone11.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2009 at 22:50:37
- Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Lovely shot, but quality. --Ahnode (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Seville bullring01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 02:44:31
- Info created by Lukasz Lukomski - uploaded by Lukasz Lukomski - nominated by Lukasz Lukomski -- Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add geolocation? —kallerna™ 10:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Savant-fou (talk) 09:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Staszek99 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Too much distortion, wrong time of the day (poor lighting) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Alvesgaspar --Pudelek (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Piers Sellers spacewalk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 02:45:41
- Info Astronaut Piers Sellers during the third spacewalk of STS-121, a demonstration of orbiter heat shield repair techniques. created by NASA - uploaded by Davepape - nominated by Natural RX -- Natural RX (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A fascinating picture, better quality than my previous nomination. Thank you to Sarcastic ShockwaveLover for the suggestion. -- Natural RX (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support And fascinating it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 07:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The border needs to be deleted. —kallerna™ 10:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- And done. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support is it only me that can't see the camera in the reflection ? --ianaré (talk) 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Yes. It's reflected in the center of the lower half of the helmet. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice ! --Savant-fou (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 16:52:37
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The subjects don't take up very much of the frame, and the composition doesn't quite convince me-- I feel like the top is cropped too closely to the left bird's head. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose CA. —kallerna™ 16:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment You may wish to try using {{CA}} in the future. See discussion here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral It's unusual, but not enough. --Ahnode (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination I nominated what I think is a better one... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Some vandal's poor graffiti to become featured picture? I don't think so. --Ahnode (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- You have a wish for the editing of reality. Your pictures have to be beautiful and they do not have to reflect reality. This is a bad argument. GerardM (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special --Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Roman Zacharij. —kallerna™ 13:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:St. Mary's Church and Pharmacy-Retouch2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 10:18:37
- Info created by Al Huntsman in July 1965 - uploaded and nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 10:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 10:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral --Ahnode (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support fine classical image --Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Finally, someone offers a reason! Nyttend (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The CCW tilt should be fixed. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. less than 5 pro votes Berthold Werner (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Forensic medicine heart.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 07:34:35
- Info created by U.S. Government - uploaded by Golf Bravo - nominated by DMCer -- DMCer (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- DMCer (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for your opposition per the voting instructions. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- What is the focus of the image? The heart or the white glow? My reason to oppose is poor composition. --Ahnode (talk) 08:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for your opposition per the voting instructions. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Below size requirements. —kallerna™ 11:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose a bit weird, without reading impossible to tell what it is, like no subject --Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for your opposition per the voting instructions. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Álvaro Morales Very nice preserved heart with cool light.
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2009 at 03:52:22
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Quality could be better. —kallerna™ 10:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral i like the depth of the composition, but lighting on the main subject is not ideal. --ianaré (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose composition is not convincing. Lower and left part of Tree is cut off and in general is the pic a bit cluttered. Sorry. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. 5 sopport votes are neccessary Berthold Werner (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Point Reyes lighthouse (2009).jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Masur - uploaded by Masur - nominated by Masur --Masur (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad optical quality. →Diti the penguin — 07:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- if you helped me with some more descriptive remarks, it would definitely help to improve my pictures in the future. Thx. Masur (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's just blurry, maybe just change camera and take another shot of the same scenery. --Ahnode (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Jak-18 Góraszka 2008 1.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 08:11:13
- Info created and uploaded by Airwolf - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support cool --norro 20:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Staszek99 (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose QI, but not featured --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Dmitry --ianaré (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very good shot --Pudelek (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Merops bullockoides 1 Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 12:22:06
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing colours --Muhammad (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong date in template ;) --Muhammad (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, corrected date --Luc Viatour (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong date in template ;) --Muhammad (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support →Diti the penguin — 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Paris 16 (talk) 17:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good shot --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support beautiful, very sharp --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Бережани (10).JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 12:22:43
- Info created by Roman Zacharij - uploaded by Roman Zacharij - nominated by Roman Zacharij -- Roman Zacharij 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Roman Zacharij 12:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Cables /Daniel78 (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. --Ahnode (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others + blurry. —kallerna™ 13:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's a nice image, but the cables are indeed distracting. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Fireworks Whippets.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 13:42:25
- Info created by winky - uploaded by MU - nominated by Mmxx -- ■ MMXXtalk 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ■ MMXXtalk 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Cool --norro 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support and I hate dogs .... --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I see it is nominated a couple of hours after I uploaded a new version without border. Cool! - Warddr (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 03:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Бережани (83).JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 17:56:03
- Info created by Roman Zacharij - uploaded by Roman Zacharij - nominated by Roman Zacharij -- Roman Zacharij (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Roman Zacharij (talk) 17:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Underexposed, composition. →Diti the penguin — 18:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Trivial. --Ahnode (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, noisy. —kallerna™ 13:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Rohatyn111.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 17:43:19
- Info created by Roman Zacharij - uploaded by Roman Zacharij - nominated by Roman Zacharij --Zakharii 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 17:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. --Ahnode (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Shade, chromatic aberration, blurry. —kallerna™ 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done I corrected some defects, it looks a bit better I hope now --Zakharii 14:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Your edit made things worse. With increasing contrast you increased noise and overexposures. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 18:35:23
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support As usual. :) →Diti the penguin — 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --norro 20:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great photo! --Ahnode (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support really good --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting bird. —kallerna™ 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support obvious FP --ianaré (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support sharp and beautiful --SuperJew (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I supported its FPC at enwiki, so Support. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Japon Kyoto 0502.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 19:10:18
- Info created by Yves Picq - uploaded by Yves Picq - nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Isn't flawless --Ahnode (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- which flaws do you mean? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Her wig looks like its going to detach. Another thing is that it looks greasy. Fake flowers attached to the thread are falling apart, some are even torn. And of course the shadows. --Ahnode (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- which flaws do you mean? --AngMoKio (talk) 07:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, poor light. --Aqwis (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But better description is needed. —kallerna™ 13:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. less than 5 support votes Berthold Werner (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 19:07:34
- Info created by Paulrudd - uploaded by Paulrudd - nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support imho this pic is close to perfect! Only thing that bugs me a bit is that I didn't make it. ;-) -- AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Looks great! --Lošmi (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Wow. --norro 20:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice. --Natural RX 23:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Will it be appropriate to remove "Hotel" signs from the photo and big lump on the man's right hand? --Ahnode (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It'd be unnecessary IMO. Are we trying to make portraits of people edited for advertisements? I wouldn't do it on the basis of celebrating 'natural beauty'. --Natural RX 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine with a man, but those signs just ruin the atmosphere, they could be easily removed. --Ahnode (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep the picture as it is. This is a documentary photograph, not a work of art, although it's an excellent picture. -- MartinD (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I firmly agree: If we want to use this picture in Wikipedia, we don't want some idealized world without advertisement, but rather documentation of what a place looks like. And artificially removing something from a person's body is heinous; it suggests that this man should better be looking differently before some people can tolerate or like his appearance. That's deeply insulting. Every person on earth is beautiful enough to be featured without articial enhancing. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep the picture as it is. This is a documentary photograph, not a work of art, although it's an excellent picture. -- MartinD (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's fine with a man, but those signs just ruin the atmosphere, they could be easily removed. --Ahnode (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- It'd be unnecessary IMO. Are we trying to make portraits of people edited for advertisements? I wouldn't do it on the basis of celebrating 'natural beauty'. --Natural RX 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- thanks, all those comments are very motivating. the photo comes straight from the camera, but i could easily remove the hotel signs, or that piece of cloth in the foreground (but not the lump, that would be silly), or slightly crop it (i'll probably do it for my personal version). whatever it is that's best. --Paulrudd (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Why remove the signs and the cloth, it givs the picture the right realism, the cloth even a greater...tension.--alpinus5 (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment totally agree with alpinus5. As long as there is no sign of a "fast food temple" in the back, there is no need to do anything. Some things should just be left as they are...if the pic comes straight from the camera like this - even better. This pic really makes me wanna jump in an air plane to see the world. :)--AngMoKio (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support And please don't remove the cloth at least. I would leave all 3 hotel-signs alone too. Haros (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good composition. --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support photographic excellence --ianaré (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Exquisite -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD (talk) 09:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I do like this - well captured --Herby talk thyme 11:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Frog legs.jpg, Not Featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 22:05:08
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose-- Tilted and not focused well. Also my first thought was that these are some human legs - certainly not good one:) Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for your opposition per the voting instructions. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, their similarity with human legs is the reason why I still debate supporting the candidacy. If these were cookies, I couldn't care less. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality --Ahnode (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. —kallerna™ 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unusual.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lviv8.JPG, Not Featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 22:40:25
- Info created by Roman Zacharij - uploaded by Roman Zacharij - nominated by Roman Zacharij -- Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Reason: poor quality, noisy and overexposed in the far right. --Ahnode (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose like Ahnode --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ahnode + chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 13:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose => not featured Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Goldlunula.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 23:03:46
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very interesting. --Natural RX 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- trivial, nothing special Roman Zacharij (talk) 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a reason for your opposition per the voting instructions. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Should have chosen black background --Ahnode (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This is not a good idea. You can not see the shadow of the Goldlunula on a black background. A black background destroys the image.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow. —kallerna™ 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose possibly QI, but not enough 'wow' for FP --ianaré (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What do you meen with "not enough 'wow' for FP"? The Goldlunula is 0,5 mm thin and she is made 4000 years ago only in Ireland. Nobody in the other parts of Europe could make it in the early Bronze Age. It has been hightech! It's 'wow' to see it. The Irish people are proud of it. You think: Nobody in Ireland or otherwise in Europe wants to see the Goldlunula? The FP of commons dont won't to show it?--Michael Gäbler (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- i'm not saying the object itself is uninteresting, rather that it doesn't make for a stunning or exceptional photograph. --ianaré (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- ^ What he/she said. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
result 1 support, 5 oppose => not featured Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Padrão Descobrimentos April 2009-1b.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2009 at 23:51:13
- Info Monument to the Portuguese maritime discoveries (detail). Lisbon, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good composition, sharp, good details --Mbdortmund (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Alvesgaspar, I find it very curious that you oppose the display of flags and religious symbols alleging ideological considerations, that is, the ideas or ideological meaning of the symbols. Well, with this one you hit a very raw nerve, consciously or unconsciously. The sculpture itself is loaded with an ideology that is offensive to a large part of the world and a one sided interpretation of history. What you refer to as maritime discoveries, for example, is no such thing. Encroachment, conquest or invasion are more descriptive terms, and so many adjectives can be added to them. Brutal, at least, having those “discoveries” by Portugal and Spain caused the death of millions of people and the destruction of their cultures. In modern terms it is called a holocaust. Nothing short of that. The heroic, pious or resolute poses, and thus ideological driven monument, is just that, an ideological monument that negates the other half of history. As a sculpture, it can be said that it has “technical merit”, but nothing that I would consider a work of art. Photographically speaking, a mediocre photograph. So I oppose on ideological grounds and lack of artistic relevance of the sculpture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- So much displaced rage! The whole monument has the shape of a stylized caravel and the sculpture is loaded with symbols of technical, scientific and artistic achievements, which were the main Portuguese contributions to the Renaissance revolution: the caravel, the marine astrolable, the quadrant, the armilar sphere, painter utensils and even some verses (the verses of Luiz Vaz de Camões). I see nowhere symbols of hate, invasion or conquest, unless we consider the sheathed swords and the Christian cross as such. Neither do I perceive any heroic or resolute poses in these known historic figures. Please note that the conquistadores, who were responsible for the slaughter of many and the death of a civilization, are your ancestors, not mine. As for the mediocrity of the photo, maybe that is so. We will see.-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment LOL!!!! Take no offense Alvesgaspar…. Appreciation of history is a tricky thing… but if my humble education does not lie to me, Portugal, with its contributions that you mentioned, was also very responsible for the slave trade, using with dexterity the wonderful advances in navigation that you mention. Had it not been for the church´s limitations on the “discovered” territories (which had been previously discovered and populated beforehand anyhow, but somehow western history regards those people as mere “things”. Remember that there was even a debate at the time about whether they were human or not) perhaps Portugal would have taken a little bit more of the American continent other than Brazil…. Anyhow, history cannot be turned back, but the interpretation of the historical act is still possible. I wonder why they did not include slaves in shackles in the sculpture? Anyway, don´t take it personal…. This is just a rethorical, friendly exchange… --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose figure on left is cut off, would like to see with better light --ianaré (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I feel like there could be something else to it. Maybe take a photo from another angle? --Ahnode (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The photo needs more on the left. And a slightly high angle. Reshoot please. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Does this have valid encyclopaedic content? Yes. My only hesitation is, as has already been said, some doubt about the composition having so obviously more figures off the lower left hand side. And Tomas, if we followed your comment about "one-sided interpretation of history" etc., then far more images in Wikimedia, and articles in Wikipedia, would have to go. In the nature of Wikipedia as "open source", there is much inaccuracy there. Just as there is in other publications, not least Al Gore's film, which has both made him much richer, and been challenged in a British court case which showed it to be full of errors. Whether or not this sculptor reflects an accurate account of history is not the issue here. Encyclopaedic content - that this exists - and photographic merit are the issue. Yes, I would like to see another version of this showing the figures to the left. But it is certainly no worse than the official photo of Barry Soetoro, which I think did get voted to Featured Picture status in spite of generally uninspiring colours, and his left shoulder being cropped by the White House photographer. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Robert, I was being sarcastic/ironic/humorous (dark??)... to some, a jerk... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the angle (it's all about the glorification of the so-called "explorers," so the angle from below fits perfectly; besides it's the well-known/famous perspective) and even the composition with the left cut off "does it" for me. I'm just not convinced by the light. I haven't been there, but I believe to have seen sunlight on it on other images? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 15:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lago-Maggiore 1488.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 01:08:56
- Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose now wow for me. Technicaly not good, I think f/9 would be better than f/5.6 --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment not in a moving and shaking cabin --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't "get" this picture (incl. the cabin that's partly in front of the red roofs). I assume it's technically amazing given the difficulties of a "moving and shaking" cabin and in addition a cabin in motion, but I don't find the composition or the documentary value convincing enough. Sorry, Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. Eragon96 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Eragon --Pudelek (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chelonia mydas is going for the air.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 01:01:55
- Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 (swimming person removed), featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done I tagged it as a {{RetouchedPicture}} but there were more changes to it than that... Looks to me like it was sharpened and had noise removed? --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I would have preferred a less tighter crop but this good too --Muhammad (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you remove chromatic aberration from the photo? —kallerna™ 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, kallerna. I do not think it is chromatic aberration. I believe it is natural color of the turtles.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice image. --Herby talk thyme 11:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Warddr (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lago-Maggiore 1488.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 01:08:56
- Info created by Mbdortmund - uploaded by Mbdortmund - nominated by Mbdortmund -- Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbdortmund (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose now wow for me. Technicaly not good, I think f/9 would be better than f/5.6 --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment not in a moving and shaking cabin --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't "get" this picture (incl. the cabin that's partly in front of the red roofs). I assume it's technically amazing given the difficulties of a "moving and shaking" cabin and in addition a cabin in motion, but I don't find the composition or the documentary value convincing enough. Sorry, Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the composition. Eragon96 (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Eragon --Pudelek (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 15:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 01:24:08
- Info created by Benjamin Robert Haydon - uploaded by User:Dcoetzee - nominated by User:Dcoetzee -- Dcoetzee (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- This high-quality, 10 megapixel image of a famous painting from the National Portrait Gallery, London (photo taken by NPG staff) depicts in arduous detail the pivotal 1840 Anti-Slavery Society Convention with an elderly Thomas Clarkson speaking. It contains 136 identifiable persons, and details of it have been used to illustrate 28 different articles, many of which have no other known portrait of the subject. I extracted it from the website and linked every identifiable person who has an article. There is no half-toning since this is an original digital of the photo. Dcoetzee (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info It looks like en:User:Victuallers is in the process of writing an article about the convention in his sandbox and doing an image map at en:Template:Anti-Slavery Society Convention 1840. Dcoetzee (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image and great EV!--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support 1. This is a brilliant load 2. It has been known for the featured image to be an imagemap. As noted above I have been working on the history of this painting for months. Is it possible that we could do that instead? Parts of this picture have been on the main page already. Victuallers (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Roman Zacharij (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:BMW Welt Night.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 23:15:45
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info BMW Welt, museum and cylinder, Munich, Germany
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Typically the kind of FP I like to see. →Diti the penguin — 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support technisch sehr sauber, gute Komposition --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support striking, especially the composition! --Chmehl (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot, and great museum, btw. I still dream about this one Maybe one day :) Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great image.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice! --High Contrast (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Grise Fiord, Nunavut (2008).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 11:23:13
- Info created by Xander - uploaded by Flickr upload bot - nominated by Roman Zacharij --Zakharii 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add geolocation? —kallerna™ 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done Geolocation added --Zakharii 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice Picture -- Pro2 (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 10:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lamium amplexicaule 0904.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 15:16:44
- Info created by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - uploaded by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] - nominated by [[User:池田正樹 (talk)masaki ikeda|]] -- 池田正樹 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- 池田正樹 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very beautiful. —kallerna™ 12:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful indeed! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support What an interesting plant with those pink bunnies popping out of her. --Lošmi (talk) 01:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)Vote added after close of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Tanzania map-fr.svg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 18:52:25
- Info created by Sémhur - uploaded by Sémhur - nominated by Sémhur 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info This is a fully SVG map (even the relief is vectors), easy to translate. It was made in a equirectangular projection, so it can be used for geolocation.
- Support -- Sémhur (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I am planning to do an English version and possibly a Swahili version soon. le Korrigan →bla 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Finally my country! I would like to see the en and sw version --Muhammad (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well done! --Ahnode (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very very nice work. Congratulations --Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good educational material for the viewers! --Roman Zacharij (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant. Dhatfield (talk) 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- SupportSuperJew (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Another nice map, well sourced, the way Sémhur knows how to do them. Sting (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Rosa-dos-ventos.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2009 at 21:20:38
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting photo. —kallerna™ 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Yerpo (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Greater Hobart Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2009 at 06:06:06
- Info created by Flying Freddy - uploaded by Flying Freddy - nominated by Flying Freddy -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Flying Freddy (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose it is a big panorama and I think it documents this coastline very well, so it might be sth for QI or VI. But for FP it is not really convincing especially composition-wise. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add geolocation? —kallerna™ 12:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure thing, added - Flying Freddy (talk) 14:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Resized to 7MB (from >20). Resolution remains the same. - Flying Freddy (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose same as AngMoKio. ---donald- (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality, ordinary subject --S23678 (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Anas platyrhynchos male female.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2009 at 16:12:50
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Ms & Mr Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Again a very nice composition....though a real romantic atmosphere is not coming up. Can you add a sunset and put maybe the right wing of Mr. M. around Mrs. M.? --AngMoKio (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mr and Mrs? I didn't even get the wedding invitation --Muhammad (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Deine Zauber binden wieder, was die Mode streng geteilt; Alle Enten werden Brüder, wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt. --Notyourbroom (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Unacerilla (talk) 10:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Though I prefer this version. —kallerna™ 13:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ing Strong --I hope it wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of I-Mages (talk • contribs) 18:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info there's a {{SSupport}} template :) looks like this: Strong support. See many others at the polling templates list. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support wie im Bilderbuch --Böhringer (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Another picture of Richard's usual high quality. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support It's a dream, it looks like an painting, but is realistic too. --Eryakaas (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Amazing amazing quality! looks like a painting --SuperJew (talk) 08:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eragon96 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Male Falcate Orangetip, Megan McCarty99.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2009 at 20:50:13
- Info created by Meganmccarty - uploaded by Meganmccarty - nominated by Meganmccarty -- Meganmccarty (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info A male Falcate Orangetip (Anthocharis midea) nectaring on Eastern Spring Beauty (Claytonia virginica)
- Support -- Meganmccarty (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Good composition but DOF is too shallow. --Muhammad (talk) 05:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Anemone blanda Blue Shades.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2009 at 21:20:49
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad but I've seen so many pictures like this one... And none of them are FP --Aktron (talk) 11:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Just giving you a hint. I think your subject is very beautiful, but the background is distracting. Taking another photo with a shallower depth of field would bring better results, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Air Force Fire Training.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 02:42:51
- Info created by US Air Force - uploaded by Peter-five - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 14:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 09:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad quality and name. Could you move it? —kallerna™ 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Considering that the room would have been full of smoke, and both the subjects and photographer in motion, it is perhaps unsurprising that the quality is not that of a studio shot. I would love to move the image, but do you know how I would do so without having to re-enter all of the information by hand? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info There's a way to request that an image be moved by pasting a template into its info page. I'm pretty sure the template goes like this: {{rename needs confirmation|new filename.jpg|explanation of why it needs to be changed --~~~~}} --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Considering that the room would have been full of smoke, and both the subjects and photographer in motion, it is perhaps unsurprising that the quality is not that of a studio shot. I would love to move the image, but do you know how I would do so without having to re-enter all of the information by hand? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 08:58:43
- Info created by Gustave Doré - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I've increased the size slightly, as i's a large, detailed Night scene, and the thumbnailing isn't great for engravings. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info This also inspired me to make a {{Moiré}} template, as well as a {{Moire}} template that redirects to the former. Here are the outputs: 1. {{Moiré}}, 2. {{Moire}} --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, of course, though there's no moiré in the originl, the thumbnailing software tends to need some experimentation to find a size that lacks it when you thumbnail an engraving. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Though engravings aren't my personal cup of tea, I can appreciate the quality and value of such images. Brilliant work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:David Roberts portrait.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 21:48:33
- Info created by Baugniet, Charles - uploaded by Diaa abdelmoneim - nominated by Diaa abdelmoneim -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Honestly, I don't really like the crop, and the colours seem a bit off. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
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 does not meet size requirements. MER-C 03:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment Where is the original? When there is no bigger sized original, it may be that the size restriction, which is mainly there for digital photography is not applicable. GerardM (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- The original is at the library of congress http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3g01985 with the same resolution as this one, only in tiff. Higher resolution is currently impossible to find.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Mercury transit 2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 21:39:15
- Info created, uploadedand nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support truly professional work as it is even hard to find the tiny Mercury in the sky with a bare eye, not mentioning to take a snapshot of this kind. --Zakharii 23:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I can't judge the technical difficulty (which may be amazing!!!), but the image doesn't "speak" to me at all nor does it seem particularly aesthetically laudable etc.--no visible "wow" factor, and it's about images after all. For all I can see, this could be a wooden marble in bad quality... Thus for me it's to me "to be admired (a lot)," but unfortunately not to be featured. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) PS: Is Mercury really not round? It looks a little like someone cut off small slices here and there, but as I'm saying, I can't tell if that's from image processing or simply reality. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I made this animation for the opposers to whom the original image "doesn't "speak"", just for fun, you know. About the quality, this image was selected to be published on EPOD, the site sponsored by NASA. May I please assure you that they got quite a few images to choose from and they've chosen mine. It was also published in at least one book. This was my last comment about the image and the quality for this nomination. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment From the FP Guidelines: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Could u state the inclusion of it in an outside media through {{Published}}?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Diaa abdelmoneim. I added the template to the image description page.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I congratulate you (again) on the technical merits. I can just say what I see--and that is that this image to me doesn't even remotely have any "wow" factor. It may still be scientifically incredibly valuable, but alas, I'm not judging that. So it remains to me a very bleak, brown image (with or without some "slices" missing). And whether a picture shows a bleak object on earth or a bleak object in the sky doesn't make any difference for my vote. I'm glad, as always, when people disagree and find inspiration in it. I don't. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)"
- PS: Regarding this constantly cited passage of the guidelines: I agree it's a "better picture." Given the technical quality it's even (much) more than that. But is every technically flawless image to be featured? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, and they aren`t. Just picking a random example, and Richard Bartz nominated one a couple of days ago. Both technically flawless, but rejected. I consider this image, however, to have something both of the above lacked: the elusive wow factor. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Diaa abdelmoneim. I added the template to the image description page.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I made this animation for the opposers to whom the original image "doesn't "speak"", just for fun, you know. About the quality, this image was selected to be published on EPOD, the site sponsored by NASA. May I please assure you that they got quite a few images to choose from and they've chosen mine. It was also published in at least one book. This was my last comment about the image and the quality for this nomination. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Did you get a shot of Venus in 2004? If not, I hope you are getting ready for 2012 :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- No, It was not seen from where I lived. Yes, 2012 should be good! Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support As per my comments above. I do look forward to seeing a better quality picture in the future, when camera equipment improves. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support thank you for contributing this image --ianaré (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good to see you have the persistence to still go after tough subjects Mila. More strength to you. Dhatfield (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment, Dhatfield. I've always tried, and probably ever will try on the tough subjects. I'd say it is good I still have the persistence to nominate the images of my tough subjects for FP, and here I really could use some strength. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is no doubt an outstanding pic. Would be nice if you would add some info about how this photo got made (equipment, setting,...). Btw: English is not my mother tongue but is "was been used", as it is in the published-template, correct? --AngMoKio (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question,AngMoKio.
I've used Nextar 80 GTL with white light filter and with Canon XT (prime focus). Prime focus simply means that I attached my camera directly to the scope, and the scope became my 900 mm manual lens. One of the hardest part is to find the sun. Why? Just think about this, when you put a white solar filter or any other solar filter for that matter, you could see absolutely nothing, but the Sun. It is understandable, because, if you were able to see something, but the sun, it meant that as soon as you see the sun in the scope, you'll go blind. So I moved my scope around the sky in complete darkness until I saw the sun. Other thing is to focus. There's no such thing as to focus on infinity for the scopes. You have to focus at each object separately. It might sound strange, but it is not so easy to focus on the Sun. I got lucky because there was a relatively big sunspot I was able to focus on. Mercury itself was a little bit too small to make the right focus. After this you just follow the sun around the sky with your scope and taking pictures. I cannot remember what camera settings I used. They did not get recorded with the images because the camera did not recognize the scope as the lens, I guess, but Mercury transit lasted for quite a while. I was able to change the settings until I liked what I've got.This image is not outstanding. Anybody having the right equipment could take it. Yet this image is relatively good quality, if you are to compare to other images of the kind. Yes, "was been used" is overdue, "was used" is enough IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)- Thanks for the info. Considering the fact that a Commons user made it and not a NASA employee, it is really a good shot of a rare event. --AngMoKio (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Better than some NASA shots as well --Muhammad (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Sorryfor the delay, I'm not paying much attention to the forum ;-) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Didn't I ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 18:53:55
- Info created by Auguste Tilly - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Valuable image with high quality.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Peach Blossom.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 15:49:38
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Silfiriel -- Silfiriel (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Silfiriel (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Peach Blossom ? Otourly (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, {{{1}}}
- Info-- i see what you mean, but can you identify it as orange blossom??? From what I see the title explains what's on the image.
- No, we need a specific species ID if possible. MER-C 11:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a peach, would the latin name (Prunus Persica) make it more understandable or recognizable? I see nothing non specific. -- Silfiriel (talk)
- Comment Species name added, but image suffers from shallow depth of field --ianaré (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Henry's Elfin, Megan McCarty100.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 12:58:32
- Info created by Meganmccarty - uploaded by Meganmccarty - nominated by Meganmccarty -- Meganmccarty (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Henry's Elfin (Callophrys henrici)
- Support -- Meganmccarty (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad focus, the leaf behind the butterfly should be blurry in order to make the animal much more.. dominant in the picture. --Aktron (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose We have very high standards for macro images. —kallerna™ 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Uncomfortable DOF. The head/thorax region seems to be out of focus and in shadow. Maedin\talk 12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Assisi San Francesco BW 4.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 10:53:38
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Assisi, Basilica San Francesco (with dove) -- Berthold Werner (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fine composition. —kallerna™ 11:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the detail of the Franciscan friar walking down with the dove flying above it. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eragon96 (talk) 13:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral very nice shot ...though I don't like that centered tower. I would support a tighter crop like this...add it as alternative if you want. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice indeed. Good composition, the (almost) centered tower is no problem for me. -- MJJR (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition, with a bit of luck (the dove and the friar! Who said "peace"? :P) --Kiban (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 15:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Fesa 671 01 gnangarra.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 06:53:04
- Info Applicance 671 fighting a bush fire in Southern River Western Australia. created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnangarra 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 09:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurry. →Diti the penguin — 11:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- OpposeBlurry. Look at the tail.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition/frame. And blurry. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ibn Battuta. —kallerna™ 11:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per blurriness. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Komodo dragons video.ogv
Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 03:49:42
- Info created by flickr user truello - uploaded by User:Ibn Battuta - nominated by User:Ibn Battuta --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Strong Info: Pennsylvania is a really great state. --Notyourbroom (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good action shot --ianaré (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! —kallerna™ 11:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good value to explain a kayaking technique, but the proportion of the kayak compared to the rest of the image is not big enough. Would not be that big of a deal if there was some more "features" in the water (rocks, waterfall, etc). --S23678 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 03:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:ParkourFoundationWinterGroup.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 03:11:55
- Info created by THOR - uploaded by User:Flickr upload bot - nominated by User:Ibn Battuta --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, it is slightly below 2m pixels... but given that it's an action shot of an extreme sport, which captures the sport in an aesthetic way, (= very hard to take!) I find the resolution good enough. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per nominator. I like this picture very much. --Lošmi (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is really not bad. But I really don't see a reason why it is so small. I am sure the photographer has this picture in a higher resolution. (The picture was made with a D300). --AngMoKio (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, far better pictures have been rejected because of their being less than 2 megapixels. --Aqwis (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other opposers. —kallerna™ 11:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Size and value --S23678 (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Iranian national flag (tehran).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 21:11:38
- Info created by Farzaaaad2000 - uploaded by Farzaaaad2000 - nominated by Farzaaaad2000 -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong Prediction: Here comes lots of drama. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment For once, it appears you're wrong, Notyourbroom :). Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of I-Mages (talk • contribs) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not as much impressive as other photos of national flags I saw (a bit too dark for me). →Diti the penguin — 07:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see anything special...furthermore it is obviously tilted. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support While I don't agree with the policies of Iran, something about this picture (the approaching darkness, perhaps?) rings true. Also, a * Question is the flag always hung that way in Iran? In most countries, it's horizontal. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- in fact it is a new type of hunging flag that started in tehran by city hall of tehran.--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice, but slightly to narrow on the left side for my taste. --norro 11:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I love the idea, but it would be simply astonishing if the flag was ironed (square like wrinkles from folding it) and should have more sky to the left of it. --Ahnode (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the composition but it's too dark --ianaré (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive. --Aktron (talk) 11:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Just a national flag -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good aesthetics --Muhammad (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Pudelek (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it too but I am not sure I like that shadow area in the upper part /Daniel78 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment--maybe it be too late!i nkow it well! this flag is flag of enemy for many of you!but it is national item & today is time of peace & time of dialog & and it is a window!open it!!thank you for your attention! :)--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can only speak for myself, but I don't categorize the world into enemies and non-enemies (and certainly not flags! they're just pieces of cloth!); and I find it very strange to be told that I should vote differently because of that. I'm having some trouble with the composition (on the left side), but that has absolutely nothing to do with the nation that this flag represents. Not everything is political. :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The contrast between the upper part of the flag and the sky is not big enough. --S23678 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. --Karel (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 4 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Vitrail Chartres 210209 07.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 19:04:50
- Info created by Vassil - uploaded by Vassil - nominated by Man of i Mages
- Support -- Man of I-Mages (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support wonderful! --Zakharii 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support well done --ianaré (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --Aktron (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Please add english description. —kallerna™ 11:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'll think of one, but I can't speak french.
- Done.
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lava enters pacific.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 16:07:25
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support a rare and stunning moment of natural confrontation - a good shot! --Zakharii 20:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Notyourbroom (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Could you add a geolocation tag? --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I did, except the location is approximate. The exact location is hard to find out. We drove to the end of the road and then we walked, and we walked, and we walked... There used to be a road File:It used to be a road, but it was covered by law flow.jpg but now as long as an eye could see in three direction there was only lava. We met few people walking back, and I asked them, if they saw red lava.They said no, too far. So we continued to walk. Few times we crossed an active lava flow that was floating in w:lava tubes just beneath our feet File:Lava tube.jpg and sometimes red lava innocently appeared out of nowhere at the surface File:Lava ttongue.jpg. Here's the image of the whole scene File:Lava enter Pacific in Hawaii volcano NP.jpg just to give you a slight idea how much we walked. BTW after we walked through sulfur dioxin our video camera worked no more. And now, when you know everything, you just have to support the image (just kidding) :) Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Although the picture is a little bit out of focus - it's probably a moment where you don't have that much time to focus. So it's excellent for me.--HouseGhostDiscussion 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support An awe inspiring scene. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great photo. --Herby talk thyme 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose interesting, but blurry --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image is very blurry. Just because the subject is interesting doesn't mean it's a featured picture.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I have no doubt a much better image could have been taken, but some quality problems are due to smock, sulfur dioxin and extreme heat. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- May I cite this relevant passage from the FP Guidlines: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- May I cite this relevant passage from the FP Guidlines: A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Very interesting, but unfortunately blurry image. —kallerna™ 11:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support When will you learn to nom insects and cute furry animals? :) Dhatfield (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry it is really kind of blurry and I would prefer a not so tight crop. I also think that you exaggerated a bit with the red of the lava. You have unedited pics where the lava looks more realistic imho. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- The image you refer to is a different shot. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I would really: like to see this be promoted. --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Than maybe consider supporting alternative 1 :) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well... wow. Plrk (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (Alt 1 featured). --Karel (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I give this pic my support as the upper one is concerning the red of the lava over-edited, and I would like see a realistic pic getting featured. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I find this one better. Yann (talk) 11:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well... wow. Plrk (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per directly above –Juliancolton | Talk 03:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Zakharii 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Green turtle Chelonia mydas is basking on Punaluu Beach Big Island of Hawaii.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 15:09:55
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --norro 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice setting --Zakharii 21:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful shot, though I'm afraid some might not get as much "wow" out of it as others. --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Geotagging here, too, please? --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mila, when I grow up, I want to take pictures like you!!! They are a true contribution!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for this shot. :-)--HouseGhostDiscussion 09:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great composition, informative --ianaré (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 21:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:PolistesDominulus.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 11:58:48
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by RaminusFalcon -- --Raminus (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- --Raminus (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Roman Zacharij (talk) 12:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But what plant is it? —kallerna™ 11:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've checked: it's a young plant of Lilium. --Raminus (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very sharp, SuperJew (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eragon96 (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, lighting not ideal IMO. Also the major part of the picture is the plant and an id for that is required as well. Sorry --Muhammad (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's all OK: you don't have to apologise for voting against my picture!! :-) --Raminus (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - It is a very good picture, including the composition. But it should be cropped to eliminate part of the leaves and better focus on the wasp. Only that will make the picture too small... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Jewish headstones in Burshtyn.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2009 at 11:42:23
- Info created by Roman Zacharij - uploaded by Roman Zacharij - nominated by Roman Zacharij --Zakharii 13:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Haunting. The lighting isn't ideal, but for me, the tight crop keeps this from feeling like a snapshot. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like that tight crop. Might be a QI. --AngMoKio (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A little tight, but a fine picture... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Extremely tight crop. —kallerna™ 11:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop --S23678 (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Karel (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry, what is this? --Ahnode (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Going by (sparse) description on the page, it`s the inside of a NATO base of some sort, probably in France. Not sure why it should be featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Upon further investigation, this is fort du Salbert, an abandoned NATO base. There are however, many better pictures of this particular installation. I think CH may have nominated the wrong one by mistake. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've heard the French didn't like NATO, but I didn't expect this ;) --Ahnode (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Considering the fortress dates back to the 19th century, the conditions aren't really surprising. There are a few promising images in the gallery, I may nominate one or two in future. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've heard the French didn't like NATO, but I didn't expect this ;) --Ahnode (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Upon further investigation, this is fort du Salbert, an abandoned NATO base. There are however, many better pictures of this particular installation. I think CH may have nominated the wrong one by mistake. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Going by (sparse) description on the page, it`s the inside of a NATO base of some sort, probably in France. Not sure why it should be featured. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment upper left corner and bottom left corner! -- Pro2 (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Appears to be composed of multiple stitched images, yet barely meets size requirements and has errors in the left corners; subject is murky and indistinct; image appears to have a CW tilt; and I love "urban decay" as much as anyone, but there's not really much "wow" here. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Set nomination: Kronheim's illustrations to Foxe's Book of Martyrs, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2009 at 21:46:57
- Info created by Joseph Martin Kronheim - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden (talk) -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Compliments! Very high quality and resolution. And in general, there should be more featured images of this type (religion, culture, history, society etc.), esp. in Easter time, as it seems that images related mainly to geography and nature like animals, insects and flowers dominate the nominations. --Zakharii 22:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, I think they're great little images. Think I shall have to find something Catholic for balance, though: They're all Protestant martyrs, except, of course, St. Paul =) (Two Huguenots, plus five Protestant victims of the era when England shifted back and forth from Catholic to Protestant, and those on the wrong side got persecuted) Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great submission. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting supplement to the usual editions without illustrations. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Bee on cherry 02.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 01:25:12
- Info created by Robert of Ramsor - uploaded by Robert of Ramsor - nominated by Robert of Ramsor -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was forced to use "Auto" mode on the camera because the bees were too quick for me, and generally overhead. I finally got one which showed the pollen bundles - must be the bee's knees holding them. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not very happy about the light here. --Aktron (talk) 11:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative 1
[edit]- Comment This one was in the rare few minutes of sunlight on that afternoon. Better colours, but the bee is a smaller percentage of the whole. It was a higher branch, holding the camera overhead. Which is the problem with fast moving subjects photographed "on the fly". -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative 1, edit 1
[edit]Alternative 1, edit 2
[edit]- I withdraw my nomination I wish to withdraw this nomination pending an edit which would be more educational, and which I haven't seen in Wikimedia for a similar subject. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Anolis sagrei vs Gasteracantha cancriformis close.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info close up of Anolis sagrei eating Gasteracantha cancriformis, everything by --ianaré (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Ready to surf on Whitesand Beach.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 01:27:25
- Info created by Jim Champion - uploaded by User:flickr upload bot - nominated by User:Ibn Battuta -- Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I can't help it--I find this a simple and yet powerful image. More than aesthetically pleasing or technically dazzling, this one speaks volumes to me at the "gut" level (symbolic meaning). Well, can and will those of you who've not "been there" (symbolically ^^) feel the same? I don't know, so I'll just put this image on the list and curiously wait for your votes! --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the composition but would like to see with more light --ianaré (talk) 20:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just to clarify--do you mean changing this picture or taking a different picture when lighting is different? If you should be talking about this picture, please explain what you mean because I'm not good at photo editing, but I'll do my best. ^^ --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think if the photo was taken under better lighting conditions it would be much nicer. --ianaré (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Its a holiday pic. What can I do with it in an encyclopedia? --Eryakaas (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info "Wikimedia Commons is a central hub of free media for all Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia." --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- If you're concerned about encyclopedic value: It shows the surf on Whitesand Beach; it shows people actually surfing there (which is mentioned in the Wikipedia article); it shows how to get ready for kayaking in the sea (you do not get into the water first); it shows scouting (kayakers first check out the water, then they get into it); it shows kayaking gear from the rear (mainly the PFD with the ring, on which you can fix the oxtail); it shows getting (last-minute-)instructions... so yes, you can use it even in Wikipedia. But as Notyourbroom pointed out, that wouldn't even be necessary. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I liked this one, but the problem here is lightning and lack of wow. —kallerna™ 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good composition. I like the atmosphere and surfers in the background. --Lošmi (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Good composition, but I would have liked better with good light conditions. The colors are not vivid enough. --S23678 (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:PysankaAtVegreville.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 07:02:41
- Info Pysanka at Vegreville, Alberta created by SriMesh and too big for a bunny to bring it here. - uploaded by SriMesh - nominated by carol -- carol (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- carol (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Happy Holidays :) --AngMoKio (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like this image, but some areas appear overexposed and some appear underexposed :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --Ahnode (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sadly, I'm voting after Easter. The fact that I don't really like the object is weighting heavily in the balance. I could say distracting background as well. --S23678 (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:332ndFighterBriefing1945-high-res.jpg, withdrawm
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 05:26:25
- Info created by Toni Frissell (1907-1988) - uploaded by Goldsztajn - nominated by Goldsztajn -- Goldsztajn (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support One of the most historically renown photos depicting the role of African-Americans in United States military services. There is a low resolution version of this on commons, but found a high resolution version at the Library of Congress (which is the nominated version).--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose This image needs a bit of restoration attention, but after that, it will definitely be FP-worthy in my book. I'm opposing based only upon the condition of the image, not on its subject or technical merits... I thought of putting "neutral," but I'm putting "oppose" to make a stronger statement as to how this opportunity shouldn't be missed. This is a great candidate for restoration, and promoting an unrestored version would be a shame. Also, a Prediction: At least one person will oppose this image based on the fact that every person in the image is cropped or occluded in some fashion. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Conditional Oppose Exactly what Notyourbroom said. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've already done some spotting work on this, but will do (a lot) more.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be an idea to withdraw the nomination until then. I look forward to supporting the finished version. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've spotted, despeckled and filtered for dust and scratches. Would appreciate second viewing. Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry—I understand that you did a lot of spot-by-spot restoration, but you also did full-image post-processing, and that removed a lot of fine detail. (Look at hair before and after your changes, for example—it's significantly blurred.) The fact that the new version of the image has half the filesize as the old version also illustrates this loss of fine detail. I still can't quite support this for FP. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've spotted, despeckled and filtered for dust and scratches. Would appreciate second viewing. Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Might be an idea to withdraw the nomination until then. I look forward to supporting the finished version. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've already done some spotting work on this, but will do (a lot) more.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I posted a different restored version of this picture a few weeks ago (also listed under Category:Toni Frissell). The condition of the print certainly warrants selective D&S filtering, but certain areas, like the shield on the cap of the pilot to the left are in focus and should be cleaned up manually. Also in Goldsztajn's version lot of the dust motes are still visible, so the blanket blurring didn't yield the expected result. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Goldsztajn (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: withdrawn => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ISS Aug2005.jpg, already featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 02:53:13
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Pixel8 - nominated by Man of iMages -- Man of I-Mages (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support -- Man of I-Mages (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, Contested.
Awesome!
- Strong support -- Álvaro Morales Very impressive picture! Really caught my attention and put a wow in my mouth!
- Comment -- I think it will not go to be a featured picture. becuase of the warning above.
- Comment But anyone can oppose the FPX and add a support vote instead ! :) /Daniel78 (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Confused: I`m sorry, but what is the point of nominating a picture that is already featured? Precisely what will it accomplish? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Info As the original FPX tried to point out, this is already a featured picture on commons, see nomination. So this is just a waste of time --Tony Wills (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: Already featured => null. Maedin\talk 19:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 10:24:28
- Info created by US Navy, uploaded by Alaniaris - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose viewing angle, most of the plane hidden by the wings --Andreas 06 (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A difficult subject.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Andreas --norro 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose bad angle --ianaré (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good angle shows afterburner, rear of drop tanks & missiles, flaps, undercarriage and tailplanes not visible in front shots. Encyclopedic value very high. Please make a note of the ordinance loadout on the image description. Dhatfield (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info The photo doesn't state exactly what the loadout is, but as far as I can tell it's carrying an AGM-65 Maverick, a 500lb bomb, 2 or 3 external drop tanks and possibly an AIM-9 Sidewinder on the left wingtip. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per Dhatfield. —kallerna™ 13:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Notyourbroom (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- as a courtesy to the nominator, please give a reason when opposing --ianaré (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I recently made a template {{ExplainVote}} for this sort of situation :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- as a courtesy to the nominator, please give a reason when opposing --ianaré (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. HBR (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
As discovered by Colin on 2021-12-04 and reported then on the FPC talk page, the promotion of this photo was a procedural error – 7 support votes, 4 oppose votes mean “not featured”, not “featured”. Therefore I have crossed out the result above. The result should be:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Aristeas (talk) 09:46, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
File:The riverside in the glow of the sunset.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 12:59:56
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice --Zakharii 13:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Nice colours in this lighting, but I'm sorry to say that the resolution, at only 1.5Mpixel, is against you on this one. (Also, the composition lacks focus.) There is something, though, about sunset light which gives interesting effects which are worth exploring. For example, New Forest pony. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Too bad about the pixels... else I find this an awesome picture (and I'm not sure why you'd compare it to that pony? This picture is quite a different league ^^) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, pony was in poor light, maximum zoom, just trying out what the camera would do. My reference was not to the subject, but to the effects of sunset light creating a different set of effects. So on the pony, compare the shadow foreground in cold frost with the "on fire" background in setting sunlight. That's where the illustration of the light is. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I removed ianaré's FPX from this spot because it no longer applies: the image is of adequate size now. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I made an update of the image with 22,3428 megapixel and I added a geolocation tag to this image's info page. Please have a look on it.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Aye, how about 2,2 mpx instead of 22,3428 mpx ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry! It's a careless mistake.--Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful picture - Álvaro Morales — Preceding unsigned comment added by Álvaro Morales (talk • contribs) 11:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please sign your comments and votes by typing the following: --~~~~ You do not actually type out your own user name; the four tildes do that. Thanks! --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment in the new version you increased contrast, by doing this you lost quite some details in the pic. I recommend that you upload the original version with a higher resolution. The composition of the pic is nice. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose For the reasons given above I have to oppose. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info You say there is a loss of details in the pic because I increased contrast. But there are very small details like the sea of blossoms in many different colours. The high contrast is important for this pic. Let me explain. Please take the lowest resolution of your monitor and enlarge the file; that is the best way to see the pic in great detail. You see contrasting colours: red and green as a complementary pair and black and white (yellow, orange or green) as a light and dark contrast. This light and dark contrast is important for the image: it points the sunny light of the spring. The dark lattice from the trunks, branches and twigs between the light colours in the upper part of the image recollect me on paintings of Jackson Pollock like this. The lower part with the green gras and red reed and the golden reflections on the water remembers me on paintings with brushstrokes. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a matter of taste. Either way, I also fall into the category of those who enjoyed the original colors. The colors now don't have the same easy and delicate charme anymore; they look loud and much less interesting to me. I can see your point that some painters use a similar technique and produce outstanding paintings... but anyways, for me the stronger colors don't work on this picture. If you could upload the high-resolution image with the more delicate colors, I'm still ready to support it. (If I shouldn't do that, please remind me on my user page. Thanks.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I would have supported if it was not of the (terrible) image quality of the grass --S23678 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Two male giraffes are necking in San Francisco Zoo.jpg
Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 16:00:19
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, awesome micro-giraffe! ;) --Aqwis (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- not really useful. This is done in captivity --Luc Viatour (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support strange looking mantis --ianaré (talk) 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Paris 16 (talk) 07:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Hey, proof of aliens! Wait, you want to say that it's an earthly creature?!? ;) --SuperJew (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice composition. The glowing of the limb on the lower part looks a bit artificial....which it is I guess :) But it is still ok for me. --AngMoKio (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fantastic. Could you also upload a slightly compressed version for us with slow internet?--Muhammad (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Polyborus plancus sonora 3.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2009 at 16:41:16
- Info created by nature, photographed, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment geolocation done. Thanks for your support. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Passes muster for me. There is some chromatic aberration, though, especially on the left side of the bird. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support shows bird and cactus well, better than the first one posted --ianaré (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 20:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose What can I see? Not a whole bird, not a whole cactus, no context (background). Sorry: no. --Eryakaas (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good composition.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. The sunset also adds nicely. --SuperJew (talk) 07:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, chromatic aberration, no wow. —kallerna™ 16:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noise is what bothers me the most, but composition is also strange (as per Eryakaas). --Yerpo (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral very well spotted and in general a very nice pic. Something bugs me though...i think those 3 cut-off cactuses. Maybe a tighter crop would be better, but I am also not really sure. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry Tomas, but I think this can be done better. One bird and one cactus against a clear blue sky, and I'll support. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Glaciers and Icebergs at Cape York.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 00:13:47
- Info The image was taken from a helicopter through a glass, and a photographer (me) was wearing not only polar parka, but also a life jacket (more than clumsy). So may I please ask you to be gentle? :)
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It looks very similar to your old nomination by Walter 2 years ago. What's new ?--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, Richard. The image was cropped, sharpened, the levels were ajusted and yes, the image was downsampled, oh and you were still Makro Freak back then :).Forget the most important thing - New is that now I am reacting on oppose votes in much more civil manner than I did back in 2007 :) --Mbz1 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good quality for a challenging shot. --Notyourbroom (talk) 04:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice --High Contrast (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Agree with Notyourbroom, but lack of sharpness at the left and right borders is a problem... -- MJJR (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It's a good picture, but it's not sharp enough for me..--HouseGhostDiscussion 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very impressive and rare photo. I agree with Notyourbroom. —kallerna™ 13:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support brrrr --ianaré (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support amazing --Zakharii 13:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Centruroides infamatus 02 april 2009.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 01:55:29
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, I finally caught a decent sized one... fascinating creatures.. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Abstain Focus is unfortunate—bits of the anatomy are blurry, sadly including the distal point of the right lateral pedipalp. (Sorry, had a wikipedia-moment there :) I mean the tip of the right claw.) I'm not a macro-guy, though, so I'll refrain from voting. :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support High-quality photograph. —kallerna™ 13:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 06:57:10
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Yerpo (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry Luc, the image is too noisy. The colours are excellent though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW --Ahnode (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Spot on the sensor (poussières sur le capteur). --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- c'est corrigé --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Israel Aereal Ropeway Masada BW 1.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 09:20:09
- Info created - uploaded - nominated -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Israel, Aereal Ropeway Masada -- Berthold Werner (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- SupportGreat picture of a great subject--SuperJew (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made edit with bit more contrast. —kallerna™ 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- CommentI like the edited version more. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. --Yerpo (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per SuperJew --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, great place.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good perspective --S23678 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Formel3 racing car 2 amk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:35:35
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Panning shot of a Formula 3 racing car.
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support loverly --SuperJew (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Eragon96 (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good panning. --Yerpo (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Andrei S. (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well done! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Tainan Streetscene amk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 11:45:32
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Street scene of Tainan. The stripes of the cars are intended to be there, they are meant to underline this kind of ugly urban surrounding in which this beautiful temple somehow doesn't really fit. It is a bit experimental - I agree, but I thought I give it a try. :-)
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice effect, sharp --ianaré (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, looks like a snapshot to me. —kallerna™ 13:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Emotional Photo HBR (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the light trails are not an added value to the image IMO. --S23678 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Tulipani.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 12:05:18
- Info created by Shaw - uploaded by Shaw - nominated by Shaw -- Shaw (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Shaw (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the background, back tulip and back of the fore tulip are not sharp --SuperJew (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - distracting background. --Yerpo (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose cluttered composition --ianaré (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Yerpo & ianaré. —kallerna™ 13:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wires (tehran).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 19:56:42
- Info created by Farzaaaad2000 - uploaded by Farzaaaad2000 - nominated by Farzaaaad2000 -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd composition, no clear subject (pole? wires? clouds?), pole is tilted CW, no "wow" for me --Notyourbroom (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose "This media file is uncategorized." —kallerna™ 13:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- really just for uncategorized??!!!!!--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Point two of the image page requirements on the list of official image guidelines does say images must be properly categorized... (It says "Quality images," but as I understand it, the guidelines apply to both QI and FP.) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ok it is now categorized!!:)--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Great :) I saw there was no category for power lines in Iran so I made one and recategorized your image into it. I also made an energy in Iran category as a supercategory. --Notyourbroom (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- ok it is now categorized!!:)--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Point two of the image page requirements on the list of official image guidelines does say images must be properly categorized... (It says "Quality images," but as I understand it, the guidelines apply to both QI and FP.) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- really just for uncategorized??!!!!!--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Farzaaaad, please do iron the flag of Tehran and take another photo of it. --Ahnode (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Although I try to limit my utilization of "no wow"... well, no wow at all. --S23678 (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Arbres givrés w.b.c.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 23:17:17
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Yann (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Yann (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very nice Ezarate (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose If this is meant to illustrate frost on trees, it runs into difficulty, because the well-lit portions of the trees are too far away to make out in any detail. The tree in the top-left corner in particular feels out of focus. Also, too much of the image is underlit for my tastes; it just feels like it was the wrong time of day for this shot. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, the details are missing, but I like the light.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the yellowish light (the original image was better IMO) As well, the foreground is distracting. --S23678 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support its truly beautiful shot with charming winter lights and frost against the sunshine. It can illustrate any article dealing on winter and climatic topics or about this area of France (but add the detailed location into description.) --Zakharii 12:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Detailed location added in the description. Yann (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Original, not featured
[edit]- Support Yann (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Je suis désolé. Bien que je trouve que cette édition de la photo est meilleure, je maintiens mon commentaire sur l'avant-plan. --S23678 (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:IslaMujeres.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2009 at 19:55:31
- Info created by Ezarate - uploaded by Ezarate - nominated by User:Ezarate -- Ezarate (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarate (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Feels overexposed. Also, the image lacks a main subject and is full of distractions—there are many palm fronds up close on the left side of the image, a scattering of tree trunks in the middle, and then a mostly-obscured boats-and-ocean scene in the far background, not to mention a partially-blocked man on the left. As a general illustration of this area, this picture is fine, but it doesn't have the kind of focused impact I would expect from a FP. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Notyourbroom. —kallerna™ 13:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 13:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow. --S23678 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Notyourbroom. Overexposed and no real focus. Paranomia (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. —kallerna™ 11:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Inachis io on Salix caprea.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 23:42:58
- Info c/u/n by Richard Bartz (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info European Peacock butterfly (Inachis io) pollinating a Pussy Willow (Salix caprea)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support I'm glad I woke up today, because it means I got to see this picture. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support Good reason to wake up --SuperJew (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Doucus (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Mainly because of composition (butterflies are not effective pollinators though) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Another excellent image. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support quite exquisite --Zakharii 18:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 16:40:43
- Info Second panorama try. The sea at Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal, last weekend. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment This looks very nice, but given how easy it is to insert a few horizontal guides in the proper panoramic stitching software at the very least the horizon should be straight. --Dschwen (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, maybe I need some device. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- What program did you use to assemble the images? --Dschwen (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- I used Hugin and tried to put the horizon straight. The problem is the simulation has nothing to do with the final result. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Check out how vertical and horizontal guides work. This tutorial is about vertcial guides, but it applies to horizontal guides (which are needed in this picture). If you use those hugin will level and straighten your horizon automatically without further mucking around. Very helpful! --Dschwen (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Thanks, Daniel. I have upoladed a new version on top of the original in which a very small cw tilt was also corrected. Yes, the horizon still looks a bit curved but I think that most of it is an optical illusion caused by the rest of the geometry. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Most of it is actually caused by undercorrected barrel distortion of your lens. And proper usage of horizontal guides would have taken care of this. I can only warmly advise you to look into this if you want to make you life easier and your panoramics better. The amount of work would have been the same or even less than trying to fiddle with just the rotation, but as added benefit your bent horizon would have been straightened as well. --Dschwen (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please feel free to try. I did it several times, with little success. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Most of it is actually caused by undercorrected barrel distortion of your lens. And proper usage of horizontal guides would have taken care of this. I can only warmly advise you to look into this if you want to make you life easier and your panoramics better. The amount of work would have been the same or even less than trying to fiddle with just the rotation, but as added benefit your bent horizon would have been straightened as well. --Dschwen (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! That tutorial will be very helpful to me as well. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Yes, maybe I need some device. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 21:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nothing special IMHO. —kallerna™ 12:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Kallerna. As well. some technical issues (curved horizon). --S23678 (talk) 02:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral for now (pending technical issue) --Klaus with K (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A good photo. Its a bit dark but that is due to the landscape only. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great work --Zakharii 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Kallerna --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Fritillaria meleagris LJ barje2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 13:45:56
- Info Snake's Head Fritillary (Fritillaria meleagris) on Ljubljana marsh, Slovenia. Created, uploaded and nominated by Yerpo
- Support -- Yerpo (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nice flower --ianaré (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very, very beautiful. Could you add EXIF-data? —kallerna™ 13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the EXIF-data got lost when I edited the image. Is there any way to copy it manually from the original? --Yerpo (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Copy and paste the edited image over the original, crop (when necessary ), save a copy, reupload and be done with it. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Nifty trick, thanks. --Yerpo (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Awesome! That's a neat solution. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Copy and paste the edited image over the original, crop (when necessary ), save a copy, reupload and be done with it. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the EXIF-data got lost when I edited the image. Is there any way to copy it manually from the original? --Yerpo (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Andrei S. (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Eleassar (t/p) 08:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - The image is too busy and the background colours are distracting, Also, sharpness of the main subject is far from excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good picture. ---donald- (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support — MZaplotnik (my contribs) 16:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Mixed feelings. I like the composition, but the colors lack a bit of saturation IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 23:51:34
- Info c/u/n --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info 1 MW of Green Energy. Feed of river power plant Isar 3, Munich, Germany
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I wish there were more sky, though. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Composition isn't perfect but the quality is. —kallerna™ 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Great quality, but lacks of composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice, but a bit more sky would have been nice. --High Contrast (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically great, but the composition does not pay off. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 06:28:45
- Info created by JürgenMatern - uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- High Contrast (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- * Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--HouseGhostDiscussion 20:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- I added the Template:location possible tag. HBR (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, good—I didn't know that template existed. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Added the location JürgenMatern (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, good—I didn't know that template existed. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- I added the Template:location possible tag. HBR (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support but is good -- HBR (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very nice --S23678 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Laeken Se1aJPG.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2009 at 22:58:03
- Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT 22:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done Geolocation added -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support :)--Notyourbroom (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This idea works well (and you are fortunate to have such an excellent example of this kind of roof available to you). Some might complain about "cropping", but that is no problem here. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. The shot is slightly off-center and the trees are distracting. A larger crop with stitching may have helped to include the trees. --S23678 (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry, but those tree crowns really break the harmony of your composition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose —kallerna™ 11:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs better symmetry. Lycaon (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 10:32:54
- Info created by Radu Ana Maria - uploaded by Radu Ana Maria - nominated by Andrei Stroe -- Andrei Stroe (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Andrei Stroe (talk) 10:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- I love it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great composition. —kallerna™ 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I would support a cropped version (remove more from the off-focus beam on the extreme right) --S23678 (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Support Wow. --Aktron (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Vote added after close of voting period. Maedin\talk 16:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Cropped version, not featured
[edit]Info This is a cropped version of the image, as suggested by S23678.Andrei S. (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S23678 (talk) 12:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is it! --SvonHalenbach (talk) 08:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 17:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Psetta maxima Luc Viatour.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 13:41:19
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very high quality --SuperJew (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 22:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great photo. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Professional! --Zakharii 11:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 16:46:45
- Info created by Hinchliff - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Exquisite --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Would you believe I found the book this was in at a charity shop for £2? (About US $3)? It's a nice copy of the Heptameron too, which I'm looking forward to reading through. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Peripitus (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Arena di Verona esterno.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 17:05:04
- Info created by Kiban - uploaded by Kiban - nominated by Kiban -- Kiban (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kiban (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request Please add a geolocation tag to this image's info page if possible. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Done, thanks for the tip. --Kiban (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurry on dark areas, chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 12:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Verticals should be vertical. The shadows on the building spoils the view as well. --S23678 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose dark shadows.--Avala (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Fagus sylvatica Purpurea JPG4a.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 17:42:04
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice atmosphere and colours. --Lošmi (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support First thought was, that the DOF could be better, but it fits --Simonizer (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice colours indeed but the DOF could be better and there is too much light. Maybe with a slight levels adjustement? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I made an edited version. —kallerna™ 13:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice! Reminds me of Seraut Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Messy at thumbnail size, but very clear at full size. --S23678 (talk) 03:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --James J. Ludemann (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support There is something bucolic in this photo that catches my attention (and support too). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 12:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Carrillondenoche.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 20:20:11
- Info created by USERNAME - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- Ezarate (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Ezarate (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose the lamp ruins it, it´s noisy and unsharp. --Andreas 06 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is noisy, unsharp and distorted. MER-C 10:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Opolska Wenecja nocą1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 20:35:07
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Andrei Stroe (talk) 22:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Is it downsampled? Could you fix chromatic aberration? —kallerna™ 13:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- In my opinion CA is ok, but I uploaded new version --Pudelek (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nothing major, but an accumulation of little things : the trees on the right side are masking the most beautiful building, the church in the background is too dark, and there could have been more reflections in the water (or less, but not in between like right now). --S23678 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 08:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose have to agree with S23678. The pic would have been much better if there would be more of the reflection visible. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose don't like composition. Too tightly cropped. --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with S23678. The angle on this is unfortunate, and the lights are too harsh. Maedin\talk 12:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Robert De Niro KVIFF portrait.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 22:00:28
- Info created by Che - uploaded by Che - nominated by Pro2 -- Pro2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I have seen this picture allready at the german wikipedia featured picture candidates site. Really great --Simonizer (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support very good portrait. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Lošmi (talk) 22:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great actor, great portrait. --AngMoKio (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great actor, great portrait. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Per my vote at German FPC --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great actor, great portrait. Rocket000 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Unsigned vote by Avala. Maedin\talk 12:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Sunset Mirage and green blue flashes 1-11-09.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2009 at 22:55:16
- Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Mock mirage of the setting sun with w:green flashes and w:sunspot in the first frame
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Could you please provide an explanation for the sequence? Note: the images are tilted. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comment. Before I'll explain the sequence may I please ask you, if all images are tilted or only some of them? I uploaded a new version. I hope I corrected the tilte.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Green flash that most of you propably have never seen is a sight to behold. Here's what Jules Verne wrote about green flashes:
"it will be ' green,' but a most wonderful green, a green which no artist could ever obtain on his palette, a green which neither the varied tints of vegetation nor the shades of the most limpid sea could ever produce the like ! If there be green in Paradise, it cannot but be of this shade, which most surely is the true green of Hope!
the incomparable tint of liquid jade"
Anyway I'd like to provide some explanation that was written by Dr. Andrew Young about my sequence:
"I think that really is a short duct, with the Sun becoming visible in the duct more quickly than one usually sees. Thanks for assembling this nice sequence! The sunset lasted quite long, didn't it? The optical path through the air is very great at the end; the images become more and more distorted by irregularities in the refraction -- both waves and turbulence."
Of course he wrote it for me, who knows at least someting about green flashes and mirages. I'd like to add that all images in the nominated sequence were taken during the same sunset and show nicely how the shape of the sun is changing in the process. If you'd like to ask more specific questions, please do. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Green flash that most of you propably have never seen is a sight to behold. Here's what Jules Verne wrote about green flashes:
- Thank you for your comment. Before I'll explain the sequence may I please ask you, if all images are tilted or only some of them? I uploaded a new version. I hope I corrected the tilte.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Thanks for the explanations. The picture is too cluttered, less than half of the images would probably be enough to illustrate the phenomenon. Also, all of them should be perfectly aligned both horizontally and vertically. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- If I only knew you were going to oppose the image anyway, I would have never ever provided an explanation :) :) Thank you for your vote and your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Yes, yes, yes! This may be the best photo of the green flash ever taken. All the pictures are necessary to really illustrate the phenomenon. --James J. Ludemann (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I support both. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This one is better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Poor quality: individual pictures are only a fraction of size requirement!! Lycaon (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Lycaon!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1 Development of Green Flash, featured
[edit]- Info I'm often asked how I know, wnen to press my shutter in order to catch a green flash. Here's the answer. I know, when green flash is coming.
- Info The image could also be used for games to exercise attention. You know, like try to find the differences between two images :)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support So beautiful. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I like it and think it has a lot of educational value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 11:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Poor quality: individual pictures are only a fraction of size requirement!! Lycaon (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Welcome back, Lycaon!--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Phoenicopterus ruber (head).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 03:56:26
- Info created by Lycaon - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by Notyourbroom -- Notyourbroom (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support We've seen giraffes, scorpions, and puppies recently, but how about a good ol' flamingo (Phoenicopterus ruber)? I've never seen one's head in such detail as this. -- Notyourbroom (talk) 03:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose distracting background (blends in with beak), could be sharper --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral While I enjoy the image (the beak doesn't blend into the background very much) I feel that there is too much space above and to the right of the bird. The picture would have been great if the framing was shifted. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per ianaré. —kallerna™ 11:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough for FP. Lycaon (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Surfer in california 2.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 04:34:29
- Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by wadester16 - nominated by Specious -- Specious (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Specious (talk) 04:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'm no good at surfing, but I can appreciate the poetry of this picture. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! The another version is great also. —kallerna™ 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Thanks a lot, Specious for nominating of my image.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No problem! It never seems to work when I nominate my own anyway :) It's an impressive shot! --Specious (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, and another version seems more interesting --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Only Mila can take images of such quality! --Leoboudv (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
A surfer at the wave.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]- Info Here's an alternative, except the community would vote to feature both images. IMO the first image is more about surfer while the second one is more about surfing :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I suggest that you make separate pages, because both of these could be featured IMO. —kallerna™ 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I created a separate page.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Where is it? There's nothing on the candidates list for this image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it deppends how you're going to vote. If you are to support, it is right here, if you are to oppose, I do not know where it is. :) It is 3.19 on candidates list, but maybe I've done something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment No. I mean you'll have to make a new nomination just for this image and physically copy all of the votes over; at the moment it's still classed as part of the original nomination. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it deppends how you're going to vote. If you are to support, it is right here, if you are to oppose, I do not know where it is. :) It is 3.19 on candidates list, but maybe I've done something wrong.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Where is it? There's nothing on the candidates list for this image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- May I physically copy only support votes please? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Open the candidates list, click edit and scroll down. This picture has no entry. The one above does, but not this one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- You'll know it's right when the (currently black) title text is blue and hyperlinked to the nomination. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Open the candidates list, click edit and scroll down. This picture has no entry. The one above does, but not this one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support besser --Böhringer (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose too dark --ianaré (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made bit lighter version. —kallerna™ 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- new nomination added just below--Mbz1 (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured - withdrawn by nominator. Richard Bartz (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Mantis Ephestiasula sp Luc Viatour .jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 06:24:35
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 06:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Odd green...(?) Have you done something to the colours? —kallerna™ 13:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful, but noisy. And also funny blur effect. --Ahnode (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing color, focus, movement --James J. Ludemann (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Wow! Վազգեն (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Oceana RadioHH.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 08:05:00
- Info created and uploaded by ChrisHamburg - nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Found it on German FPC and think it is a great concert pic -- AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Pro2 (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 19:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Porto Covo April 2009-6.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 12:47:28
- Info Sheltering from the noon sun at Porto Covo, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A really photogenic street you have there. I still remember your first nomination from that street, which I also liked (wow..it is already over 2 years ago) --AngMoKio (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Two years!... Not a street, it is a corner of the main square of the village (see geolocation) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request As a courtesy to the nominator, please explain why you have voted your opposition to the promotion of this image. Note that the voting instructions request that you provide an explanation for votes of opposition. Thank you. --Notyourbroom (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your concern, but as Alvesgaspar has said before, I am not forced to. --Ahnode (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, cutoff tree --Muhammad (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nothing special IMHO. —kallerna™ 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Since it's more of an artistic shot our evaluation can be more subjective. The street is quite photogenic, as said above. However, I don't think that the man with the umbrella is an added value to the image. --S23678 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 20:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I agree with Kallerna. Maedin\talk 12:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Dancing Tchaikovsky DSCF2668.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 13:10:19
- Info created - uploaded & nominated by Tmaurizia -- 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia 13:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Very nice Чайко́вский dancing . I am sorry to say but this isn't photocommunity here - a proper and serious image name (species, location) should be choosen for a FP candidature. Temporary Oppose for the image name. --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Once again, learning the Cyrillic alphabet has paid off for me :) --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition --Ahnode (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - I agree with Ahnode. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Composition --alpinus5 (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per others. —kallerna™ 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Courtship Dance of Laysan Albatrosses Phoebastria immutabilis at Midway Atoll.OGG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 15:59:12
- Info created,uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment nice dance, only the colors are a bit washed out. Wouldn't it be possible to color corrent the video? --che 09:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating behaviour! The colours are a bit washed out, I agree, and the camera does move, but the angle is great and the sound is clear. Maedin\talk 18:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Torre Belém April 2009-1.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 17:28:34
- Info The Tower of Belém was built in the 16th century, under King Manuel I, to commemorate the expedition of Vasco da Gama to India. It is located in Lisbon, close to the Monastery of Jerónimos and to the Monument to the Portuguese Discoveries. Everything by -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Centered composition does not work for me--Muhammad (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)- Neutral Upon further consideration, not enough of a reason to oppose. --Muhammad (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I quite enjoy this image. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like it. Tight crop on the bottom is suboptimal --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- That is difficult to avoid due to the presence of a low wall surrounding the area (but you know of it, of course!) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- The surrounding wall can easily be part of the composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Addition - Without tide the viewpoint wouldn't be bad, btw. nice clone twins you have - noticed at the last four visitors on the left side --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, there was a congress on identical twins running that day. Join the joys of stitching panoramas with moving subjets! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- :-) Yes! that's tough ! --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The surrounding wall can easily be part of the composition --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Richard Bartz. —kallerna™ 13:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Richard --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose with regrets, obvious horizontal stitch line esp. visible on the left-hand wall of the tower, whose top half is greyer and bottom half is pinker... (look at the railing of the balcony there...)--JY REHBY (discuter) 02:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)- Done -- Quite right, the stitching line was fixed. But there are also variations in the colour of the stone -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support then, thanks --JY REHBY (discuter) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done -- Quite right, the stitching line was fixed. But there are also variations in the colour of the stone -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think it's very nice --S23678 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose clone twins / stitching mistake see crop (by de:Benutzer:Devilsanddust) --Umschattiger (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Luminosity is not the best. Most likely due to the partially overcast day. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Improved version above, where the issues raised here were addressed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn Maedin\talk 15:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Josef Moroder Lusenberg death mask.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 17:33:10
- Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- alpinus5 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- alpinus5 (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but although light and focus are ok I don't understand why it should be featured. --S. Martín (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support I always liked these weird memento mori things, and it's useful for encyclopedic discussion of such subjects. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Santiago Martín. —kallerna™ 11:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Unlike S. Martín, I think this could be worthy as an FP. Unfortunately, I think this is noisy and the death mask has been unfortunately placed in a corner for the photograph? Maedin\talk 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Lake Sevan with Sevanavank.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 17:57:15
- Info created by Panoramio user a-rubenyan - uploaded by Serouj - nominated by Serouj -- Serouj (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Serouj (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Strong support -- WOW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Man of I-Mages (talk • contribs) 15 April 2009, 18:37 (UTC)
- Support -- Stunning. Fedayee (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Ahnode (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry, but it's just a lake with a blue sky and a rather poor composition. --Aqwis (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Aqwis. —kallerna™ 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Aqwis.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice view, but not enough for FP. --S23678 (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus, composition and treatment of the subject. --S. Martín (talk) 12:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support Very serene --Zakharii 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Nice reflection of the clouds on the water. Վազգեն (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a nice view, for sure, but it's mostly sky and water. A whole lot of blue and not a lot else . . . I can't see the value in the "subject" here? Maedin\talk 19:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Froidfontaine JPG01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 18:27:01
- Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT - nominated by Man of iMages -- Man of iMages (Let's do the iTalk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man of iMages (Let's do the iTalk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Watermark. --QWerk (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info -- Less Watermark Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, noise. --Ahnode (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special. —kallerna™ 13:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and light. --S. Martín (talk) 12:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support --Zakharii 13:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support WOW! The sky, the grass and the horses are looking really good. --Aktron (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor composition (horizon, one horse obscuring the other), not a particularly good subject, and unsharp. Maedin\talk 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Centuri DSCF4208.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 18:55:01
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by Tmaurizia -- Tmaurizia (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tmaurizia (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question -- should do for a nice postcard --alpinus5 (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, nothing special IMHO, bad name. —kallerna™ 13:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Messy composition --S23678 (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Lighting, colors, composition, quality... --S. Martín (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose Not unique/special. --Korman (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Composition and general view could be better without the boat and all these balcony objects. I am sure that location on wonderful Corse offers many other good sceneries. Just the harbour view could be fantastic there. --Zakharii 18:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Haight-Ashbury street, San Francisco.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2009 at 21:29:02
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Ahnode (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- OpposeFarzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Weedheads will like it. Do you have more info ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, sorry, too snapshotty. --Aqwis (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Avala (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not/ featured. Maedin\talk 15:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Fly Agaric mushroom 04 cropped.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 08:52:21
- Info created by Tony Wills (cropped by Miraceti) - uploaded by Miraceti - nominated by Miraceti -- Miraceti (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support The image is a losslessly cropped version of already featured picture. It is cropped because the original composition was not the best in my opinion. It was also a point of several comments during its nomination. -- Miraceti (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Nice picture Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - --Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sidenote: It might have been better when you have presented the edit during the nomination. I don't like the centered composition. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I do not understand. Where it should not be presented and where should?
- I ment presenting the edit during this nomination, 3 weeks ago. When your edit get's featured (which I hope not), we have 2 identical FP's, where we have to delist a brandnew FP - which is strange. Why not withdraw this nomination and put your edit as --> |other_versions <-- into the image description ? here is a example--Richard Bartz (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- At that time, I did not know that image existed. I am not so interested in Commons. I founded it quite acccidently. Originally I just wanted to upload a better version as I did several times before. This was not possible since it is a FP.
- It looks to me strange that worse version should be a FP and better one not. Miraceti (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I ment presenting the edit during this nomination, 3 weeks ago. When your edit get's featured (which I hope not), we have 2 identical FP's, where we have to delist a brandnew FP - which is strange. Why not withdraw this nomination and put your edit as --> |other_versions <-- into the image description ? here is a example--Richard Bartz (talk) 12:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- I kept a pileus into a third line. The problem was with stipe. There is no much options where to put a single vertical line when the whole object is a shape of letter T. Miraceti (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this crop does actually look better (which is probably why I didn't simply do a close-up centred shot of the mushroom in the first place :-). The original composition isn't exactly perfect ;-), but I was trying to create a shot that showed as much detail (cap, gills, stalk/stipe, ring etc) as possible plus the context in which it was growing. Perhaps when my photographic education is more complete, I may appreciate your version more :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 03:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Tony's is better and already featured. I don't understand this nomination. --S. Martín (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose Original was better. --James J. Ludemann (talk) 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, already featured. --Aqwis (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 5 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Thuin Fo7JPG.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 09:05:51
- Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - nominated by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 09:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Cluttered, chaotic and with an unclear composition and focus, the picture appears more of a snapshot for local tourism, rather than an FP. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Also, save yourself some time by putting 'Created, uploaded and nominated by [[User:Jean-Pol GRANDMONT|Jean-Pol GRANDMONT]] -- ~~~~'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Compositon, low quality for EOS 350D. —kallerna™ 13:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, lightning, the white sky, the cropped kid... --S. Martín (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose Way too much noise. A low quality image. --Korman (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Its quite a special event but composition and the atmosphere does not make it attractive. Never thought that procession could involve something like that. Did Saint Roch live in this town? I wrote an article about him in my language. --Zakharii 18:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Cygnus atratus JPG1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 12:35:34
- Info created by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - uploaded by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) - nominated by Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC) -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but the image quality is far from excellent (sharpening noise and artefacts, light - details - ). --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per R. Bartz, distracting background. —kallerna™ 13:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird sharpening, composition and disturbing background. --S. Martín (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Grand-Reng JPG04.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 12:53:35
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Red poppy is almost always nice but I have to say that the composition is average. --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality, composition, nothing special. —kallerna™ 16:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's nice and colorful, but the composition isn't great. Aside from that, the bottom-right corner is rather dark. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition --S23678 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition. --S. Martín (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Berg der Seligpreisungen BW 2.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 13:17:36
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Mount of beatitudes and Sea of Galilee -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I like the silhouette of the railings, and the composition. Just wondering, however, if you have a version without the tree on the left and more of Chinnereth? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Although I like the idea of incorporating the building in the composition, I feel there's too much of the building (especially the right side, with that ugly wall). Can you arrange your nomination to have a better balance? --S23678 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit (cropped), not featured
[edit]- Support Mount of beatitudes and Sea of Galilee -- Berthold Werner
- Oppose Main subject of the picture is neither the sea nor the mount but the balcony, and I think it is not a remarkable view of that balcony. --S. Martín (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support Looks better after the crop! And its good quality, colors, shadows. Columns also fit well against the background. Locality is also quite special - I had a chance to be there, its truly beautiful place!. --Zakharii 12:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I think I spot some chromatic aberration. Check pillar and railings on the left. Please correct me if I am I wrong? Maedin\talk 19:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Only just, though. I was going to vote Neutral. Much better, but still not quite there for my preference.I think you could still have got enough of the shadow of the railings, which is a good feature, while moving forward a little to get more of the lake and less of the tree on the left. Was this the only shot you took at this location? Or were the others the same composition and different exposure rather than alternative composition? -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I have three pictures of different exposures, but same composition. --91.9.248.43 07:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
File:A surfer at the wave.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 16:53:06
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)--Richard Bartz (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)- Support I suggest that you make separate pages, because both of these could be featured IMO. —kallerna™ 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you. I created a separate page.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support besser --Böhringer (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose too dark --ianaré (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I made bit lighter version. —kallerna™ 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment That was a marathon ;). I would have done it myself, but the nomination needed to be signed by you. And yes, I will support, after I get home and have a chance to look at both versions on my proper 24' LCD. This CRT at work is rubbish. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:A surfer at the wave edit.jpg Edit by Kallerna ,featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support In what one must take part with you. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support viel besser --Böhringer (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support much better --ianaré (talk) 02:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support After viewing at home, Kallerna's edit makes a great shot into an outstanding one. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Grand Canyon of Yellowstonen.jpg, withdrawn
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 14:35:36
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -It's underexposed, overall quality is ... oh well --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Richard. I guess at this point the only thing that is left to me is to thank you for not spelling out "oh well" :)--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really do like it. I can do better edit of this file if you want. —kallerna™ 13:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. Don't you think that ALT1 down below has a better light for you to work with? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is my edit of this file. I'll make another from ALT1. —kallerna™ 07:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, go ahead. Don't you think that ALT1 down below has a better light for you to work with? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Richard --AngMoKio (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kallerna--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 of original by Kallerna, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, withdrawn
[edit]- Support Any better?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not really --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you, Richard. I uploaded a new edit over the one you reviewed.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --AngMoKio (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I made edit of this file. —kallerna™ 07:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Kallerna--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 from Alt 1 by Kallerna, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Edit 1 of Original, not featured
[edit]- Info Shadows lifted to show details.
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Thank you, Muhammad!--Mbz1 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, extremely artificial-looking. --Aqwis (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose just a little more sun and it would have been perfect. sorry --ianaré (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry for opposing all 3 but you really have to take care with post-processing. It seems to me that you always make the same things to give the sky more drama (or the pic in general). This doesn't improve your pics imho. Maybe it is just your monitor that doesn't show you the "truth". --AngMoKio (talk) 23:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support It looks good on my monitor. --Ltshears (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 13:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like this is the best edit so far, but I still have problems with it. There is significant chromatic aberration in the distant trees, and almost no focus. I'm having trouble finding a single element in the photograph that is actually sharp. Sorry, because otherwise, it's stunning. Maedin\talk 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:E-2C VAW-115 CV-63 2007.JPEG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 18:06:15
- Info created by US Navy - uploaded by Cobatfor - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support While some may complain of an "unfortunate crop", this is a worthy picture of an unusual subject, and the composition works well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 21:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, though it's a shame parts of the wings are cut off. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Wow! But then again - "unfortunate crop" (;)) and bit blurry & noisy. Sorry. —kallerna™ 13:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Kallerna --AngMoKio (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Kallerna. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, difficult photo, impossible to reshoot --James J. Ludemann (talk) 10:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Really, really cool. --norro 11:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good composition, unique image. --Korman (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Balloon over Luxor - Egypt.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2009 at 21:36:38
- Info created by Marcosleal - uploaded by Marcosleal - nominated by Marcosleal -- Marcos (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Marcos (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice, but yet another sunset, and very little details (the balloon is black, such as the bottom third of the picture) --S23678 (talk) 03:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Just a silhouette and a sunset. Its composition is quite unbalanced and it shows too much grain. --S. Martín (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support eye-catching --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I think it't not yet another sunset, frankly there are quite few sunset nominations, it's mostly flowers, insects and birds :). I like this image, but it's a bit noisy. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great shot...not too noisy for me --AngMoKio (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I'll support denoised alternative. —kallerna™ 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Alternative, featured
[edit]- Info - Noise removed -- Pro2 (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - I really like the picture! -- Pro2 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great shot..that's also ok for me --AngMoKio (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great work, much better. /Daniel78 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I was prepared to oppose, but then I viewed it full size. It is really a very stunning image. Maedin\talk 19:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Leiocephalus carinatus armouri tree.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 00:26:08
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- ianaré (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Northern curly-tail (Leiocephalus carinatus armouri) -- ianaré (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 04:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 07:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Paris 16 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Peripitus (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --S. Martín (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lizard is a pretty cool guy. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bartz would be a sharper, but it's ok --Böhringer (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I didn't use a tripod. Besides, not everyone is as talented as he is ;-) --ianaré (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support /Daniel78 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I rarely pile on, but this is nice, the background makes the shot. --Dori - Talk 21:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Cappadocia March 2006.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 02:58:40
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Peripitus (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I like the composition and especially the light, but I think that volumes don't look as good as they could because of an excess of mid tones. --S. Martín (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support - Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Kiinnostava & arvokas kuva. —kallerna™ 13:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support interesting subject, great composition, nice lighting --ianaré (talk) 14:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support It does everything right. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 17:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per everyone. --Notyourbroom (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Great view! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- very very nice Shaon82 (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
* Support I think we have next year's POTY right here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Support But my vote no longer counts... Will I be punished? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)Sorry, too late, but your votes will always count for me. :) Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Larus delawarensis portrait.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 03:39:33
- Info created by Ianare - uploaded by Ianare - nominated by Gnangarra -- Gnangarra 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Although I think it will look better with a slightly warmer white balance. --S. Martín (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Support Well done. —kallerna™ 13:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support thank you for the nomination Gnangarra. --ianaré (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, the centered composition does not fit this picture, and the head is out-of-focus. --Aqwis (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not that interesting composition, and details could be better. --Dori - Talk 21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Canard colvert femelle 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created by Username - uploaded by Username - nominated by Username --Bgag (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Bgag (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Mid tones (poor volume) and confusing background. --S. Martín (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC).
- Oppose, too much clutter. --Aqwis (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
* Support --Avala (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC) per 5th day
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Frozen River (Leh-India).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 08:02:27
- Info created by Kumar vivek - uploaded by Kumar vivek - nominated by Kumar vivek -- Kumar vivek (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kumar vivek (talk) 08:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose It has strange blurry dots... Water drops on the lens? --S. Martín (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, low quality. Otherwise nice. —kallerna™ 13:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per blurriness, mostly. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues and foreground --S23678 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:School of jacjs.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 16:06:02
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info This is an underwater image taken in the wild.
- Comment If you are to oppose, please first find a fish that swims in opposite direction. Maybe while you're looking for this fish you would change your mind and support the image. :) Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support *Falls off chair in awe* You've outdone yourself, sir. :O Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment And yes, I've found the fish. I wish it was bigger, but it's just such a cool picture I can forgive that. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come on you have not yet look at the image on you 24" monitor. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that it looks good on this tired relic of a computer means that it must be an awesome shot. So I have no qualms about supporting. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Come on you have not yet look at the image on you 24" monitor. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info The image was taken with my 2 megapixels poin-and-shot Sony. So it is the original size.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good, especially considering the difficult conditions. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, despite the 4 fish swimming in the opposite direction that I found so far, and the one in diagonal... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, otherwise really cool picture, but unfortunately low quality. —kallerna™ 07:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment One thing is picture quality and another thing is pixel count. Low pixel count is not necesarily low quality, nor high pixel count means high quality. Several factors determine what is quality. One such factor would be final reproduction size. If this image were to be reproduced in a 16x20 inch format, yes, as far as printed resolution it would exhibit a quality problem. If however, the final repoducion would be 5x7, or even 8x10, the picture would not exibit quality resolution problems because the human eye could not resolve pixels at that level anyway. I think that to pass judment on the quality issue one must really take into account the different variables applicable to the image and its intention, its intended reproduction size and photographic quality and merit. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, low-resolution pictures should be very sharp, which this picture is not. --Aqwis (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info It is original resolution of underwater image taken in the wild.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but the quality and resolution are not good enough ... I could deal with the noise and bluriness (mitigating circumstances - underwater/high wow) if there was a higher pixel count. Images on wikimedia are meant to be reused in many different ways, not limited to small and medium sized prints. Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, this is not an unusual or exceptional event for this species (not properly identified, BTW), and could be re-taken with a better camera. --ianaré (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with ianaré. Maedin\talk 19:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info The image was taken not in a local aquarium on a sunday trip. It was taken in w:Papua New Guinea. I spent there 10 days, and I saw it only once. You believe it is easy to reshot with a better camera, please be my guest. This image of mine File:Hawaii turtle 2.JPG was taken with the same bad camera and with the same low resolution. It is FP on 7 Wikipedias and on Commons. It got fifth place in POTY last year. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Will you provide tickets to PNG :-D ? Seriously though, I see fish basically identical to these (jacks/pompanos) off Ft Lauderdale beach. I'm not saying I could do better (sadly I don't have an underwater camera), just that it wouldn't be that hard for one of the millions of people that live here to take a similar picture. Some divers go out there with photo equipment worth more than my car ... --ianaré (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, I provide you tickets. Why not :) Seriously though, please do not forget, that these divers with better cameras should be willing to upload their high resolution images to Commons with free license. Thank you. BTW we need to remember that as soon as a better image is availabale the other one could be delisted.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Point taken. but still ... --ianaré (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Not identified (required). Lycaon (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- May I please ask you, Hans, to help to ID the fishes? Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info ID is made. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Are you sure this is correct ? The distribution map shows this is an atlantic only species. --ianaré (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I am sure. Wikipedia is not a reliabale source I am afraid.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think fotosource is a very reliable biology source. Look here and here. -ianaré (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found few other pictures taken in Papua New Guinea too, and IMO the fact that the image shows the school of fishes has enough EV to get promoted even without proper ID. Yet this image is not going to get promoted, so I believe there's nothing more to discuss. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- It is a bad habit to rely only on internet sources and on self proclaimed expertise to do identifications of organisms. There are plenty other possibilities to reach a correct ID. A picture on the internet is (in most cases) NOT a reliable source. Please use literature. The id given here is completely false rendering the image ineligible for FP, QI or VI. C. bartholomaei is a western Atlantic species (Massachusetts south to Brazil). Lycaon (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment One legitimate criticism of Wikipedia is that of the legitimacy of the authors, veracity of content, etc., etc. But there is another level of truth, and that is that this is a collective effort and the responsability of the veracity of the information rests on the contributors. Under the logic of "self proclaimed expertise" everyone´s contribution is questionable, and that is ok. But if a real expert swims these waters, well, let him contribute and help set the record straight in such a way that his contribution also contributes to other contributors (so much contribution!!!) instead of just pointing out flaws in sterile criticism. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I found few other pictures taken in Papua New Guinea too, and IMO the fact that the image shows the school of fishes has enough EV to get promoted even without proper ID. Yet this image is not going to get promoted, so I believe there's nothing more to discuss. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think fotosource is a very reliable biology source. Look here and here. -ianaré (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! --Jnpet (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But I counted 4 fish swimming in the opposite direction. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
* Oppose As per ianaré -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC) I understand you want to oppose, but too late. Image is not passing anyway, please do not worry.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
alt 1, withdrawn
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like this one too. --Jnpet (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment sorry to be a pain, but the more I look at these fish, the less I think they are jacks. Body shape, fins, and distribution are much more like
fusiliers, and the distribution of the species you specified is limited to the atlantic ocean (as per above). --ianaré (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Lycaon (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question If this is a school of Jacks, does that make this a picture of a Jack Class? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please, Hans, do not keep this suspence going, tell me what they are. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment They are NOT Jacks. :-((. Lycaon (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note the use of the word 'if'. I would not dare argue with a marine biologist about the identity of a fish, or any other animal for that matter. Simply accept the pun in the spirit it was given. Also, might I suggest a longer holiday next time? You seem to have returned in a fouler temper than the when you left. Commons doesn't always have to be such 'Serious Business'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Well, considering the fact that Wikipedia is a place where people contribute to build knowledge, and that essentially this is a TEAM EFFORT, and considering the fact that Mila is a very, very valuable and generous contributor who donates pictures of great quality and value, and considering that she has invested part of her life generating such images and therefore shares a little of herself through her photography, with us, with Wikipedia and all those who can benefit from her contributions, the very, very least that a knowledgeable contributor could do is to do as Mila, to liberally and generously share her or his knowledge and expand in her contributions, and let her enjoy the satisfaction that one gets when one´s work gets promoted. A little recognition is good for the soul. And besides, stricktly from the photographic point of view, this image is definitely featurable.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note the use of the word 'if'. I would not dare argue with a marine biologist about the identity of a fish, or any other animal for that matter. Simply accept the pun in the spirit it was given. Also, might I suggest a longer holiday next time? You seem to have returned in a fouler temper than the when you left. Commons doesn't always have to be such 'Serious Business'. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 19:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Loch Dunvegan fog01 2007-08-22.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 17:54:49
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Klaus with K -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the mood, but I can't support given the high level of noise. --S23678 (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy. —kallerna™ 07:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor image quality affecting the detail and sharpness. I wonder how much of it is due to the camera and to the jpeg compression. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Street view of Prague.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 20:20:03
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I really like this scene, and quality is good --ianaré (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support per Ianaré--Mbz1 (talk) 05:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Have you tried a perspective corrected version? --S23678 (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- @S23678: Well seen it! I've uploaded a perspective corrected version. Cheers! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bit noisy on some areas, but I like the mood of this photo. —kallerna™ 07:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Like it, but it should be sharper and without that cloudy spot in the middle. Rocket000 (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness + aberrant lines on the right side --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Shaon82 (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nice composition but the geometric distortion doesn't add to it. There is also some obvious chromatic noise. But I can't see the "aberrant lines" (Richard Bartz) and "cloudy spot in the middle" (Rocket000) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- The cloudy spot I was referring to is located at the rear of the yellow car and in front of the green building. Rocket000 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the composition --Zakharii 11:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose just a snapshot --Avala (talk) 22:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What senseless comment!!! Can you point me where in the evaluation criteria "just a snapshot" is used to oppose a nomination? Maybe you should learn with the other opposers here how to do an opposition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you should think before you put something like this on FPC and before you make personal insults :) --Avala (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you should read the FPC guidelines. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- And you should accept the opinion of other people and not attack them. Goodbye.--Avala (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've accepted all the other opposers' opinions here that came with reasonable reasons to oppose this photo. "Just a snapshot" is rather void for me. So long too Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Basically there is nothing great about this image. The most annoying thing is that smudge over the yellow car but it is also very very blurry - you can't even see the details in the nearest object let alone those further away (I can't even read the big text on the green building). Vertical lines are going in many directions, some buildings seem to be falling over. What is supposed to be clear white is actually a bit purple like clouds and the nearest car. The third car is almost completely in the dark but also the whole street is in the dark and it is supposed to be the main subject. Pavement is all blurry and there are some green spots all over. And you can't fix any of this other than going out and taking a new photo so there was no point in giving a detailed explanation of why did I oppose your touristy quick snapshot.--Avala (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Much better opposition arguments. Thanks for your time! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Basically there is nothing great about this image. The most annoying thing is that smudge over the yellow car but it is also very very blurry - you can't even see the details in the nearest object let alone those further away (I can't even read the big text on the green building). Vertical lines are going in many directions, some buildings seem to be falling over. What is supposed to be clear white is actually a bit purple like clouds and the nearest car. The third car is almost completely in the dark but also the whole street is in the dark and it is supposed to be the main subject. Pavement is all blurry and there are some green spots all over. And you can't fix any of this other than going out and taking a new photo so there was no point in giving a detailed explanation of why did I oppose your touristy quick snapshot.--Avala (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've accepted all the other opposers' opinions here that came with reasonable reasons to oppose this photo. "Just a snapshot" is rather void for me. So long too Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- And you should accept the opinion of other people and not attack them. Goodbye.--Avala (talk) 20:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you should read the FPC guidelines. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe you should think before you put something like this on FPC and before you make personal insults :) --Avala (talk) 20:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment What senseless comment!!! Can you point me where in the evaluation criteria "just a snapshot" is used to oppose a nomination? Maybe you should learn with the other opposers here how to do an opposition. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Hmm and the perspective? Come on, I have plenty of pictures like this one and none is FP (yet ;-) ) --Aktron (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Vertical lines need perspective correction. -- MJJR (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- sometimes i think we spend a little too much time playing with the ditigal photo-editing crap here; not everything needs "perspective correction". sometimes the lines of perspective are less than perfect; sometimes it's the image, sometimes it's the real world. i'm waiting for some fool on here to suggest that we "perspective correct" the leaning tower of pisa... :P (mind you, it would make a fun comparison shot... ) ha Lx 121 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Err, that's a very bad comparison considering that these buildings don't lean in real life while the tower of Pisa does. More realism is exactly what one would achieve by perspective correcting this picture. --Aqwis (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- the orientation of the buildings to the road, internal to the image, is pretty clear; they don't always need to be neatly vertical/horizontal in the orientation/framing of the pic. that's not real world perspective, that's stylization, especially if it alters the original image's contents. besides, there are plenty of instances on here where we over-correct images to make them "prettier". DO NOT get me started on the subject of taking 2 page art prints, which were originally designed as 2 page art prints, & removing the centre crease line, or making dubious colour corrections... we had one as a potd not too long ago :P Lx 121 (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 20:53:15
- Info created by Louis Kurz (1833-1921), with collaborative cleanup by Adam Cuerden and Durova, the co-nominators.
- Support as co-nominator -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as co-nominator Durova (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 20:20:22
- Info created by US Navy/Lockheed Martin - uploaded by Mattes - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the
framingcentered composition & crop --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC) - Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I have to agree with the tight crop at the upper part, sorry! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose boring standard military shot as they come a dime a dozen. This one doesn't even have a particularly good composition. The vertical beam that coincides with the horizon make the picture look awkward. --Dschwen (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per the three comments above; I feel like any other shots taken from a similar angle would do well, but this one has some flaws. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to agree with Dschwen. Lycaon (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright! I surrender! :} Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 21:29:52
- Info created and uploaded by Lukas skywalker - nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support A good shot of a moving target. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 07:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 06:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:M8JI1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 00:00:04
- Info created by Joi - uploaded by Joi - nominated by HBR -- HBR (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Object-photography like it should be. -- HBR (talk) 00:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry but I fail to see what makes this photo special, either in quality, composition or subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral its good quality but composition is not quite impressive. Try different background and setting --Zakharii 18:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pioneer Village 9159.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 04:49:08
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Revolutionary War re-enactment at the Pioneer Village, Ozakee County, Wisconsin. I rather like the composition on this one, I'd like to see what people think.
- Support --Dori - Talk 04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It would have been FP for sure IMO... if it had been more centered on the opposing force, with the 2 people siting on the top left corner removed and the tilt reduced. I'm not sure about how far rotation and cropping can save the otherwise very nice scene. --S23678 (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like the concept of foreground focus. However, I would crop out or clone out the two people people in the back left. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with that assessment. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral - It's a nice image, but I'm unclear on what it's trying to illustrate, exactly. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Odd photo, I agree with Juliancolton. —kallerna™ 11:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is nice in theory, but it lets down this subject significantly. The one place where I would like to see the focus (i.e. on the re-enactors) is just where it isn't, and instead we're looking at the back of someone's head, who is also, by the way, partially in shadow. Maedin\talk 12:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Its true that the subject is a bit ununderstandable...looks like these are some preparations for the battle or some open-theater show. Also its just the back of the man that is clear, everything else in the picture is cloudy and blurry. --Zakharii 18:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Regarding some of the comments:
- It's illustrating a red coat surveying the battlefield.
- I don't see the tilt, note that the fighters are in the field below, the red-coat is on a hill.
- I don't wish to clone out the women, they would also enter the field and tend to the wounded so they're part of the composition (though not as clear as they're in the background)
- The composition is on purpose this way as it is focussing on the red-coat. I can't have the focus on the other fighters.
- The man is not in shadow, he's in the field, though he does cast a shadow (on part of himself).
- --Dori - Talk 23:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:McWay Falls at Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 04:54:45
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Bit tight crop, but otherwise great job! —kallerna™ 07:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose many parts are too dark and the water in the upper part is violet. Again I am sure that the original pic from the camera looks much better than this edited version --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it was taken with a DSLR, it is likely that there is no "original, non-edited version", only a RAW file, and RAW files are not pictures. Honestly, even the JPEG files that cameras output are edited by the camera software and are not any more "true" to the actual scene than a converted RAW file. --Aqwis (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- RAW-Files are not pictures? A RAW-File is the (more or less) unedited, lossless-compressed image data. Anyway that was not my point, my point is that I think that something went wrong with the post-processing here (imho). --AngMoKio (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The image description says the subject is McWay Falls, but the waterfall itself takes up just a tiny portion of the composition and suffers from an awkward length of exposure. --Notyourbroom (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The description is changed. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral muuuch better! A wondeful landscape captured in a nice composition. Some parts are still quite dark though. Why did you use manual exposure with 1/500s? Maybe 1/500s was a bit short... --AngMoKio (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is that the dark parts are dark because of the shadows. If I used different settings I could have make them lighter alright, but then I would have overexposed the fall, foam and amazing color of the water, like it was overxposed here (not my image of course) File:Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park CA3.jpg. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Much better composition imo. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done I recategorized the image more specifically. --Notyourbroom (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, though some parts are still quite dark. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Even better. —kallerna™ 10:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support charming view --Zakharii 12:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose oversaturated. Lycaon (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition! The whole bay would be better. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The only way to take the whole cove is to take it from a helicopter. I'll make sure to hire one next time. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:76 - Carthagène - Décembre 2008.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 05:34:48
- Info created by S23678 - uploaded by S23678 - nominated by S23678
- Support -- S23678 (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Distracting background. —kallerna™ 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support its very good quality as well as subject --Zakharii 11:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think the angle is flattering, and it has awkwardly caught a corner of the pedestal. The background is distracting, and the lighting isn't ideal. Maedin\talk 12:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Opposecluttered background, angle. --Dschwen (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-5b.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 08:34:39
- Info The village of Porto Covo as seen from south, across the port. April 2009, west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral It is a very well executed panorama and it is a QI for sure. But for FPC the view could be a bit more spectacular. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Spectacular --Muhammad (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Same as angmokio. ---donald- (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This is totally spectacular, you should see some other panoramas. The only thing I don't like is the rubbish people throw on the ground. --Ahnode (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Shaon82 (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per AngMoKio. —kallerna™ 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good work --Zakharii 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, other panoramas, you mean pictures like this one and this one. --Aqwis (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 10:41:15
- Info created by Luc Viatour {talk) - uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, cluttered background, poor light. --Aqwis (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sharp focus on the subject, good composition. --Notyourbroom (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support –Juliancolton | Talk 06:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support belles couleurs --ianaré (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support wonderful! --Zakharii 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Opposebackground still too distracting and I don't like the lighting (looking ath the shadow side of the bird). Not excellent in my book. --Dschwen (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talkOppose- As other opposers and I don't like the crop either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 14:48:22
- Info created by I.H. Jones (after Lord Byron) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral Graphics does not make much impression though - too much emptiness --Zakharii 18:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it may be that this s one of those things that's more useful than spectacular: It's an early title page, which there's a custom of including in articles on classic literature. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Oppose {{Retouched}} template is missing. Lycaon (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)--Lycaon (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)- Fixed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Gate e amk.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 14:51:17
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by AngMoKio -- AngMoKio (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info Entrance Gate to the area of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial area.
- Support -- AngMoKio (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 18:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support fine shot! --Zakharii 11:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment The sky in the upper right looks very pixelized or noisy IMO.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 17:14:00
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good --Muhammad (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
SupportUntil there is no location info in the description Please add a info to the image-description in which zoo or sanctuary this picture was taken --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)- Comment Is it Jardin zoologique de la Citadelle de Besançon? —kallerna™ 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment It's in Zoo de Mulhouse. --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Please add the location to the image description, please --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is it Jardin zoologique de la Citadelle de Besançon? —kallerna™ 11:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support amusing bird --Zakharii 11:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose good QI shot --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great shot Thomas! Excellent image of the bird which is fully in focus. --Korman (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, as . --Aqwis (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dmitry and Richard. Lycaon (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Hot air balloons over Cappadocia 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 17:14:11
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info You could actually see the flame in the first hot air balloon, oh, yes, the image was taken from hot air ballon.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Foreground is disturbing. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, not featured
[edit]- Info The original is more about balloons, the alt 1 is more about Cappadocia.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support This one is better than the one above --Zakharii 13:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it's quite noisy on dark areas and also quite lot of chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 13:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sky is overexposed. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Aqwis (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ComputerHotline - Spatule rose (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 17:17:25
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition is off; the image needs a tighter crop on the left and top, imo. --Notyourbroom (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Notyourbroom. --norro 09:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Be bold then. :) →Diti the penguin — 02:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ComputerHotline - Vautour moine (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 17:21:04
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose QI, but fence in background stops me from supporting, sorry --ianaré (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree about the fence, and a crop wouldn't hurt either. –Juliancolton | Talk 06:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ComputerHotline - Ibis rouge (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 17:22:32
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Don´t like the perspective. --norro 09:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Norro. --Korman (talk) 06:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:ComputerHotline - Acinonyx jubatus (by).jpg, not featured
[edit]- Info created, uploaded, nominated by ComputerHotline --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Too much of the image is dark, boring foreground. --norro 09:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Dendrobates azureus (Dendrobates tinctorius).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 20:26:13
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose great subject and composition but way too much post-processing (unnatural colours & saturation, noise) ruins it, sorry --ianaré (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I could have never imagined that the frog of this color exists. --Zakharii 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I made an edit without cleanup and brightening in a post-processing in the File:Dendrobates azureus (Dendrobates tinctorius) Edit.jpg. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:North Point Sunrise 20090411 2791.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 20:55:13
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by --Dori - Talk 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info It's twilight time, at one of the local photographer hotspots. I already have two FPs of this place, but I felt this was sufficiently different, and it's the last one I promise :) --Dori - Talk 20:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Dori - Talk 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support great shot! I love such long exposure shots. Did you use a grey filter? --AngMoKio (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it's straight from the camera. I wish I had a ND stop-down filter, I would have gotten much better shots. --Dori - Talk 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- with grey filter I meant a ND filter. True maybe it would have been even better, but it is also great how it is. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- No it's straight from the camera. I wish I had a ND stop-down filter, I would have gotten much better shots. --Dori - Talk 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Yes, let's bring some artistic shots to FPC! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No encyclopedic value, too artistic to my taste, no wow to me. —kallerna™ 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- encyclopedic value is not necessary --AngMoKio (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- And why, pray tell, couldn't it illustrate an article on North Point National park? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because there is no such place as North Point National Park. North Point park is a section of a city-owned greenway on Milwaukee's lakefront. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's a fairly good reason, I suppose. What about an article on Milwaukee? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because there is no such place as North Point National Park. North Point park is a section of a city-owned greenway on Milwaukee's lakefront. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- And why, pray tell, couldn't it illustrate an article on North Point National park? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support JukoFF (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Man On Mission (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Support--Brackenheim (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pedro Nunes April 2009-1a.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 21:50:42
- Info Detail of the Monument to the Portuguese Discoveries showing the mathematician and cosmographer Pedro Nunes with an armillary sphere. To his left, Jácome de Maiorca (Catalan cosmographer and chart maker), holding a quadrant, and Pero Escobar (navigator); to his right, Pêro de Alenquer, holding an astrolabe (navigator), Gil Eanes (navigator) and João Gonçalves Zarco (navigator). Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support But how did they discover anything if they had no pupils to see with? —Notyourbroom (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support commendable --Zakharii 11:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Please add date. —kallerna™ 13:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Done -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I know, its a question of taste, but I would prefer a little darker version with a bit more contrast like File:Pedro Nunes April 2009-1a-retouched.jpg --Mbdortmund (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pavo cristatus (male).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 23:36:14
- Info created by Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Exquisite photo. --Korman (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 06:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral The left side of the picture is nice except the gras and the white neckfeathers without texture - the right side and foreground is a bit 2 weak, DOF, gras. It's a pity that the tail-feathers are cut off. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop. —kallerna™ 13:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose uninteresting shot angle / composition --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as Dmitry --LC-de (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I think this is good. Great detail on the bird. Maedin\talk 20:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Opposeangle composition. Standard bird shot but nothing outstanding. Also I don't trust the colors, looks too postprocessed. --Dschwen (talk) 02:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 03:09:18
- Info created by Henry Fuseli (artist), J. P. Simon, engraver - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored from File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli.jpg by Durova. Very high resolution; compressed courtesy copy at File:Midsummer Night's Dream Henry Fuseli2 courtesy copy.jpg for viewers with slow connection speeds. -- Durova (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Durova (talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support superbe reproduction --Luc Viatour (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support +1 --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Beautiful and somehow disturbing engraving, it reminds me of the Brueghel's visions. A pity that the dialogues at the bottom are a bit faded. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support surprised so few supports thus far --ianaré (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral {{Retouched}} template is missing. Lycaon (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Excuse my ignorance, but isn't that something anyone can add? If so, it wouldn't have hurt to add it yourself. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Your ignorance is excused ;-). This should of course be added by the retoucher, as he only knows what manipulations have been performed. Lycaon (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Excuse my ignorance, but isn't that something anyone can add? If so, it wouldn't have hurt to add it yourself. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Bydgoszcz Przechodzacy.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 07:26:43
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Albertus teolog -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 07:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Pudelek (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good idea --Zakharii 12:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Disturbing background. —kallerna™ 15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this needs a different angle, better lighting, and shallower DOF. Maedin\talk 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Very good, and, if it's possible to get a better angle and lighting, we can delist this and replace it with the new one when that happens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- But we could say that about almost everything, :-). That would render most opposes null. Maedin\talk 10:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose as kallerna. Lycaon (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- CommentThe background is necessary to preserve a point of reference. This is the natural background. Albertus teolog (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:House sparrow portrait.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 15:13:01
- Info Close-up view of the head of a 5inch house sparrow. Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I wish it were higher-resolution :) but it certainly meets requirements. —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- no doubt --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Notyourbroom, but otherwise nice photo. —kallerna™ 15:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral very good quality. But the flash is a bit too visible for me and the resolution is also very low (why?) --AngMoKio (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Great focus. Maedin\talk 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Support--Brackenheim (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 17:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pyrrhocoris apterus LC0130.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 16:34:54
- Info Mating firebugs (Pyrrhocoris apterus), everything done by Jörg Hempel -- LC-de (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- LC-de (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Light is bit harsh, but I like the rest of the photo. —kallerna™ 15:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support The lighting is too harsh and there are some small blown areas, but I couldn't justify opposing based on that. Maedin\talk 20:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Support--Brackenheim (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Vote added after end of voting period. Maedin\talk 18:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Image:Salinas de Fuencaliente Kunih.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2009 at 18:05:40
- Info created by Kunih - uploaded by Kunih - nominated by Kunih -- Kunih (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Kunih (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I tried to give this a more elaborate description based on what information I could find elsewhere. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting subject - never heard of this kind of farms. --Zakharii 13:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but this image is more informative and cooler IMHO (+ the quality could be better). —kallerna™ 15:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 19:12:46
- Info New and improved version of nomination withdrawn below. The Tower of Belém was built in the 16th century, under King Manuel I, to commemorate the expedition of Vasco da Gama to India. It is located in Lisbon, close to the Monastery of Jerónimos and to the Monument to the Portuguese Discoveries. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —Notyourbroom (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Much better --Muhammad (talk) 08:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support How could I not? --JY REHBY (discuter) 15:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Added to my list of places to visit. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Korman (talk) 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Having cited this as an example of an excellent high-definition image, (and other factors are worth supporting as well, such as the sky being just right), I would be conspicuous by my absence if I failed to vote for this picture. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon (talk) 06:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Support-- what's the building used for now? - Lx 121 (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)- Sorry, too late to vote. The monument is a kind of museum now -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Wuppertal Joseph-Haydn-Str 0015.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2009 at 21:24:03
- Info created by Atamari - uploaded by Atamari - nominated by -- Atamari (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Seems heavily tilted or in need of a perspective correction. --JY REHBY (discuter) 12:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Albino Alligator 2008.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 02:19:27
- Info created , uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support You could crop that light out of the photo. Dark background gives nice perspective to the photo. —kallerna™ 15:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Right. The light is cropped. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support strange, scars are much more noticeable than on normal ones --ianaré (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support now that the light is cropped out. —Notyourbroom (talk) 04:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Weird animal! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Chrome island 02.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 06:57:50
- Info created by KenWalker - uploaded by KenWalker - nominated by KenWalker -- KenWalker (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- KenWalker (talk) 06:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Lovely subject and picture but poor image quality, probably due to agressive de-noising -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MartinD (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Alvesgaspar. —kallerna™ 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Graphomya eustolia.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 09:35:37
- Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sometimes I feel sorry that we killed nearly all insects here --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where are you situated? --Muhammad (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- In Dortmund, Germany --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- @ Muhammad - Dortmund is part of a huge german coal-mining district but I wonder if there are any re-naturalisation projects around Dortmund ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re-naturalisation projects? Wow, you guys should definitely come to TZ ;) --Muhammad (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- When traveling to Africa somewhen I will come to Tanzania first and we go for a macro-safari :-). --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds like fun ;) --Muhammad (talk) 04:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- When traveling to Africa somewhen I will come to Tanzania first and we go for a macro-safari :-). --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Re-naturalisation projects? Wow, you guys should definitely come to TZ ;) --Muhammad (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- @ Muhammad - Dortmund is part of a huge german coal-mining district but I wonder if there are any re-naturalisation projects around Dortmund ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- In Dortmund, Germany --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Where are you situated? --Muhammad (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support More fascinating insects from Muhammad! This one is good. Maedin\talk 20:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Pseudatelus sp..jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 10:11:25
- Info Everything by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Muhammad (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support good --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ianaré (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry Muhammad but you have done much better. Sharpness and lighting are far from excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- weak Support the composition is very nice. Sharpness is ok for me...but why is it so small? (just 1,200×1,800)? --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Image should be super-crisp given that it is downsampled to a trial-size compared to todays standards. Oppose --Dschwen (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Radishchev Art Museum 10.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 16:19:00
- Info created by Zimin.V.G. - uploaded by Zimin.V.G. - nominated by Zimin.V.G. --Zimin.V.G. (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Photocity (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support artistic and special --Zakharii 11:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Could be sharper, distracting background. —kallerna™ 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Background is disturbing. --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 16:00:51
- Info c/u/n by -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info This is the guy who brings the little varmints. White Stork (Ciconia ciconia)
- Support -- Richard Bartz (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support based on overall merits, but the bird does blend into the background a bit on the lower posterior. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Muhammad (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Zakharii 11:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support nicely done --ianaré (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 19:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Man On Mission (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Is this his/her natural habitat? Tiago Fioreze (talk)
- Meanwhile it's a synanthropic species, means that they survive in areas developed by man but usually you will find a stork close to a pond, hunting for frogs --Richard Bartz (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose; a lovely, high-res image of a bird. it really does look like the stork only has one leg! :D but the background is distracting. the dof cutoff right behind the bird is a little jarring, & at max rez the patterning of the out-of-focus area is annoying, especially the grass areas right around the bird; the effect conflicts oddly with the feather patterning. it almost looks like glitching, but i think it's just an unfortunate pattern of the light. again, i'd give a technical acheivement award for the sharp hi-res of the bird, but the effect of the background spoils it as FP. Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:EbniterStr04.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 17:06:01
- Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I'm breaking up my military nominations with more 'neutral' images. This is quite an interesting scene, and there are no equivalents among the current FPs as far as I can see.
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- -donald- (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Request I tried to give the description an EN translation, but I may not have been accurate :) could one of our many German-speaking contributors check my work? —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I hope my English is OK --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC) ;}
- Support Great one.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful! --Chmehl (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support composition --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support as above --Muhammad (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I'm surprised so many positive votes, thanks for the nomination --Böhringer (talk) 08:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support ■ MMXXtalk 10:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Charming winter scene! --Zakharii 10:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support refreshing --ianaré (talk) 14:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question As opposed to the other nominated photos, or my usual nominations? :P Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info as opposed to being in hot & humid FL ;-) --ianaré (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- ... by Commoners ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 15:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Venedig BW 1.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 17:53:22
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by Berthold Werner -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info A postbox for anonym denunciations at the Doge's Palace in Venezia
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. Do you know what the Latin text exactly says there? --Zakharii 12:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment it's not Latin or Italian, maybe Venetian ? --ianaré (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 13:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Yerpo (talk) 06:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skogar Church.jpg
File:PlantacaodeSoja.JPG, withdrawn
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 21:05:55
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - too saturated for my taste.--Avala (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - Though vigneting and oversaturation can be used for artistic purposes, the result here is not convincing as the subject and composition are not interesting enough -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Avala. —kallerna™ 11:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Albertus teolog (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Farzaaaad2000 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- beautiful composition, colour effect is brilliantly done Lx 121 (talk)
- Oppose per Avala --AngMoKio (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment -- i'm sorry i don't want to pick a fight, but from the similarity of some of the names & opinions, i would like to raise the question of just how many people there really are voting here? Lx 121 (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- We sometimes have cases of socket puppets, though I don't think it is the case here. You can contact admins, they can check IP-addresses. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- ty, i was wondering abt that, for a number of the votes, not just this one. i'll try & collate data before i do that Lx 121 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose As Alvesgaspar. Lycaon (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe something for photo-community or flickr. Can't see any value for unsharp & pseudo oversexed pictures for the project, sorry. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question "pseudo oversexed"??? Please, enlighten me (us). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sexing up a picture is more than adding a vignetting effect, raising the saturation and giving plenty of black level. --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sexing up in Wiki dimension is to add some workers, harvesters or something what makes the picture most valuable for the project because this isn't a sensationalism competition here. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question "pseudo oversexed"??? Please, enlighten me (us). Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose see Richard. Oversaturated to the point where it becomes a low value picture. --Dschwen (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Color saturation is rather a personal choice than a technical issue, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's a tech issue because you loosing every color reference. For non-encyclopedic material or phantasy picturesit doesn't matter. When do you start thinking wikiwise ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Color saturation is rather a personal choice than a technical issue, IMO. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Studie zu der monumentalen Metallplastik Astro lux.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 22:33:28
- Info created by the Swiss painter and sculptor Silvio Mattioli - photographer Michael Gäbler - uploaded by Michael Gäbler - nominated by Michael Gäbler -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info The watercolor "Studie zu der monumentalen Metallplastik Astro lux" is painted 2008 by Silvio Mattioli. The sketch shows a planed monumental plastic work with the name "Astro lux".--Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have evidence of permission for this image? MER-C 08:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- I checked the website and can see no mention of any rights being relinquished by the creator. I have poor skills at reading German, however. —Notyourbroom (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info I sendet the permission of Silvio Mattioli written on the 02. Mar 2009 together with the Adress http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Studie_zu_der_monumentalen_Metallplastik_Astro_lux.jpg#Summary with eMail on the 17. Mar 2009 20:20 to the emailadress: permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. I got no response. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose No interesting, I think. --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, the photo itself appears to be quite unsharp. --Aqwis (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 18:23:02
- Info created by George Frederic Watts - uploaded by Dcoetzee - nominated by Dcoetzee -- Dcoetzee (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- As described at [8], this 1864 portrait of the British actress Ellen Terry by George Frederic Watts entitled "Choosing" shows her making a symbolic choice between camellias and violets. It was painted shortly before she married the painter. I'm nominating it mainly because I find it a strikingly beautiful portrait, and also because it's a high-quality 7.7 megapixel image of the portrait (photograph by NPG staff). Dcoetzee (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support its really nice --Mbdortmund (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Spock lone wolf (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Gorgeous! --Zakharii 10:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Mhorr Gazelle Close Up.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2009 at 19:24:10
- Info created by Ltshears - uploaded by Ltshears - nominated by Ltshears -- Ltshears (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Ltshears (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good --Muhammad (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support cute ! --ianaré (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support =) —kallerna™ 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support—Notyourbroom (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment for a FP I would like to see more of the animal seen --Böhringer (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support - cute innocent look! -- Man On Mission (talk) 11:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support-- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support Sweet! Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Great white shark on his back.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 04:37:44
- Info The image is a digital copy of my old print.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Could you add date? —kallerna™ 13:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your question, kallerna. The image was taken in September of 2002. I forgot when I took it, but I looked at the release form that I signed promising to keep all my body parts inside the cage and not to sue diving operator, if I am bitten by a shark. :)
- Question I have a question for everybody. If I nominated such quality image few months ago, it would have been fpx and opposed at least dozen times. What happen? No fpx, no opposes only one question, it is getting boring around here. :)
- Info we're afraid of your voodoo powers --ianaré (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've no one. Please do not be afraid. Let's have some fun!--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is of poor quality, below size requirements and oversaturated. Lycaon (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support--Avala (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Opposefor sure not the easiest shot. But this is really poor quality. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Alt 1, not featured
[edit]- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment If this were a much older image taken with a more primitive camera, I could see it potentially becoming featured based upon historical merits... Kind of a weird feature of our system that it's images like this that fall through the cracks. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's is this thing :" A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." Of course hardly anybody follows this guideline. Whatever...I've done what I could to increase the EV of FP images. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know who invented that statement, but a bad picture stays a bad picture, whether it is difficult or not. Lycaon (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I do not know this either, but IMO whoever added this to the guidelines was right. May I please ask you why don't you delete this guideline once and for all? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- It doesn´t matther who added that, whoever did it added it just as someone else added that a subject has to have an ID in order to be featurable, regarless of the fact that we may lose a great picture of great value to a technicality that is photographically and encyclopedically irrelevant. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I do not know this either, but IMO whoever added this to the guidelines was right. May I please ask you why don't you delete this guideline once and for all? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know who invented that statement, but a bad picture stays a bad picture, whether it is difficult or not. Lycaon (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- There's is this thing :" A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject." Of course hardly anybody follows this guideline. Whatever...I've done what I could to increase the EV of FP images. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
@Lycaon, you forgot to FPX this alt. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - not good enough quality.--Avala (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:Ciconia episcopus LC0186.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 18:26:52
- Info Woolly-necked Stork (Ciconia episcopus), Zoo Leipzig, Germany; all done by Jörg Hempel
- Support -- LC-de (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral because of the white and black feathers a quite difficult shot. I am not really sure about the composition especially the background....still might switch to support. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Neutral As per AngMoKio. The bird looks rather charming, as posing for the photo, but the background counterbalances. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral It's actually a nice picture and a difficult subject but the light is 2 harsh and dazzling for my taste. The light contrast between the foreside and backside of the head - it ranges from nearly blown whites to blackish brown feathers without texture. The light reflexes on the brown breast feathers are an indicator for much 2 harsh light, too. Sorry. P.S here is a picture that shows the perfect lighting for this bird, except the backside of the white feathers. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)- Neutral for now. I like the details of the head and the lighting is good enough for me given the subject. But the background could and should be cleaned by cloning. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC**
- Neutral I don't like the composition, it feels like the bird had to squeeze in to the photo. Simply I'm missing the space for its beak (horizontal photo would do IMO better). Also too little space in the bottom of the picture. Right now it's more like opposing, bu't I'm still thinking. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
to apply the suggested improvements first --LC-de (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 5 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:StPaul statue with StPeter Basilica.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 19:24:05
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Tfioreze -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the blue sky and the composition is nice, but the aperture is too wide to allow a large depth-of-field necessary for architecture. There is visible chrominance and luminance noise, the sharpness isn't optimal, and you get a general feeling that the photograph is a little soft, perhaps a better camera/lens or a faster shutter speed to prevent camera shake would've helped. -- Bettycrocker (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality isn't the best as Bettycrocker has adressed before + can't see a well thought out concept. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose you can achieve a much more interesting shot if you don't place the statue in the center and maybe play a bit with DOF as Bettycrocker said. Photo is also tilted + and the base of the statue is cut. --AngMoKio (talk) 11:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Tiago Fioreze (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:European Robin (Erithacus rubecula) with mealworm.jpeg, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 06:48:16
- Info created by Philip Heron - uploaded by Philip Heron - nominated by Philip Heron -- Fsphil (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- Fsphil (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the picture is too small and the cropping is unfortunate | 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. |
Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
File:BLU-82 Daisy Cutter Fireball.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 18:50:00
- Info created by USAF Capt. Patrick Nichols - uploaded by Louis Waweru - nominated by Sarcastic ShockwaveLover -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Info This was a training shot, the last Daisy Cutter to be dropped.
- Support -- Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose unsharp + can't see a convincing composition. Might be a VI though. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
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 unfocussed | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
. Lycaon (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose blurry, lacking sense of scale. --Dschwen (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Question Is this the part where I grow so angry at your rejection my nomination that I am inspired to write an essay on why FP is such a horrible place and you should all stop being so mean! ? Just for future reference. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you ever tried enWP:FPC ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Like my alias implies, I was being sarcastic there, Mr. Bartz. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you ? -
not being sarcastic- (not in response to your question) ever tried to nominate such pictures enWP:FPC ?--Richard Bartz (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)- Ah, I see. Sorry, for a second there, I thought Commons had lost all sense of humour. And the answer to your question is no. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then you should try a nomination there. As I'am nominating and being nominated there often I saw many military pictures getting promoted. The way I see it there is a larger interested party. Just an constructive idea. P.S. Has nothing to do with your nomination, just because I saw your nick. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Funny as it may seem, I'm not here to get images promoted. That's a nice side effect, but the reason why I nominate the pictures I do is to introduce some different material into FPC. Bugs, sunsets and buildings seem to make up the majority of candidates, and while they're (mostly) very nice, I like to see some variety. So, I nominate pictures that interest me, and (in my view) fulfil the requirements of Commons. I know that not everyone will agree that my selections are FP worthy, but as long as my candidates broaden the scope of this section, I've succeeded. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- We experiencing quite a flooding of FPC with too many pictures that obviously aren't FP material, which really has no positive effect on the whole FPC process. Having this in mind I don't really understand what you want to achieve with your nominations - I can't really recognize a positive effect. I don't want to say that military pics shouldn't get nominated - if they are really well done I might support them. But for example the pic in this nomination, it is just a straight shot at the object with a low technical quality. I don't really understand why you nominate it. It for sure documents bomb explosion quite well and thus has value - but it is no FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 15:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't wanted to persuade you for a justification. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Funny as it may seem, I'm not here to get images promoted. That's a nice side effect, but the reason why I nominate the pictures I do is to introduce some different material into FPC. Bugs, sunsets and buildings seem to make up the majority of candidates, and while they're (mostly) very nice, I like to see some variety. So, I nominate pictures that interest me, and (in my view) fulfil the requirements of Commons. I know that not everyone will agree that my selections are FP worthy, but as long as my candidates broaden the scope of this section, I've succeeded. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Then you should try a nomination there. As I'am nominating and being nominated there often I saw many military pictures getting promoted. The way I see it there is a larger interested party. Just an constructive idea. P.S. Has nothing to do with your nomination, just because I saw your nick. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Sorry, for a second there, I thought Commons had lost all sense of humour. And the answer to your question is no. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Have you ? -
- Like my alias implies, I was being sarcastic there, Mr. Bartz. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- Don't worry Richard, there's no harm in asking wuestions. Thank you for your thoughtfulness and honesty. AngMoKio, I hope you can forgive my occasional flights of fancy; I realise the technical limitations of the photo, but nominated it on a whim, hoping that others may see the same beauty I see in it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- No offence but seeing beauty on this pic is ...ahm...at least weird. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Destruction and force have a beauty all their own. It can be hard to see, but it is there. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- No offence but seeing beauty on this pic is ...ahm...at least weird. --AngMoKio (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)