Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:53:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chapiteau إفريز.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapiteau إفريز.JPG
Question - are the nomination guidelines available in Arabic? I guess that Ghabara may not have understood them fully - MPF (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't an Arabic version of this FPC's rules yet (apparently the Arabic FPC is pretty different), but Ghabara can communicate in English. We just have a case n00b-itis here. --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 16:43:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 03:26:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 02:16:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pos strep.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pos strep.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 11:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baiga woman and child, India.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baiga woman and child, India.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 11:13:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 11:49:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Janadesh 2007 on Chambal bridge.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Janadesh 2007 on Chambal bridge.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 14:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sumatra meulaboh mosque.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sumatra meulaboh mosque.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 00:05:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing 767-300.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boeing 767-300.JPG
Actually, all things considered, and per the below comment, I still think there should be a tad more room behind, but I like the sky in front. It rather gives it a feeling that it's going somewhere. --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Sorry, HFSW, but I gotta disagree, usually don't see a point in too much lead room, but I think it's well-done here. To me cropping the right would cause there to be more boring white. This is already one of my favorite plane in flight pics. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 20:31:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Boletus erythropus55.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Boletus erythropus55.jpg
Oppose I think DOF is too shallow and the drop too tight (I'd like to see the base). Otherwise, I like it. Do you have another version that's not so tight at the bottom and with greater DOF? --TheHighFinSpermWhale21:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the DOF but have to agree about the base. Captainpixel
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Oct 2010 at 20:31:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Girl jumping on trampoline with belts.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl jumping on trampoline with belts.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 14:10:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Due to the composition: it appears cluttered, with no focal point, no breathing space for anything. The only leading compositional element is the backlit translucent glass enclosure at the bottom, but we lose it halfway in, since the overpass cuts the picture exactly in half. The trusses and structural elements of the ceiling are stacked together and thus not really legible, part of a mechanical stair protrude in the lower left corner... --MAURILBERT(discuter)17:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noted: a ladder for another meter or so of height would have helped push the bridge down in the image and focus better on the vanishing point, but security doesn't look favorably on ladders at the checkpoints. Acroterion (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 14:11:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eisbär.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eisbär.JPG
Weak support(if I can do that when contesting FPX) Mostly just needs white balancing and tweaking, otherwise I don't think it's disqualifyingly terrible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was, but it was really hard for me to look at that poor bear (I saw dozens of them in a wild), at his yellow fur, and a sick look. Polar bears are beautiful animals, and this one... it looks like he is in pain. Anyway you are right. I let my personal feelings about this poor caged bear to prevail. Sorry about this.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, nothing wrong with having ethics, and it could be argued anyway that if someone was going to take a zoo photo it could show the animal more interesting than just sitting there. This one looks more lazy than like he's suffering to me, though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 06:17:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Krebs.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Krebs.jpg
Comment I disagree, we're supposed to focus on the image, not specific details like taxonomy like this was WP:FPC - Rule#7. In the case of this image I'm Neutral because it's a fair image, but the pixels are kind of visible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to change the rules we've been using for the last four years, you'd have to start a discussion. This image fails rule#2.2 of COM:FPC. Sorry. Lycaon (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 16:59:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gifCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2004 Indonesia Tsunami edit.gif
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because this same picture, with a different name, is already featured in Commons -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 06:30:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Clarrie hall dam mount warning.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clarrie hall dam mount warning.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 12:33:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburg Innenhafen bei Nacht, CN II.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Duisburg Innenhafen bei Nacht, CN II.jpg
Oppose - glare from lights and excessive motion blur in water (OK, yes, that's a way of saying I don't like night pics, but it gives the reasons for my not liking them ;-) MPF (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 12:27:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment this odd red spot is a litter. I know because I swim close to the rocks there. It is easy to be removed this but it is hardy visible in this panorama. Ggia (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Good mood and composition. Deserves a little improvement in the lighting (a bit too dark for the hour of the day?) and stitching: horizon should be straight (not curved) and there is at least a stitching error there. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the rocks are almost dark in their lower part and some of them have grey color.. you mean to make the color of the sea more bright? Ggia (talk) 09:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 (I thank him/her) uploaded a new version (edit) of the image.. if you like probably we can just update the above image. Ggia (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 16:29:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cameleon Tunisie.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cameleon Tunisie.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 06:12:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:JU 001 100831.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:JU 001 100831.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 15:00:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chalice Pizino MBA Lyon L689.jpg
it's a bit simple for my taste.I do not like the angle of the picture is taken.There are plenty of brightness and refraction of light.sorry for the delay ;-)--Ghabara (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what's wrong with the angle? I don't think I know a better way to show good detail of something like this then a close-up straight-on. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot I like about this, but what I don't like is the background (slightly distracting) and how the top of the chalice looks misshapen--which I thought was due to the angle of view. Perhaps I was wrong? Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just like that, 600 years is plenty of time something could've been damaged, but it could possibly also be the angle I suppose. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know, I should be looking at the quality and everything, but since I'm a newcomer I'll just vote by taste. :) I personally think the trophy is beautiful, but the background now looks a little unrealistic compared to the trophy. I liked the first one best. Kindly, Belletête-à-tête06:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above and also poor masking on the foot. Not every object is nicely cut-able: it has to be sharp all over to have a good degree of success. Lycaon (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the first was the non-interlaced version, I guess I'll know for next time, but the apparent "poor cutout" look is just something that always happens with thumbnails of transparent GIFs. The top doesn't look anywhere as bad in full-scale. --IdLoveOne (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 16:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - MDL.99.8.3.IMG 1762.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flickr - Wikimedia France - MDL.99.8.3.IMG 1762.jpg
InfoEngraved bone featuring a horse, Magdalenian (17,000 BP to 9,000 BP). About 2 cm diametre.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 09:34:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Insulator railways.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Insulator railways.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 06:36:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Plan-fort-roppe-fr-FR.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plan-fort-roppe-fr-FR.svg
Oppose Not really impressive - b/w scheme, technically not complicated - good piece of craft, but not FP though. Additionally it's not language neutral. Masur (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 11:15:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support "Too much blue" doesn't seem like a legitimate reason for FPX to me. It looks like a blue variety (maybe a little w:British Shorthair mixed in) taken near a window, at worst there might've been some camera problems. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 07:16:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:StSophiaChurchNave-Sofia-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:StSophiaChurchNave-Sofia-1.jpg
Support for good quality, but TBH I don't think most people will find a picture of a regular ceiling made of bricks very interesting; I know I barely do even though it's an old building. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 19:13:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Czech Mi-24 CIAF.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Czech Mi-24 CIAF.JPG
Abstain Wow, I didn't really expect to see this picture nominated. If I may just add something, this was the intention to crop the blades and give an impression as if the copter was hanging on them, attached to the edges of the photo. Wolf (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 20:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rhenium single crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rhenium single crystal bar and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Oppose okay for QI and I'm sure a VI too, but for a Featured picture the lightning is imo not good enough. A lot of under- and overexposed areas with no details on the Rhenium. Sorry --kaʁstnDisk/Cat12:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vielleicht liegts wirklich mal wieder an meinem Monitor... Das kann natürlich sein. Ich schau mir das Bild bei nächster Gelegenheit an einem anderen PC an. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC) PS: nach ganz genauem Suchen hab ich übrigens doch mindestens einen Pixel mit ffffff gefunden ;-P[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 18:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 21:19:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake-Banff NP.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moraine Lake-Banff NP.JPG
Oppose - tops of mountains at left cut (shame, because it's such a nice-looking place). Would also have benefitted from taking at an angle which excludes the canoe landing stage. - MPF (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose excellent landscape (as a subject) but need a more creative angle/view or even a panoramic image.. i.e. I think that the tree at the lower left part in another angle can disappear. per {MPF, Mbz1} Ggia (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above about the cutoff mountain, otherwise I love this -- that's how trees should look when photographed and is the water really that blue!? So average out a Strong support and a Weak Support. --IdLoveOne (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RJC1 PJC.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RJC1 PJC.jpg
Support - prefer this one to the second. A little bit of current account chromatic aberration in the Alnus foliage at the top right, but not enough to downmark it (though it would be nice if it could be corrected) - MPF (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer this to the other alternatives. It would be nice if the branch could be removed, but all in all, it's an excellent picture. Clementinatalk07:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Oct 2010 at 22:11:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RJC2 PJC.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RJC2 PJC.jpg
Oppose this and alt 1. It feels cramped... I'm not sure why the branch couldn't simply be cloned out. Also, CA is rather disturbing along the mountains. –Juliancolton | Talk01:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:37:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rodão September 2010-2a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rodão September 2010-2a.jpg
Oppose While the right part of the image seems more or less OK, the left part has some areas that are extremely unsharp, and the colors look washed out.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This image has to much light (look like washed out - per Maurilbert) and some parts are blurry (but blurry is a minor problem for me). But the composition is good (aesthetically). This is a problem of digital sensors.. it is better to have dark images and add light later rather to have an image full of light (it is hard to darken it afterwards). Ggia (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 12:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Serengeti Impala3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Serengeti Impala3.jpg
It's a fur with tenthousands of hairs. Any denoising would result in a less sharp image impression at reasonable viewing distance. You don't have to believe me-try it on your computer and you will see it yourself. --Ikiwaner (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but I don't think that the horns have hairs ;-) And I nill see a denoise image, but maybe you can take a photo with a less ISO item? And: I don't oppose, I just abstain with neutral. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat17:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like opposing, but I think acutance is a quality of wildlife photography, an ISO of 800 is just too high. Sorry Ikiwaner. --Cephas (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would support if the distracting branch between the horns would be cloned away. --Cayambe ([[User talk:Cayambe|<span class="signature-talkSignature correction --Cayambe (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info How's this? I've cloned out that branch, and applied a slight noise reduction, which has, I think, improved matters especially around the head, when viewed at 100%+. Smalljim (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 17:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A common squirrel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A common squirrel.jpg
Info A common squirrel, found somewhere among a common russian forest (made with a budget lens that have a poor depth of focus) created by Peter Perepelkin - uploaded by Peter Perepelkin - nominated by Peter Perepelkin
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 13:41:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hosjö kyrka 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hosjö kyrka 01.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Oct 2010 at 13:03:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mont St. Michel Spire.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mont St. Michel Spire.JPG
Neutral not convinced. A bit dark at the base, a bit too tight at the top, maybe it should be recropped, or maybe the perspective is too strong... I can't quite put my finger on it for now. --MAURILBERT(discuter)14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 00:47:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The above photo has been shot on 23-Sep-2010.. 3 days after shooting this panorama the landscape was different due to a recent rain. Look to the image to see the differences.. Ggia (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have been better if it was allowed to nominate the other photograph as an alternative and the community decide which one likes.. both of them have the same concept / subject.. even they are different "versions".. Ggia (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment probably you like more this view [1] but the landscape is not so ugly IMO, it is also a typical landscape for that region of Rhodope mountains (south part). 13 of August I tried first time to nominate this bridge.. but I withdraw the nomination after the fruitful comments of AFBorchert and MPF). The old nomination page is here [2]. Ggia (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "That is one unsafe-looking bridge" ... does look like it could do with a lick of new paint and a bit of a repair job at the left end ;-) MPF (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - only because I much prefer the other view: I think the lighting is better in that one, and having a person in the center adds scale and a point of interest. Jonathunder (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 20:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita muscaria qtl4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita muscaria qtl4.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 05:49:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Night view of Rokkō Island and Higashinada-ku, Kobe, Japan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Night view of Rokkō Island and Higashinada-ku, Kobe, Japan.jpg
Oppose - glare from lights and excessive motion blur in water (OK, yes, that's a way of saying I don't like night pics, but it gives the reasons for my not liking them ;-) MPF (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 21:44:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Tripneustes ventricosus (West Indian Sea Egg-top) and Echinometra viridis (Reef Urchin - bottom).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Tripneustes ventricosus (West Indian Sea Egg-top) and Echinometra viridis (Reef Urchin - bottom).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 05:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crocuta crocuta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crocuta crocuta.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 19:18:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gosau pohled 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gosau pohled 1.jpg
Neutral One of the better landscape ones compositionalwise on FPC at the moment. Lack of sharpness and CA-problems (e.g. on the church tower) prevent me from supporting. Lycaon (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice place and composition, but partially unsharp, Chromatic aberrations (Church, clouds, mountains), distortion (church), overexposure of the two houses in foreground (yellow and white), unfortunate shadow in corner left below.--Jebulon (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Oct 2010 at 23:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela - A Estrada - Ga--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)liza.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Manuel Reimóndez Portela - A Estrada - Galiza.jpg[reply]
Support{Neutral} - would like to see a bit more detail in the description (size of the bust; and who he is in Englsh as well as Spanish, also a Catalan description) - MPF (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC) change to support, now more info added - MPF (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Español: Procedo a incorporar datos en todas las lenguas que domino aceptablemente. Lo que no se me puede pedir es que escriba en las que no domino. No sé escribir catalán, aunque puedo leerlo con mucha dificultad. Escribo inglés con ayuda de traductores automáticos. Sea como sea, no sé decir en inglés quién es el personaje de la foto, pero puedo intentarlo, aunque ya lo he intentado y fracasado. Entiendo que este es un proyecto colaborativo y que otros vendrán que nos harán mejores
Translation (poor english): I want to incorporate data in all the languages that I dominate (es, gl, or perhaps pt). I can't write (always) in a language that I do not dominate (english). I can't write in catalan (but I can understand). I write English with the help of automatic translators. I do not know to say in English who is the personage of the photo, but I can try it. (I do not know to translate the end)--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sorry, I meant Galician, not Catalan ... Oops!! On the size, I asked because there are no visual clues to its size, from the photo it could be anything from 20 cm to 3 m high. (Traducción de Google): ¡Gracias! Perdón, quise decir gallego no, el catalán ... ¡Uy! Por el tamaño, le pregunté porque no hay pistas visuales a su tamaño, de la foto puede ser cualquier cosa desde 20 cm a 3 m de altura. - MPF (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and thanks. It is very difficult to me to say what I want in English. I only can do simple orations. I am not angry. I did not understand. I don't understand now too much, but i'm sure that you are a collaborative user. Sorry.--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Caro Luis, há duas coisa de que eu não gosto nesta imagem: a luz, que é muito agressiva (demasiado contraste) e o enquadramento, que é muito cerrado em torno do busto. For the rest of us, sorry for writing in Portuguese (which is almost identical to Galician). The comment reads: Dear Luis, there are two things I don't like in this image: the harsh light (too much contrast) and the tight framing around the statue. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Compreendo perfeitamente o português, mas levo uns 25 anos sem o falar ou escrever. Actualmente não o sei escrever, e preciso de FLiP (creio que você conhece FLiP). É evidente que a sua postura não tem que concordar hoje com a minha, não há problema, manha, noutro espaço, podemos concordar. Com você. Para mim, passadas diferenças foram esquecidas--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sobre a imagem: Não concordo com a questão da luz (desacordo total com o do contraste), mas si concordo com o do enquadramento. Tenho que dizer que o enquadramento devesse a que o há por detrás não é aceitável (vejo todos os dias a escultura). Posso tirar a foto uma e mil vezes--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Info As I may understand a bit spanish and latin, I've tried to make a french translation of the file description page. There is no article in the french WP about the "commission of the status of the Sixteen", so, after reading galego article (latin brotherhood helps a lot for this !!), I tried a very short explanation, with a link to the french WP article to Galiza, not so bad, but without any information about the galician post-franquist period history...Nevertheless, I hope my little work will help french native speakers ! Cheers.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 21:21:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Colonial anemone zebra.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Colonial anemone zebra.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 17:05:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Equine evolution.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Equine evolution.jpg
439
603
8930
1727
9623
8223
Skeleton of Equus grevyi today
439
2412
8930
1891
9623
8223
Skeleton of Pliohippus 12 million years ago
439
4386
8930
1699
9623
8223
Skeleton of Merychippus 17 - 11 million years ago
439
6195
8930
1453
9623
8223
Skeleton of Mesohippus 40 - 30 million years ago
3372
356
2166
7456
9623
8223
Size development:
Equus grevyi: 1.45 - 1.60 m (4'7" - 5'3") high Pliohippus: 1.40 m (4'6") high Merychippus: 0.90 - 1.20 m (3' - 3'9") high Mesohippus: 0.60 m (2') high
5565
356
2330
7456
9623
8223
Biometrical changes in the Cranium: From elongate to chunky
7951
356
1398
7456
9623
8223
Reduction of fingers:
Loss of finger 5 Reduction to rudiments of fingers 2 and 4
Equine evolution. Composed from Skeletons of Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Germany.
From left to right: Size development, biometrical changes in the skull, reduction of fingers (left forefoot)
Another small comment ;-) the yellow note boxes aren't all congruent, it would look tidier if they were. Oh, and 'toes' not 'fingers'. - MPF (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is the forefoot (the hand) which is depicted, I chose "finger" (but everyone can change it, if he wants to). The boxes are arranged horizontally (with explanation) and vertically (with other explanations). If you go to the overlaying parts, you can see the comments for the horizontal and the vertical boxes respectively. That's the reason for this arrangement. --Llez (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Finger" is normally only used for arms, not for forelegs, in English. But I'll wait to see what others think. What I meant with the boxes, was that they were not fully aligned (e.g. column 1 started 343 px from the top and was 7620 px high, column 2 started 329 px from the top and was 7634 px high), I have aligned them all now. - MPF (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for aligning. Finger /toes: I'm not so familiar with English to know this difference. I accept your argument, I change to "toes". --Llez (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the most recent above, and the most ancient below ? Looks unlogical to me and seems a contrary of an evolution... It is not "evolutive", is it ? (and sorry for my poor english too, but I'm sure you understand what I mean) --Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All genealogical trees (human or in palaeontology) are arranged in this way (the oldest at bottom, the youngest on top). This corresponds also to the stratigraphical layers in geology (the youngest layers - and fossils - at the top). --Llez (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the answer & explanations. It is indeed more logical than it seems ! Could be featured among the featured, IMO...--Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The highlights on the skulls seem a bit bright, but this is good quality and educational, it reminds me of a museum placard. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry, it is not possible to me to do this within the next days, it's a lot of work, and I don't have the time. It lasted severeal days (besides other things) to arrange the picture in this way. I tried several backgrounds and I found black to be the best. --Llez (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Were all the of the individual photographs taken by you, Llez? The source section doesn't give any information on the source of the photos, it merely says "Own work", which could be referring only to the collage. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info All photos are taken by me in the "Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe" (SNMK). Equus grevyii is an original skeleton, the others are replicas of specimens of the American Museum of Natural History, New York, also presented in the SNMK. --Llez (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question of a Beotian : why choosing a zebra, and not a horse, even both are members of "Equus", and both at the top of evolution ?
Info You can choose any modern Equus as example. But the reason is simple: At the Museum (SMNK, see above) these four skeletons are mounted to demonstrate horse-evolution. No other modern Equus-species is shown as skeleton. To photograph other species, you must have skeletons arranged in the same way. But I hadn't. In addition, I dont think that the skeletons would show serious differences. --Llez (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the annotation must be corrected, if I'm not wrong (Equus grevyi looks better than Equus greyvi) Sorry if I mistake.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 13:58:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kitzingen BW 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kitzingen BW 6.jpg
Neutral I'm not really sure. Quality is excellent, as always, and I love the background, but there seems to be heavy distortion around the tops of the two towers. Also, I don't mind it straight on or from an angle, but this is not really either. --TheHighFinSpermWhale16:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and valuable. The distortion is the almost inevitable side effect of a perspective correction or the use of a shift lens. -- MJJR (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Sorry, but I don't think the image quality is up to the current standards. Lighting is not the best, there is some disturbing geometric distortion and I don't like the framing. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Oct 2010 at 14:17:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SMP September 2010-6b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SMP September 2010-6b.jpg
Info I like the contrast between the bluish tones caused by the partially overcast sky and the warmer colors of the clay in the headland. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried to edit this image to make the colors not to look like "washed-out". Do you mind if I update this image with my version? if you don't like the new version you can always revert to this one. BTW, why some kind of vignetting occurs in the left side? Ggia (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please upload as a new version. I've no idea where the vigneting comes from. A correct version, with a slight saturation increase, was uploaded -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but this edit it is based on the first 6,2 Mbytes [3] version and Alvesgaspar updated the photo with 11,61 MB size.. I don't know if the new version has more details, has more quality etc. Ggia (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 10:27:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Breithorn Panorama.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Breithorn Panorama.svg
Oppose -- Sorry to disagree but I don't like the long and (too) narrow stripe, much of it of sky. The image quality is not excellent either, and the labels are difficult to read. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a discrepancy to me: If I'd had made it wider you would see even more sky and on the ground projection distortions would become obvious. Please consider the image resolution of 56 Megapixel when judging image quality. I have a 2m wide printout at home which looks absolutely perfect. If you can't read the labels you can scale the graphic-that's the advantage of a vector format. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand the difficulties, which may not have an adequate solution. I'm also aware of the lighting problems with this kind of image. Maybe this was not the best spot to take the 360º panorama; a higher place would have been much better, of course but is there such place? The truth is I don't sympatize with 360º panoramas, not only due to the technical problems involved but also because they don't offer a realistic view of the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might be better to switch the names with numbers for non-English speakers, that way the mountains could be labelled on the image page description. --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translate field names like Matterhorn to Horn above the alpine tundra?? You should find the field names as lemmata in enwiki, i.e. the ones linked in my support vote. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create a fernch or italian only version for the specific wikis. In cartography however it's a standard to take the names in the language that is spoken prominently in the place of the object being labeled. --Ikiwaner (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong support.. Excellent work.. but I have the following question.. how this file can be used online? because the firefox does not load it.. and the "Interactive large-image-viewer" cannot read it. I opened the file off-line to view it after downloading it. Ggia (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Oct 2010 at 12:18:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dangar Falls Dorrigo-retouched-by-karstn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dangar Falls Dorrigo-retouched-by-karstn.jpg
Info created by Siantar, retouched by Carschten, nominated by Carschten. The Dangar Falls in Dorrigo, New South Wales, Australia. A nice composition picture of an interesting waterfall.
Comment Pretty good, but a bit tilted (notice the trees on the left, the one in the BG). I know it's natural perspective, but it's not so nice.. --IdLoveOne (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see a lot of people support this image. My objection is about aesthetics. First of all the image is a little titled but this one (minor issue) can be easily fixed. I don't like the way that the pond (small lake) is cropped. I would like to have more pond or more landscape in the lower part of the image. Probably a more tight crop in the lower part of the image can work as well. Ggia (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new retouched version of this image, in case you like it more.. I tried to fix the skewed horizon and I tried a more creative crop in the lower part. Ggia (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the original is better; particularly note the pole and fenceposts on the hill at the top left are no longer erect on the retouched version - MPF (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok -- it was an attempt by me to have another version.. since you support this image.. probably these leafs in the border in the lower-left part can be patched.. Ggia (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 09:25:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Göteborgs domkyrkan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Göteborgs domkyrkan.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Oct 2010 at 03:13:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nofretete Neues Museum.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nofretete Neues Museum.jpg
Neutral The object (work of art, if it was a work of art) is beautiful. The subject (The Queen) is beautiful too, according to our modern culture standards (not sure for the post-Akhenaton egyptians !). No doubt for me. But I'm not convinced by the photograph, even it semms to be the best we have. It is noisy, and I dislike the (maroon) post-processing very disturbing IMO on the chin, the neck, and on the shadow of the chin. The highlights over the eye and the shoulder should be a bit corrected to, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, though I suppose I'm too late to make any difference here. Surely one of the characteristics of an image that is among "the finest on Commons" must be that it is not capable of being significantly improved upon. I don't think that's the case with this photo: there are reflections from the glass case in the lower neck area and ugly blown highlights on the shoulder, nose and forehead. In addition it's noisy in the shadows, and the colour balance is way off. I've uploaded a cleaned up version (aside), but since this is an easily rephotographable object I'd really prefer to see a better quality, higher resolution photo featured. Smalljim (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 00:43:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pompée Vaux.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pompée Vaux.jpg
Taste is taste. It is very sharp IMO. But there is no white space in the top part, there is voooooid. A previous version was declined in QI because of too soft masking. Lol !--Jebulon (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the other picture with the black background has a bit better quality and a special pizzaz to me, but this one with the afterwards inserted white background hasn't the featured feeling, sorry. How you said: „Taste is taste“. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat13:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But a black background was impossible because of the black marble... You are welcome if you have a good idea for a valuable background. And I don't understand the words "Wuality" and "pizzaz", sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You've gone overboard the other way now Jebulon ;-). You have cut away parts of the statue with your masking. It's a tricky business... Lycaon (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a very beautiful statue and a good picture, and it's a shame I have to oppose. But Lycaon is right, the price for this masking to look so crisp was the sacrifice of some details. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. But I disagree. What you see cut horizontally is not a part of the neck, but a plaster part of bad restoration ( sorry for my wrong words, technical words are hard to know and to use).To be honest, I really don't know, now...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Anyway, ware you right, I think really (and respectfully) that it is not so "immediately obvious"--Jebulon (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do you think an improved version is possible, masked from the original file, the first one with original background ? Your comments are initiating a real challenge to me !! Theorical help would be welcome ! --Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 09:22:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment - could do with some indication of compass points. The current version is also 180° to the previous lo-res version, maybe it should be rotated? - MPF (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 19:13:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zinc fragment sublimed and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zinc fragment sublimed and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 23:44:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Al acecho.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Al acecho.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:21:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A beachcomber is touching a dead whale washed ashore at Ocean beach edit 1.jpg
So what are you going to do? Bully every one who criticizes your images into submission? Get a restraining order for every hapless user who dares to comment on your clumsy cloning? Who is next? Alvesgaspar no doubt, and many to follow. Your 'fix' came rather speedily anyhow, didn't it? Ah, if I opposed everything you nominated (FP, QI, VI) indiscriminately, you might have a bone, but I only contest poor/insufficient quality images, just as I do with my best friends. Don't flatter yourself, you're nothing special in my book. Lycaon (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo! I mean it. It was a first time in more than one and a half year you talked directly to me! lycaon, you are not everybody, and you know it. I will ignore alvesgaspar's review. Tomas said it all. I've nothing more to add. But with you, Lycaon, I wish we are to start from the beginning, much before CU request, and you'd tell me what have I done to you back then, when all this have started. I literally begged you to talk to me, a few people wanted to meditate for two of us. I was ready on everything, on any mediator of your choice. You refused. You do not respond my questions about your reviews of my images, you just do not wish to talk to me at all, and then it was that infamous "kicking back on me" I will not provide the link, but you know what I am talking about, don't you? In such situation, it will be better to avoid each other, isn't it? It's all I am asking. Oh, and BTW, if you noticed the problem was fixed, maybe you could change your the reason of your oppose, or remove your oppose altogether as no longer valid? After all you should know better than alvesgaspar and kuiper do that the subject of this image deserves to be featured.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The correction just made to the stitching errors in the surf looks so clumsy as to be almost almost offensive to the reviewers in this forum. I wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template if I could. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't hesitate to use a FPX template, if you could? Really? I thought there is no more need to prove that Tomas was right.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact you're visiting FPC so very rarely , that you added your note to a wrong place. It should be added to a nomination, and not to an image, but you came here not to review the image, and you know that.--Mbz1 (talk)
Oppose - I also looked at previous versions, there is too much manipulation here. Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing, the subject of the image is a whale, or rather the mark of the bites of great white sharks. The whale was not retouched. The ocean was. There were a big waves that day, and it is all, but impossible to stitch the waves automatically. I did my best in stitching those waves, and I believe I have done a good job, but once again, the subject of the image is the whale, and the marks of shark bites.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please add note to the nomination? But I very much doubt there's one. If there were alvesgaspar and/or lycaon would have noticed it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to ask everybody, who is here to review the image, if you'll see a stitching error, please do not oppose it right away, but add a note (not to the image, but to the nomination). Please also notice that the subject of the image is not the waves. One more time, I would like to stress out that the subject is quite unique, very rare to see, has a great EV, and reviews like "Anyway, decaying sea animals on the beach are not the most appealing subjects" should not be taken in the account.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me. I think its a great subject, and a very valuable and unique picture, too. Who cares if it isn't a butterfly on a flower? I'd honestly rather see a decaying whale, which is a very interesting subject matter that isn't something you see everyday (a big factor, I would think, in whether or not something is worth featuring). As for the stitching, I understand why manipulations on the ocean had to be done, and I fail to see why that's a deterrent; the subject in intact and looks good (not that type of good...), while the ocean is an ocean, and isn't a big factor in the image. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare, impressive and moving image. Here I am sensitive to the rarity of the event (on Commons at least), the contact between human and (dead) animal, the damages made by sharks and vandals, the sadness of this huge beached body. --Myrabella (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Trycatch, for pointing out some errors. I believe I fixed them. When you have a time, may I please ask you to take another look. I left your notes as you put them.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note the imperfect source for the id, quoting a marine biologist, says Sei (B. borealis) or Bryde's (B. brydei) [doh! Fin (B. physalus)] or Blue hybrid. I imagine the boffin blathering on about uncertain taxonomy of the genus, and the reporter seizing on rare and hybrid to fill the column, but noting it as a species of w:Balaenoptera is probably reasonable. Beached whales are not rare, neither is being chewed round the edges before they land. Questions: This was taken with the same camera that produced the image at the Great White article? Is it possible to see the source without retouching? Where is the citation that states it was that shark species, or is that assumed? cygnis insignis18:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, beached whales are more or less rare, and appear only in some regions, even at ocean shores. I live 10 minutes walk from the ocean. I see a beach wale about 1 time in 2-3 years in 40 miles radius from my home. It was only second time I saw a whale with the bites by a great white shark, or any shark for that matter at all. I saw elephant seals with the bites of sharks. All the images were taken with the same camera. Also amazing were the huge bites taken out of the whale that experts said were from great white sharks. I am not sure why do you need to see the source files.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't cite that source, good copy is the priority. I can't cite you until you are published and reviewed, but dead and dying whales turn up on beaches more often than other regions, if not always. I see and hear of them in my immediate vicinity many times a year, I've never thought to photograph them, is there an audience for deserted and dying humpback calves. This used to drive the locals nuts, keeping them awake all night with their wailing until somebody went out and shot it. Stinking up our favourite beach isn't much fun either. I had the idea that making the original data available was sop, at least for restoration, and I fancied having a look after I zoomed up on the retouched file. Is it impolite to ask, ignore me if it is. cygnis insignis19:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count four in the last three months, on beaches I can see from my window. One was 'resting' in the harbour for a fortnight, then was blown up; again, I didn't think to get a snap of that. BTW, you should add a warning about touching dead mammals, not a good idea. Rarity is not a consideration here. cygnis insignis20:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 23:56:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose The artificial background blows it. Motif itself marvellous and well pictured. Pls fix it, and you´ll get another (sup).--ΠΣΟ˚ (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why two chances for this picture ? Must I vote for the two pics ? Is it another nomination ? "Alternative versions" are confusing IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just liked the brightness of the aquamarine when white balanced and wondered if others would too. GIMP's white balance is definitely not infallible (you should see some of the thing's it's done, yeesh) but it's usually considered more realistic. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 20:04:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:CentralMineralBath-Sofia-8a 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:CentralMineralBath-Sofia-8a 3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 16:28:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicoreus ramosus 001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicoreus ramosus 001.jpg
Chicoreus ramosus, Branched Murex, Muricidae, length 18 cm, originating from the Indo-West Pacific. Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 18:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose the image of the Frecce Tricolori that you intend to get featured does not show the formation with their traditional colours. displaying the national colours of italy is what makes them so remarkable. the blurry bush seems rather distracting here and does not improve the composition. i would be glad if you could provide another picture showing the colours at this size. using digital image editing - removing the fauna will be the least problem. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 19:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by their traditional colours? This? As far as I know, the F.C. had never had this kind of livery on the MB-339. And if you want to remove the tree - sorry, no deal. Wolf (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
their traditional colours / national colours of italy refers to the green-white-red smoke trails as seen on other pictures. my point is not about the planes' colours - i opposed because i think showing the Frecce Tricolori without those smoke trails does not cope with what they are renowned for. if reviewed at 100% sharpness and detail could be better as well. for this is not an image showing a historical singularity an image featuring all the aspects mentioned here could still be created. think of someone who is not into aviation and does know about the Frecce Tricolori - which composition would be better to explain what is seen on the picture? --Peter Weis (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the smoke, now I understand. Honestly, no, they are not renowned for the colour of the smoke. They're simply not. You could say that Patrulla Águila is, in a sense, because they're the only team to use yellow smoke. And mind you, this is not Wikipedia the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense. And there is never an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. The argument would, however, be perfectly valid for valued images, that is where we pay attention to how the image illustrates a given topic. There due to the reasons you mentioned, I'd oppose the picture myself. Wolf (talk) 08:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i think there is always an indication of what a particular image is supposed to illustrate. it first of all is image itself: the level of detail you can perceive, the movement within the image, the way the image was shot concerning technical aspects. the question one needs to ask oneself is: what does this picture tell me? does it tell about the aircraft type? not really, shape is visible, but technical details are not. does it tell about the formation they fly? yes it does - to a certain degree, film could do better to give a illustration of what they are able of. speaking of the connection of colour and Frecce Tricolori - i think it is the same with Patrulla Águila. they do formations including their national colours as well. that was my point. after having seen several picture of the Frecce Tricolori, visiting their website and browsing through the article i got the impression that this what they are renowned for. but alright, you are the guy who's into aviation. i would be very glad if you could get me the part of the guideline where it says, the Commons FPs do not need to be educational in the strict sense, i did not find it so far.--Peter Weis (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where does it say that an image has to be educational? That's exactly the point that EV is absent from the guidelines altogether. Commons FP (as opposed to Wikipedia FP) deals with the image itself, not the image in the context of a particular article. And as for colours, the truth is that most stunts are done with white smoke, the colours are mostly reserved for fly-bys and some formation manoeuvres. Wolf (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
after digging deeper and deeper in the mine of understanding, i unearth your idea here. besides colours or not, besides educational value or not - what is the aspect of this image that makes you think it deserves featured picture status, what makes it convincing?--Peter Weis (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like the diagonal composition and - as mentioned below - the idea of the planes popping out from behind the cover as if in a low level air raid. By the way, I've just nominated a picture with high (I think) educational value. You can consider it to have a dedication just for you Really, no hard feelings. Wolf (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a final note. for further uploads and your personal interest: Commons:Project scope. please note that educational values is notabsent from the guidelines altogether. after all - knowing the whole range of policies and guidelines is rather impossible. use this for your advantage. PETER WEISTALK11:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I uploaded this picture, because I like the tree, I like the idea of the planes popping out from behind the cover as if in a low level air raid. Wolf (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 00:31:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Moulins La Mancha.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Moulins La Mancha.jpg
Comment -- A nice composition. I'm always expecting D. Quichote de la Mancha to come out of the castle to fight the monsters... But there is an obvious ccw tilt that should be corrected. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
alternative edited version
Comment I'm sorry, I think such a tilt is not that "obvious". I see other little issues, as always when I watch very carefully my pictures (I'm never fully happy with them), but I really don't find any tilt.--Jebulon (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Please bring the picture to full size and align the left and the right walls of the castle with the right margin. You'll see the tilt. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that previously. It seems more to be a perspective distortion IMO, because there is no other way where a tilt could be possible (and the right wall of the castle is not straight in real). Not sure it needs to be corrected. Thoughts about ?--Jebulon (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reckon it's a fine photo, composition-wise. Sticking a grey point on the shadow of the foreground sail shows that there's a slight magenta tinge, there's also a touch of colour noise in the shadows, and it could be a little brighter and more saturated to emphasise the strength of the Spanish sun. I've uploaded a version incorporating these changes (aside): I'd be interested to hear what people think. Smalljim (talk) 22:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for comments and very nice and interesting work. No need to emphasize the strength of the spanish sun : I was under, and it was enough, for sure !! Maybe I prefer my work, because the landscape looks more "arid", a bit "dusty", and in fact it was so in real ...Let's discuss.--Jebulon (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 15:20:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Oct 2010 at 19:42:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Růžovka Rakousko.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Růžovka Rakousko.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 10:02:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 11:56:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info The Great mosque is the first one in the town of Sayada, it was built in 1750 and to this day the mosque has preserved its original appearance. Image created, uploaded and nominated by -- — Habib M'HENNI [¿tell me?]11:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 14:15:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liptovská Mara - church tower1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liptovská Mara - church tower1.jpg
Neutral Quality is correct, if not extraordinary. Framing is not very interesting: lack of breathing space on the right hand side, whereas the man in a wife beater and the green hatchback on the left hand side could be left out. --74.59.181.116 20:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC) -- Please log in to vote -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 19:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Narodni trg Zadar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Narodni trg Zadar.jpg
Question I don't quite get what you mean, Alvesgaspar: since it is a panoramic view of a square space, the horizontal lines have to be skewed (into sections of sine waves, to be specific)... Actually, i just love the Escher-esque feeling of this candidate. --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice picture (subject, composition, colors, lighting...). There are no major problems with the verticals IMHO, except some distortion at the left. -- MJJR (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 20:33:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Palomena prasina qtl6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Palomena prasina qtl6.jpg
Oppose -- Very nice picture and composition. But not up to the present standards in terms of image quality. Please take a look at the FP bug gallery. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 18:03:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pano of Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco from Twin Peaks 1 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pano of Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco from Twin Peaks 1 1.jpg
Comment I fell that some of the landscape in the lower part is missing. The image seems a little bit tilt (may-be it is distortion due to image stitching). Ggia (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Too obvious barrel distortion, affecting the horizon (which is curved) and the verticcal lines (mainly at right). Needs re-stitching with different parametes or pos-processing to straighten the lines. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Oct 2010 at 23:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita muscaria 3 vliegenzwammen op rij.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita muscaria 3 vliegenzwammen op rij.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 04:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rick West at Skymont Boy Scout Camp.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rick West at Skymont Boy Scout Camp.jpg
Oppose Hmm, guy with black hat facing some dark wall in the shadow... that's definitely the worst composition ever. However, the technical quality of this picture is not that bad. :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aktron (talk • contribs)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 07:45:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cmentarz na Rossie 7.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cmentarz na Rossie 7.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 08:18:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dundasite and Crocoite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dundasite and Crocoite.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Oct 2010 at 13:38:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rossa - Lelewel.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rossa - Lelewel.JPG
Introducing an "alternative version", not made nor chosen by the nominator, is a bit confusing for reviewers I'm afraid...--Jebulon (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 05:07:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 14:50:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mineral de Pozos 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mineral de Pozos 1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 06:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Epees IMG 5568-12b.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Epees IMG 5568-12b.jpg
Info Officer sword, France, First Empire. On display at Vevey historical museum. Focus stacking used to obtain sharpness on both the guard and handle on the same photograph. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The cetacean is correct. There is a marked difference between the masking of both hilt versions. Lycaon (talk) 08:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC) Has been improved. Lycaon (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point, thank you to the opposers for pointing these defects. I have uploaded an improved version where the smaller hilt is a scaled-down clone of the high-resolution one. Featurable or not, definitely better, I think. Rama (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I like the idea but think it is not well implementd. Two reasons: the images are too dark, affecting the details of both the blade and the handle; and the composition is unbalanced. Why not move the handle upwards, as to become ligned-up with the top the sword, and show a little more of the blade? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 13:24:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:IAR 99.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:IAR 99.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 16:29:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg (new)Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grasshopper June 2008-2.jpg (new)
Comment but looks like a waste of resources to re-upload the image, just because somebody want to nominate it as a feature picture. The rule doesn't prevent re-nomination.. I believe that you are right.. But has this been discussed before? Before most of us believe that something is nominated once. And if re-nomination is allowed.. should be clearly mentioned in the rules.. and this should not be done by re-uploading the image with different name (waste of resources to have duplicate identical images). Ggia (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the image was not uploaded as a new version... It is the same image! As for re-nominating a picture, the practise was not rare in the past 2 or 3 years. It is a fair thing to do if the first nomination did not receive much attention, which is the present case. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter how much attention the picture got. Obviously the rules do not disallow renominations, so you are allowed to renominate an image as many times as you wish, even if it was rejected by a vote of 20 to 1. --Petritap (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now. One way I'm not sure I agree with such a re-nomination, even if it is allowed by an unclear rule, but other way I didn't know this pic, and I'm happy to see it because it is very nice... Please convince me !!--Jebulon (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to say to convince you, except that I love this picture and I feel more and more fascinated with the insect world. Do you realize how these little critters are so different from us? It's not by chance that the alliens appearing in the low-budget movies are inspired by them. Look at eyes. Not only the composite ones (which are banded) but also the three ocelli: two above the antennae and one below. Nobody knows how they work and what kind of vision these animals have. Look at the mouth parts. Scary, aren't they? Now, I realize that I have nominated this picture not only two but three times... Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 20:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstatt z lodi 10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hallstatt z lodi 10.jpg
Oppose Přepálená bílá (vzadu), protisvětlo, barvy mě taky netěší... myslím, že máš celou řadu mnohem lepších kandidátů na FP než takové snímky. --Aktron (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bezpochyby máš pravdu. Ještě včera jsem tu jeden měl a potřebaval jsem 2 hlasy. A to jsi udělal mrtvého brouka, že? --Karelj (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Oct 2010 at 21:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SVT valdebatt 2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SVT valdebatt 2010.jpg
Support I'm going to go out on a limb and support this one. The subject is the central woman, who eventually won the highest primary vote. This puts her in an interesting and valuable context, with good composition. There is a little noise, but I think it's acceptable for an indoor shot. --99of9 (talk) 08:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 00:37:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Amanita Muscaria premio Bolo 2006 Parque Natural de la Sierra de Cardeña y Montoro.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Amanita Muscaria premio Bolo 2006 Parque Natural de la Sierra de Cardeña y Montoro.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 20:51:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 11:43:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:After study desk-detail.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:After study desk-detail.JPG
Oppose great composition. superb depth of field. shallow focus. too much luminance noise. severe chromatic abberation. still a good idea to provide an image not showing a certain item, but something rather intangible. see file usage here. there should be more featured picture candidates trying to display intangible things like emotions or else. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 07:31:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Montastraea cavernosa (Great Star Coral) with Elacatinus oceanops (Neon Goby).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Montastraea cavernosa (Great Star Coral) with Elacatinus oceanops (Neon Goby).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Oct 2010 at 15:21:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Praha, Smíchov, pohled na noční Emauzy.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Praha, Smíchov, pohled na noční Emauzy.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 10:23:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 14:56:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mineral de Pozos 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mineral de Pozos 2.jpg
Comment Ahh!!! Well!!! Hello my dear friend!!!! Is that the best you can do? Well, guess what... the effect is caused by the clouds!!!! If you take the time to analyze it carefully, you will see it. And probably you will find many, many more faults so I won´t think it is a systematic oppose. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 00:45:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is poor and the subject is not focused -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 20:11:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pulmonata.jpg
Comment great to see someone else who's into restorations. please upload original and refer to it on the image page. adding your restoration achievements by using the {{Retouched picture}} template or simply adding it to the info template will help to understand what you've done. providing metadata from this page could help others. several spots have not been taken care of yet. black/red snail features a huge crack (right in the middle of the snail); left to that snail right on top of the small mushroom another crack can be seen in the background; on the right side the snail which crawls upside down has a crack in its shell deriving from the paper structure; right beneath it between the two empty shells another crack can be seen. these are just my impressions. if those spots where left there intentionally - never mind. regards, PETER WEISTALK17:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 16:41:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tockus leucomelas 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tockus leucomelas 1.jpg
Comment However, the hand processing for vanish the CA on the (a bit noisy) branches in foreground is visible. The two little branches below do not add, IMO. Maybe a FP, but not a perfect one.--Jebulon (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great image, high ev, alas disturbing ca per Jebulon. the original don't feature them on the bird itself, but on the branches - still visible in your edit. a reedit would would be nice. PETER WEISTALK17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a strange blue color visible at high resolution between black and white feathers on the right wing of the bird (left), and near the beak too, on the neck feathers--Jebulon (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 05:34:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zebras Ngorongoro Crater.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zebras Ngorongoro Crater.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 16:46:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Our Lady of Međugorje.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Our Lady of Međugorje.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: because it is underexposed and has a distrcting background -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 19:52:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorocebus Global.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chlorocebus Global.jpg
Comment Well observed. The center space to be occupied by the label of the nineteenth century. This is a beta test for the digitization of the collection of primate skulls from the Museum of Toulouse, which will begin in December. The skull is shown here is a contemporary skull whose label has no historical interest.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didn't think we featured beta tests! I'll still be happy to support with less blackspace. I understand this will make it inconsistent with the labelled ones when they arrive, but it will look better in our featured galleries. --99of9 (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 19:44:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Meerkat feb 09.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Meerkat feb 09.jpg
Comment Glad to see an image from Fir0002 that has not been savagely and cynically downsampled to just above FP requirements. I just wanted to add a note that Meercats do not run wild in Victoria, so this must be at a zoo, but the details are missing from the description. --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Oppose the still insufficient description. 99of9 (talk) 06:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 14:03:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nymphaea alba in Duisburg.jpg
Don't you like how I've photographed that fly or does it disturb in general? Flies are kinda usual here, see e. g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Looks a bit symbiotic to me. Kind regards, —DerHexer(Talk)21:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 17:52:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:StSophiaChurch-Sofia-10.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:StSophiaChurch-Sofia-10.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 20:52:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Troki - zamek.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Troki - zamek.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Oct 2010 at 21:28:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20100820 Spinalonga island Crete Panorama.jpg
Comment just to mention that the resolution of this image is 18.372 × 2.790 = 51.257.880 (around 50 megapixels). Looking to this image ie. 50% of the original size you don't see much noise. Ggia (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral the grain and gradient in the sky are removable. consider uploading an edit. be aware that displaying an image is not the only form of usage. especially if it gets to printing, noise is quite a pain. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment depends on your software. i use photoshop and a noise plugin. photoshop itself comes along with a sufficient method of noise reduction, but this plugin has proven better quality and usability. if you don't have the technical requirements to perform noise reduction, feel free to drop a line - i can take care of it. regards, --Peter Weis (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the comment.. I tried neatimage.. but exif information disappeared.. the new version is updated but has half size from the original one.. Ggia (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment severe change. the still obvious gradient is very distracting. please reconsider working on it as well. dunno whether this has to do with the light situation on the set, the specs of your equip or anything else. PETER WEISTALK22:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The image is underexposed. Try to correct brightness and constrast and you will see how it will become more vivid (yes, I did try). Also, the composition would benefit from cropping out the headland at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I uploaded a new version, with much more improvements. This image is made from the beginning directly from raw image files. The sky has no obvious gradient or noise (thanks to the comment by Peter Weis and the very good advices about denoising filter - mask - I did't know before how to remove noise from sky). The white balance I think is better now and natural (thanks to the comment by kaʁstn). The colors are more vivid, the sea is more bright and the whole image is cropped a little bit in the right (thanks to the comment by Alvesgaspar). Ggia (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for the comment.. did you try to refresh you browser.. probably you have the old version from the cache and not the new version.. In my screen it doesn't look underexposed.. I think the headland in the right part of the image is balanced with the left part (see and land). Of-course a new cropped version of this image if you want to create/suggest.. is also welcome.. Fell free to update the image if you want. Ggia (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, though there is an obvious geometric distortion at left (check the posts). But you have time to make the necessary corrections... Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 00:46:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica 1912 edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antarctica 1912 edit.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 09:40:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I understand THFSW, but I think it (the flash light) gives a very good effect. I like this. No unacceptable noise to me.--Jebulon (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would prefer if in the image a mask will be applied in the upper part (above mushroom).. in order to increase the brightness. But the image nerveless is good. Ggia (talk) 07:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose noise is not a very big problem imo, but the flash. The upper part of the mushroom is too dark and looks like lampshade which lighted the lower half. The background looks somehow photographed somewhere else and then copied in it (I think because of the flash). The foliage at the bottom left should be also removed before taking an image. It can't be a big problem to take a photo of the the mushroom with a tripod without falsh light. Quality is okay, but I think it could be better too. So this picture isn't featured in my opinion! --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 10:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern Water Dragon Clontarf.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eastern Water Dragon Clontarf.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 16:25:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20-1-Jokulsarlon.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20-1-Jokulsarlon.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Oct 2010 at 17:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Parthenon-2008.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parthenon-2008.jpg
Oppose Perspective correction is not always a mandatory, especially in this case, but I'm very disturbed here by the leaning scaffoldings left and right...--Jebulon (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 23:39:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Le Chapeau de Paille by Peter Paul Rubens.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Le Chapeau de Paille by Peter Paul Rubens.jpg
detail - facture
Info created by Peter Paul Rubens/National Gallery London, uploaded by Dcoetzee, nominated by Maedin
Comment -- Welcome back to our company, Maedin! I don't know why but always found this painting creepy. The expression of the eyes and mouth, the stormy sky, the way breasts are hold by the dress... Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The painting is beautiful, but it's a bad digital reproduction, you can't see the detail of the true painting, canvass, paint, and halftoning is visible. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:54:10
Info Low resolution, compounded by the fact that the actual subjects are only a small fraction of the picture. I'm not saying it isn't nice, but it's not feature-worthy anymore. (Original nomination) (2007 delisting discussion)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 01:41:53
Info Less than half the required size, and underexposed such that it lacks detail on the bird's body. Very unlikely to be featured if nominated now. (Original nomination) (2007 delisting discussion)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 06:41:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Amphiprion ocellaris at Raja Ampat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amphiprion ocellaris at Raja Ampat.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 15:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eustrombus gigas 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eustrombus gigas 01.jpg
Eustrombus gigas, Strombidae, length 20 cm, originating from the Caribbean. Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded. From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 09:47:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Scopus umbretta qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Scopus umbretta qtl1.jpg
Please note that I didn't oppose... I really don't know, because I'm not sure... I'll wait a bit, and probably support...;)--Jebulon (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what exactly is the problem? Are the colors too warm or too cold in your view? White balance could be easily adjusted. --Quartl (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 03:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Qianlong Emperor in Ceremonial Armour on Horseback.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Qianlong Emperor in Ceremonial Armour on Horseback.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 09:04:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Kehlen chapelle rue d Olm int 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Kehlen chapelle rue d Olm int 01.jpg
InfoAgnus Dei, Lamb of God, by an unknown 19th century artisan/artist in a chapel in Luxembourg. Venite omnes - Come all of you to me. For scale: the tiles are 15x15 cm wide. An irony of history: Jesus opposed the sacrifice of animals (mainly lambs)..., to later become, after his own sacrifice on the Cross, the Lamb of God.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 18:50:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alsfeld17crop 2010-07-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alsfeld17crop 2010-07-03.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 15:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Malá Fatra by Pudelek 03 - Pekelník.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Malá Fatra by Pudelek 03 - Pekelník.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 08:08:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sépulture de Teviec Global.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sépulture de Teviec Global.jpg
Question -- This is an amazing picture but I don't understand what really is. It looks like an archeological site but the whole thing is signed. Why? I think that the picture file needs a proper explanation. Will come back here, of course! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An exhibition "National" on the prehistory begins at the Museum of Toulouse in 2 days. I am still under embargo for information. Answer Wednesday. Thank you for your curiosity for "Philippe Lacomme" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 00:49:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Fijian Flower Close-up.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Fijian Flower Close-up.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 02:51:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Arnisee (Switzerland).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Arnisee (Switzerland).jpg
Das bedeutet, dass die hellen Stellen im Bild überbelichtet sind. Schau dir den hintersten Berg an; dessen Schneefelder sind so hell, dass sie im Bild komplett weiss sind - sprich, Helligkeitsunterschiede im Schnee sieht man nicht mehr. Der Kern des Problems ist, dass heutige Dateiformate und Bildschirme Helligkeitsunterschiede nur in einem bestimmten Bereich darstellen können, und wenn ein Bereich heller ist, kommt einfach alles als weiss raus. Du könntest nun das Bild nachträglich abdunkeln, aber das nützt nichts, da sämtliche Details in diesem Bereich bereits endgültig verloren sind. Es sei denn, du hättest noch eine dünklere Version dieses Bildes oder ein RAW-File, das idr. einen grösseren Kontrastumfang als das JPEG aufweist; dort sind die Details in diesem Bereich vielleicht noch vorhanden - Dann müsstest du aus dem RAW ein neues JPEG machen, dass dünkler ist (bzw. einen "zusammengestauchten" Kontrastumfang hat, der ins JPEG-Format rein passt). --Kabelleger (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vielen Dank für die ausführliche Antwort, Kabelleger! Leider sind die Helligkeitsverhältnisse auch beim Originalbild nicht besser... Okay, THFSW, now I know what you mean by "blown highlights." You're right, that's a problem, thanks for pointing to that. However, I still kinda like the picture... Let's wait what others think of it.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeI do not know what it happens in this photo: What happens with mountains of the bottom (too blue or white, and very bad)? There are artifacts (sky)? I don't like it, the color of the mountains of the bottom are disturbing--Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lo siento, no me expreso demasiado bien en inglés. Quería decir "las montañas del fondo", la azul y la blanca. Su contraste y claridad son excesivos para su color y definición.--Miguel Bugallo10:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No hace nada. Gracias para contribuir incluso que es un esfuerzo para ti de escribir en inglés! Ahora lo comprendo: "en el fondo" en tu sentido quiere decir "in the background", "bottom" means "basa". A decir verdad a mi personalmente no me molesta que las montañas tengan demasiado azul y blanco. Pero gracias para tu contribución!--McIntosh Natura (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right, let's remove this nomination! My only problem is, that I don't know how to do that! Can someone help me and do that for me? Thanks! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Oct 2010 at 21:09:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20100729 Cathedral and Sassis Matera Italy.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20100729 Cathedral and Sassis Matera Italy.jpg
Comment yes.. and I am pissed off about the cable of this unit... because after time using the cable, it is damaged and you have to buy a new one. And a new one cost $44.95 [5]. Ggia (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the quality and the light. A little something bothers me in the composition, though. It somewhat looks like there's not enough sky atop the hill, or not enough hill under the buldings... --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 04:44:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sommarnöje (1886), akvarell av Anders Zorn.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sommarnöje (1886), akvarell av Anders Zorn.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 01:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 14:51:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy morning at Lake Merced.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Foggy morning at Lake Merced.jpg
Oppose I see just lot of grey and some distortions. Really, really nothing featured to me, neither the subject nor the composition. Mila has much better photos imo --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Oct 2010 at 15:43:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge at sunset 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Golden Gate Bridge at sunset 1.jpg
Support nice composition. rather touristic impression of the bridge, but still great. tif would be great - why did you crop/downsample? PETER WEISTALK15:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 17:49:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Example of photo collage against censorship.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Example of photo collage against censorship.jpg
Weak support Executed pretty well, pretty eye-catching and cheeky IMO, the edges of the particular images are a bit harsh though. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Serious) Comment Wow, I just noticed how awesome that Image Annotator got. The magnification thing is so cool. You can use it here to read to text. Rocket000 (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 18:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Censored thought.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Censored thought.jpg
Comment lol interesting concept, but I don't think FPC's gonna have much sense of humor for something like this; FPC's usually very serious about photography. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, FPC is not about good photography I am afraid... or much else! That is my opinion, of course. Commons is a repository of images to be used in different articles, etc... This one is meant to illustrate censorship. Of course, nothing to do with what some people may think about the issues here! ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 17:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barents Sea in Bloom.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barents Sea in Bloom.jpg
Weak oppose I love geography and stuff like that, but this has too many clouds, I thought I was looking at Hudson Bay. Can't see Britain, France, Denmark, just most of the water but no way of knowing without the title. --IdLoveOne (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 16:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-IMG 1431-1432-1433-gradient.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lithic core - PRE 2009.0.191.1-IMG 1431-1432-1433-gradient.jpg
Flint Lithic core. Three views of the same object. Found at Le Grand-Pressigny. Offered by Edouard Harlé to Toulouse museum.
Comment i would support solid black version - gradients can be disturbing if reusing an image (print, presentation, etc.) please consider nominating solid colour/transparency. regards, PETER WEISTALK15:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, what is your own choice as nominator ? I would like to support one of the two, but I don't know where is the nomination...--Jebulon (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support solid black background version. i think adding "alt1" or something is more considerate here. the votes for/against the old version are only seen in the context of the updated version - seems rather confusing if not showing both versions. PETER WEISTALK22:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Oct 2010 at 16:49:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rules1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rules1.jpg
First things first: I Support! I love your images and this is again a very good one. The composition is lovely but not perfect (tight crop at right and left, foreground a bit full/distracting), the lightning and the colours are very good. Not soooo good at your picture is the quality. Sharpness is okay, but I don't understand ISO 200... Sky is noisy, and I think the whole quality would be better with ISO 100. But of course it's not too bad (you see, I support :-)). Regards --kaʁstnDisk/Cat17:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC) if you want to answer please do it in German ;-)[reply]
Erstens: I'm sure you may understand my poor english, which is much better than my german ( ich mag lieber Deutsch, aber english is easier to use...). ISO 200: Very simple: it was for me the beginning of the use of this new camera. It is an automatic setting and the lowest one, and I didn't know how to change it at the time !!! Am Ende: Vielen Dank für alle unverdiente Komplimente --Jebulon (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ein bisschen Deutsch war ja dabei :-) The compliments are accurate! I know the problem with the cameras where 200 looks likes the lowest ISO... Pity, but overall at your image not too bad. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat21:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too poor quality (lacking details) to be considered. What lens are you using? ISO 200 should not be a limiting factor here. Lycaon (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I think Lycaon has a point here. You really have to find some sous and purchase a couple of higher quality lenses: one multi-purpose zoom and one macro. I wonder why the image is so undetailed and blurred. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with Tomascastelazo: nice and useful image that is certainly good enough for its intended purpose. But due to some minor flaws (e.g. noise in the sky at full resolution) just not FP... -- MJJR (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 11:45:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Young Lincoln By Charles Keck.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Young Lincoln By Charles Keck.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 19:00:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-44.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-44.jpg
Info I tried to capture the three different planes in a stormy, snowy environment: the plants (in the foreground), the mountains and the sky. I love the result though I'm not sure it has FP quality. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality is a bit low, and I don't like the composition. It's a good idea, but I'd prefer more on both sides, even a panorama, and I think you included too much sky. --TheHighFinSpermWhale19:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 20:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tail of Czech Air Force Airbus A319 CJ.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tail of Czech Air Force Airbus A319 CJ.jpg
Weak support I don't mind a really good photo of a part of something (and this is good quality), but I wished you'd gotten the whole tail, the bottom of it is missing. --IdLoveOne (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose try using a polarizer next time - this will add some contrast to the image and is great if working with skies. your composition is not very convincing to me. no rules of third, no parallels, no straight horizon. a distorted/corrected version could be more appealing. regards, PETER WEISTALK17:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the picture is nice, but definetly not outstanding and isn't encyclopedically useful because it doesn't feature the whole machine (i.e. it would have to be very impressive or show the remaining parts of the plane as well in order so that it could be considered featured)--MASHAUNIX23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. Why would a study of an airliner's tail, with the most minute details visible, not be encyclopedically useful...? Wolf (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 20:31:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wildgrubenspitzen Roggalspitze.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wildgrubenspitzen Roggalspitze.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Oct 2010 at 15:56:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Malbork Castle, part 4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Panorama of Malbork Castle, part 4.jpg
Well, I could easily remove the birds, and I'm neither satisfied with its rotation. But I don't know in which way it should be tilted. Any ideas so that I can combine both tasks? Kind regards, —DerHexer(Talk)18:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 09:53:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tremo, Os Ánxeles, Brión. Vicente Ramos Rodríguez.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tremo, Os Ánxeles, Brión. Vicente Ramos Rodríguez.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 17:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on Stone Bridge in Písek (5).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Statues on Stone Bridge in Písek (5).JPG
Comment Thank you for vote, however can you please marked me where CA is? I will try learn for my mistake for next time...--Chmee2 (talk) 05:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to invest your time on this, I will be glad. Any help is welcome every time :) However, this colours are there because of some soft clouds were present in the time of origin :/ --Chmee2 (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 21:24:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sophie Milman at Waterloo adjusted.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sophie Milman at Waterloo adjusted.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is overexposed, blurry and noisy
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 21:08:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Apple II IMG 4214.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Apple II IMG 4214.jpg
Apple II computer. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 22:48:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
You still have to watch out : If the work was made, say in 1865, and that the author died in 1920, then it's copyright reserved until 2020 (100 years after the artist's death in France, I believe). (Note that the dates I used are arbitrairy, just to illustrate the point that it may still be copyrighted...) -- Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please have an answer here, with other photos of works of this sculptor, no more copyrighted. And don't worry, 70 years after the death of the author are really, really enough !!! (You have no idea how it is a problem which makes french members of this community of "Commons" careful !!). Well, you may support now !--Jebulon (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sorry, but your comments on my talk page were an invention to oppose with the rationale covert advertising. Should be a joke ;-P --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a joke. Sorry for the very horrible misunderstanding, due to the tongue IMO. As you have seen, the joking advertising was absolutely note "covert" ! And thanks for support.--Jebulon (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Publicité? Mais pour quoi? L'auteur est mort il y a un siecle. Ce n'est donc pas pour l'oeuvre elle-meme. Elle est ou cette publicite que tu as su demasquee si facilement? Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Mashaunix, but your oppose is a nonsense. It is not a "statue", as you say, but it is a fountain. I've never seen a fountain without water, because it is its purpose. Particularly this one: the horse is a "marine horse" (with a fishtail, like a siren), and you may see a dolphin spitting water... And I don't really know what other I may say...--Jebulon (talk) 21:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Oct 2010 at 22:02:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto Covo March 2010-2.jpg
Oppose I don't find something outstanding in this image. If the subject of this image is the waves, the color of Atlantic sea or the color of the sand.. I believe a better image demonstrating these things is possible. Ggia (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty colors, good lighting, but rather uninspiring composition. What exactly is the focus here? I'm with THFSW on lack of educational value. Steven Walling19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is good, but I'm hesitant to support, simply due to its composition, as noted by others above. It's nothing astounding to me, but it isn't bad either, which is why I'm neutral. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 12:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Araneus diadematus qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Araneus diadematus qtl1.jpg
I couldn't do focus stacking here because the net was in constant slight motion and was quite happy to get the body of the spider as sharp as it is; I didn't perform any manual sharpening. --Quartl (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 17:23:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pholiota squarrosa 4.JPG
Neutral very good lightning (but a bit underexposed), nice quality, but unbalanced composition. Disturbing wood at the bottom and bokeh in the background. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat17:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, composition and detail are good, however it's just a little underexposed. If this was a subject that could possibly run away before your next shot I'd understand. In this case there is plenty of time to get a better shot. --Relic38 (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Relic38. + White balance: I can understand the light of sunset if your image is a landscape. But if your image is a mushroom... --Miguel Bugallo21:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 12:16:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg
Info A Buffalo Treehopper boring a hole into a branch. The holes to the left are probably not caused by the cicada but are lenticels. To estimate the size of the bug see the second image on the description page. Created, uploaded and nominated by --Quartl (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 03:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Barack Obama sitting at the Resolute desk 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Barack Obama sitting at the Resolute desk 2009.jpg
Ok, yeah, on second inspection (which you'd think I'd have learned is more reliable than the first), it's not as good as it appeared. Nevermind on this one... Ks0stm(T•C•G)03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 21:37:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Gosau kostely.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Gosau kostely.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 14:11:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Cathedral 001.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Metz Cathedral 001.jpg
Support Looks really cool and impressive however its not entirely in focus. Upper regions of this stained glass panel are blurred, whereas lower are nice and sharp. Masur (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Masur (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Oct 2010 at 21:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Wasserfall Rosenlaui-Schlucht.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wasserfall Rosenlaui-Schlucht.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 06:48:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 14:30:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zukunft Kind.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zukunft Kind.jpg
Question I'm not sure I see the educational value of this, but even if there is one, the translation irritates me. Do you mean "Children are the future"? I like the position of the teardrop. --99of9 (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Now Oppose. 99of9 (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - it isn't completely "off-topic" as an image like it could well be in scope, but this does have limited use because of non-ideomatic English. (I think the word "the" is missing.) Also, the font and layout could be improved. Jonathunder (talk) 15:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good photo montage/collage or mixed media, however you want to call it... The phrase is not necessarily wrong. To say children are future is the same as saying ice is cold, meat is food, soldiers are human, dreams are possible, etc., etc. We could also say children are innocent, children are beautiful, and of course, children are future. The key is to understand philosophically that in this case a noun, future, can be converted into an adjective, in order to add new meaning to old words. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
provocative Comment: This image was made by and for western northern people. I agree that children are future, or the future, but not only blue eyed caucasians, a minority on this planet ... I think that the concept could be otherwise illustrated.--Jebulon (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a good example of photomontage and can be used as such. Still I agree with Jonathunder that the layout could be improved and find the words superflous. Why is the image cropped at bottom? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 14:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006 edit 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006 edit 1.jpg
Weak support I think it needs something to act as a scale to do it justice, hard to determine distances, sizes and area visually. --IdLoveOne (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 14:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I liked the framing of leaves, that gave the mushrooms a more vivid feeling, but I've cropped the photo heavily. Better now? --V-wolf (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Loose crop means that much of the image can be removed without affecting the main subject (opposite to tight crop). --V-wolf (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I thank you, criticism is the best way to get better. I withdraw, "lick my wounds" (I don't know if you have that idom in English) and will come back another time. --V-wolf (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This one is amazing, why don't you make it run? File:Nicrophorus_vespilloides_in_dead_rodent.jpg
Thank you! I tried to get response on the flash removal on Commons:Photography critiques, and then I hesitated to take it further because it looked different on my stationary computer compared to my girlfriend's (newer) laptop. I suspect I ruined it with the clone stamp instead of the wrecking flash. V-wolf (talk) 14:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 09:10:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BossHoss 8,2l BigBlock.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BossHoss 8,2l BigBlock.jpg
Weak support While I certainly see the background as distracting, it is also the background that I find really adds the needed flare to the image. It has its downsides, but I think the outcome is worth it, even if it's hard to discern the subject from the background - it really is a nice quality image, and at full res, it looks great. I think part of the fact that it looks so cluttered is because it is viewed as a small thumbnail on here. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 06:54:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ariadne merione butterfly.jpg
Of course it is your choice of license, just as it is my choice of vote. I simply feel that stingy licences are a negative for reusers, and thus weigh against my desire to promote the image to reusers in featured galleries. Yes, there are plenty that have been passed with this license, even some I support, but the image has to be just that much better to outweigh this. I will try to be more consistent in noting it in future. --99of9 (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I can use any license that meets the requirements (and the current one does). And you, cannot oppose if the license meets the criteria. --Muhammad (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, part of "most valuable" is its useability, and value is the primary criteria I'm meant to be assessing for. I admit that there is no other discussion of licensing in the FP criteria beyond commons requirements. But if you're going to bring up the letter of the law, perhaps some of those 45 need to be reviewed from the perspective of the very clear rule Images should not be downsampled. 99of9 (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePer 99of9. The message of the picture should be the beauty of the butterfly and not its age or weakness. So certainly no FP with these ragged wings! --McIntosh Natura (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I see the point made by 99of9, I myself am not going to oppose an image when it's fine of Muhammad to license as he wishes (within acceptable licenses, of course). On another note, the raggedy wings and age are fine by me - I feel that the aspect of realism is certainly a good one. Just because it's a butterfly doesn't mean that it has to be portrayed as a young, healthy, specimen; nature is nature, and if a picture conveys it in good quality, then more power to it. No need for a bloated fantasy - let's bring some of the grim of the world into here, even if its just a butterfly. In a way, that's an art in itself ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If only to balance the opposition due to the licensing. Is the image free enough to be on Commons? Yes. Then it is featurable. End of discussion. J Milburn (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is fine, the license is fine, however, the overall image quality is not fine. For being just over 2MP it should be very sharp, however several wing edges are not. Also, a geotag would be nice. --Relic38 (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maybe the bug is old, sick or got in a fight with a bird, in that case it's understandable to feel sorry for it. Otherwise, the photo is good. --IdLoveOne (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 02:23:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Freezing Rain on Tree Branch.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Freezing Rain on Tree Branch.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 23:14:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junges Gras.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junges Gras.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Oct 2010 at 21:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great Wall of China July 2006.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great Wall of China July 2006.JPG
Could you be a little more specific concerning the quality of the image? Is it the exposition, the composition or the number of pixels that troubles you?
Neutral IMO now, a "support" vote in FPC cannot be "weak", because it is FPC. Then I cannot support, because it would be a weak support, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take it this way: there are good FPCs and there are better FPCs. The quality varies upon different FPCs. If you think that this is FPC quality, even if it's a among the lowest FPCs, then you can vote with weak support. Nicolas M. Perrault (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Earth seen from Apollo 17.png
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 20:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nieuwpoort Jachthaven Panorama3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nieuwpoort Jachthaven Panorama3.jpg
Featured picture candidates/File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Extermination of Evil Sendan Kendatsuba.jpg
Thanks. What info do you need? There is quite some image description and a bit more can be found here. You might also like the other images of the set one of which is picture of the day today! Or how about the hells or the hungry ghosts? bamse (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The original work used to be a handscroll (emakimono) which included all the parts shown in Category:Extermination of Evil. It was later cut into parts and each part was mounted on a hanging scroll (kakemono). So what you see in this image is one of these parts as it exists today. Most of the image is occupied by the (cut) paper scroll (which is the national treasure). The border (with flower pattern) is part of the kakemono. It is likely some kind of silk fabric. I chose not to crop it out in order to show that this paper segment is mounted on a hanging scroll. bamse (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 12:23:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Always the same questions: why two chances for this image ? Is the alt version a new nomination (and what about the limit of two nominations by user ?) ? For which pic are we voting ? Where must I vote, here or below ?--Jebulon (talk) 09:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this case the nominations are by different users. You can vote for or against either or both pictures, but because they are alternatives, even if both votes succeed, only one will be promoted (the one with the greatest number of supports). 99of9 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 18:16:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Windmuehlen Norden-CN.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windmuehlen Norden-CN.jpg
Oppose Unfortunately underexposed. Black and white in direct sunlight scream for an attempt at HDR (if everything is stationary). Plus a large portion of the structure is in a shadow which makes things worse. --Relic38 (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 16:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Common foxes in the snow.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Common foxes in the snow.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 21:38:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fallow Deer in the German wood.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fallow Deer in the German wood.jpg
Info The image is made in the warm yellow light of the evening. This light came from the left side. You find the long shadows on the ground. I see no reason to change the colors of the evening light to daylight (5500 K).--Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support You're right. Now I can understand that the luminosity can be real and artistic in FP, and what it's "real". Sorry--Miguel Bugallo10:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 17:51:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:LaPaDu Panorama 2010-10-03.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:LaPaDu Panorama 2010-10-03.jpg
Support Miguel Bugallo is right with right part of image, however still I like it and I am supporting because of composition and WOW factor :) --Chmee2 (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Oct 2010 at 21:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Yes, it could be sharper but that is not the main issue here, IMO. Please repeat with me: tight crop, let the poor thing br*... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 06:26:24
Info Quality is not good enough any more for current FP standards. I have to be as strict for my own pictures as I am for others'. (Original nomination)
Fishing for compliments ? Keep, until "Commons" can feature a better one. To delist such a useful (and nice) picture is near a nonsense IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I agree with the nominator, thanks for critically evaluating your own work. "Former featured picture" is worthy credit to preserve our history. --99of9 (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 17:42:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:RhB ABe 4-4 III mit Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:RhB ABe 4-4 III mit Bernina-Express am Lago Bianco.jpg
Info Bernina Express following the shoreline of Lago Bianco, the highest section of the Bernina line (2240 m above sea level). Both multiple units carry special liveries: The first one promotes the World Heritage Albula/Bernina line, the second one was created for the 100 years Bernina line jubilee.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 19:15:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ecotourism Svalbard.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ecotourism Svalbard.JPG
Fixed, scroll down (Lycaon made me re-upload it in spite of the fact that it has a cc-by-sa-3.0 license which allows for remixing). Didn't bother with the alt since Lycoan seems to be the only other person interested (although I can if requested). --IdLoveOne (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 15:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:George Curzon and Mary Curzon on the elephant Lakshman Prasad 1902-12-29 in Delhi.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:George Curzon and Mary Curzon on the elephant Lakshman Prasad 1902-12-29 in Delhi.jpg
Info Sorry, the image is cropped by the photographer and by the publisher. But it is an important image with high historical and educational value. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I've seen older pictures in better quality and with good restoration, there are some users here who might do it as a courtesy. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 17:32:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
bamse and Bugallo: I think that's just the reflection of the sun in the gold structure which gives it a special glare; I don't think that's tilted or blurry, it's just matt paint. --McIntosh Natura (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should be photographed on a not-sunny day in this case!? To me it appears as if focus is not on the main subject but on the small head at Maria's feet. bamse (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although playing with light and shadow could work out, this image does not benefit from doing so. trying different light situations on the scene could improve the image's quality. regards, PETER WEISTALK07:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Oct 2010 at 16:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 00:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Oct 2010 at 22:34:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/cCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Furnace ventilator.jpg
Question -- both pictures are nice, but I don't like the way they're put together; couldn't it be done differently?--MASHAUNIX 18:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment the only other way is to invert the position, which would be the same thing. The problem is that one of them in horizontal and the other vertical, but that is unavoidable due to the point of view and nature of the subject. From the outside, the subject is long and narrow (horizontally) and the same subject, from the inside it is tall and narrow (vetically). In case someone wants a different arrangement, the image could be split in two. I did this in order to avoid two pictures of the same subject. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 11:10:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Girl August 2008-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Girl August 2008-1.jpg
Oppose in general a nice portrait. But I don't like the centered composition so much. Maybe also a upright photo might have been better in this case. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Random ? I suspect that this (very pretty) young girl is well known in pictures by some "Commons users" (not her first appearance), and very well known especially but one of us here, if I'm not wrong... And the shirt is already (a bit) overexposed, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this image of a minor should be kept as a private family snapshot unless permission has been given by herself and her parents. Apparently anonymous girl according to image description. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There doesn't seem to be anything special about this picture, other than a plain portrait of an anonymous girl that (from what I know) is not a public figure. LeavXC (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good portrait of a beautiful girl, but for the next portrait I would have tried to put her directly against the sun because now half of her face seems to be in a shadow.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 19:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Castelo de Guimaraes.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Castelo de Guimaraes.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:55:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inuit man demonstrates traditional kayaking technique used for hunting on narwhals.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inuit man demonstrates traditional kayaking technique used for hunting on narwhals.jpg
Support, but Question; can you see the visible difference in colour of the sea in the picture situated right bottom when compared to the other ones? why is that?--MASHAUNIX19:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not educational - we don't even get an explanation of what is going on here. In the first image, he is not wearing gloves and holding a harpoon. In all other photos the harpoon is gone and his gloves are on. The small rectangle of wood of unknown purpose is sometimes strapped on the deck, in his hands, possible floating free in the water, why or when I can't quite tell. Whatever he is doing is not an "eskimo roll"; in the last image he is paddling the kayak forward while upside-down, why? Rmhermen (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer a border (may-be a black line) between the images.. In the first version (without borders images) it is not so bad.. because there are only 4 images. Ggia (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- According to the present rules this picture should be shown as a new nomination, not an alternative. However User:Kooritza has already two active nominations. I suppose this alternative will have to be withdrawn or closed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this version can considered as the same image.. it contains the same images + some more.. it is a similar issue with an image and the same cropped image as alternative. the cropped image has less info rather the non-cropped image. Ggia (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry no. Ggia's opinion is Ggia's opinion. Not good, not wrong. You may agree, but you cannot say it is an " absolutely right opinion". For me, as a free man living without ulterior motives or mental reservations, I agree and follow Alvesgaspar's opinion in this case. Dura lex...--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No my friend, I won't. I've said here all what I wanted to say. The discussion in the FPC talk page concerns something else (like a personal conflict ?), and I want to stay free, as I said.--Jebulon (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've unprotected, sorry AFBorchert. I understand your position, but since protection blocks further voting, it seems problematic to protect for the final hours of the nomination. I think we should let it run out. The "rule-breaking" image (alternative) could be removed if anyone feels strongly about it, but I think Alvesgaspar is too involved with the Mbz1 issue to make an objective call. --99of9 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- That wasn't a wise thing to do, unless the intention is to enforce the agreed rules, especially coming from a user whose opposition about this specific rule has alerdy been clearly expressed). Please see my comments in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 17:25:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:SchafherdeInKoeln.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:SchafherdeInKoeln.jpg
Oppose of course it's amusing and unique and perhaps not a bad picture. But with that quality and lighting (and some disturbing elements) it should never be a FP--McIntosh Natura (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support would probably have no problems passing if it were bigger. It's only slightly under 2MP, but it's not as sharp as it could be also. --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Oct 2010 at 16:55:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunset with Cirrus clouds at Land's End in San Francisco .jpg
16
2038
3198
152
3222
2407
Weird horizontal dark/bright area: very obvious stitching error with twins/ghosts
2068
1003
577
233
3222
2407
Weird haze
2364
1123
297
104
3222
2407
Weird haze, looking like the one of the background but here alone on the foreground rock while there isn't in any other part
1499
1942
200
217
3222
2407
The upper 4/5 part of this rock (and all the area above) lacks contrast, showing a visible transition with the lower part which has more dynamic
Info The lit rock was facing the setting, low sun. That's why it is illuminated much more than the smaller rocks. No HDR processing, no filters were used.
Oppose –strong oppose: usually I don't vote, but as I see that several persons already supported the picture (seems without taking a look at it...) I decided to point out a very obvious stitching error. There are also some weird behaviors in other areas imo I indicate as notes in the image. In addition, there is also a strange behavior of the lens which shows a pretty soft center with well sharp corners while it should be the opposite. I think this comes from the post-processing... Sting (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fix to the foreground stitching problem changed the image's dimensions, so that Sting's annotations are no longer visible to reviewers. The fixed version should have instead been added as an alternative, as in the current Svalbard nom for instance. --Avenue (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I hesitated a lot before voting because the atmosphere of the picture is nice but, at the same time, there was something beyond the quality flaws mentioned above that I didn't like. That is the unbalanced composition, due to the almost-square aspect ratio and the too imposing dark foreground. Maybe with a smart crop, I'm not sure. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info One of the original images was uploaded. This image is to be used as an example to justify the colors of this image. This image is not the one that was used to create the panorama.--Kooritza (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange sky, rigth and left corner are not in balance with nice middle - otherwise common result of using C-PL in wide angle. --Mile (talk) 08:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. There is a spot along the cliff edge, lower right, that goes fuzzy for no apparent reason; I've indicated where with a note. A patch of sea to its right also looks brighter than it should. --Avenue (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I'm Neutral (and I've removed my note). It's quite a striking image, and it's grown on me over the last couple of days, but I still share some of the concerns expressed above about the composition and the odd hazy patches, so can't support. --Avenue (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Moving seascapes are not fit for panoramas. Stitching problems are unavoidable. Lycaon (talk)
lycaon:"I looked hard, but I could not find any stitching errors but because they are apparently "unavoidable" I'd better oppose." Is that so? D= DX--Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Lycaon, could you annotate the stitching errors that you found? I couldn't find any. If you can't, then I don't believe your reason for opposition is justified. LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the image. This version is better than the old one (dark area in the middle removed). Stitching is difficult for a moving image like this but I think the result is quite good. --BennyJ (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support considering the info "No HDR processing, no filters were used" this picture captures an unique mood of light and very nice cuirrus clouds, to me a great shot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Lunau (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Something strange is going here, with a significant number of supporting users having created their accounts a short time ago and coming here for the first time. If this is what it looks like, I don't think Mbz1 needs such kind of help. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I just emailed user:Herbythyme and asked him to run CU on me and three "new" users, who supported the nomination. I explained to him that I have no idea how Jiujitsuguy and Luckymelon got to the nomination, and that I emailed to BennyJ and asked them to take a look at a better version of FP nomination after they supported a similar (worse) one on QI. I've done absolutely nothing wrong, and, if I used email, it was only because I was blocked at the time. Here's for example here's user:Yann
Comment -- I didn't accuse Mbz1 of anything and it never crossed my mind that she was involved in any kind of less ethical behaviour. Please read again what I wrote. As we all know there are other possibilities and the one I was thinking of was canvassing. Please let me clarify something else: the friends I have, or don't have, in Commons are my own business and I don't authorize anyone to comment on my personal relationships, whether they are real or just imagined. Please remove the comment above!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral If the graffiti was well cloned out well, and if the strangely-shaped haze in the upper right was corrected, I would love to vote for this. It is nicely shot with great lighting.LeavXC (talk) 22:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is not a problem to clone out the graffiti, but then the image would get opposed for "improper digital manipulation". This image was really hard to take and even harder to post-process because I wanted to show the sky, the ocean and the rocks the way I saw them in real life, that beautiful and rare light and clouds, and I got it no matter that some users claim it is unnatural. It is natural and I could upload original images just from the camera to prove it by request. BTW could you please add a note for the haze you're talking about? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I annotated the top and bottoms of the haze I observed. Starting from the annotation point, The edge of the haze tapers steeply down the right, and starting from the left side of the note, the edge waves down to the surface of the below rock.LeavXC (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is how it was in a real life. Of course the sky has not even brightness all over, but thanks for your interesting input --Mbz1 (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 21:17:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra - Estanque de El Partal.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alhambra - Estanque de El Partal.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 14:29:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Idea leuconoe qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Idea leuconoe qtl1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 03:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nagasakibomb.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg
Comment apparently this has already been done File:NagasakibombEdit.jpeg. the source of this nomination seems not working. the link leads to the archives.gov mainpage - a link to the image's page would be more useful in this context. regards, PETER WEISTALK08:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 07:54:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Strong support Per above. Technically perfect to me. A great one. Alors là, chapeau. Tu y es ! Rien à redire, et tu as du en baver !!--Jebulon (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Il manque le profil colorimétrique ; dans le cas présent on ne sais pas quelle est la couleur des pierres : plutôt brun clair (AdobeRGB) ou plutôt gris (sRGB) ? Sting (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ce serait bien de recharger l'image avec son profil car elle a actuellement une tonalité brune, même dans Firefox, puisque considérée comme "sans profil", donc plus proche d'un Adobe RGB (au-moins pour ceux qui ont un écran correct). Sting (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Nov 2010 at 18:04:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spinosaurus Crane.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spinosaurus Crane.jpg
Oppose mask could be improved. lacks overall sharpness. it sure has high ev - try doing a reshot if possible. and please provide meta data if available. regards, PETER WEISTALK19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It is impossible to do this picture with this resolution without the nose is out of focus. I'll pay for a facial image that you know this particular anatomy. Just to be clear is through a Focus stackink. I feel like you're going to ask me to do it: so ... I will.
Other workarounds: Upload one of the original images first. The original metadata may be retrieved by downloading that image. Extract key metadata yourself and add it to the image description. Walter Siegmund(talk)17:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 19:18:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rock formation at Pescadero State Beach.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rock formation at Pescadero State Beach.jpg
Support Wow! An unusual lighting conditions, beautiful stormy ocean. Overall very very good image. The tourist adds to the authenticity. Kooritza (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is the kind of pictures I like to shoot and to watch (the sea). The mood and quality are both very good but not the composition. For me the foreground is too imposing and uninteresting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The more I look at this photograph the more I like it. It is an image that has the power to evoke feelings, reflections, thoughts, memories. It pulls me onto the scene, I hear the waves, feel the humidity of the breeze, and wonder what is over there, beyond the fog... It is the end of one world and the beginning of another... and the sole human... almost a Henri Cartier-Bresson moment... There is a tranquil sensibility in this photograph. Thanks... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:The thing is that alves's review as well as him closing my image nominated below has absolutely nothing to do with the images and/or the rules. The user is so dishonest that it makes me literally sick to my stomach. I am not sure how much lower one could fall.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he is entitled to his opinion regarding this image, and you are the one mixing up things. I perceive your above comment extremely provocative and I don't think it belongs here. --Elekhh (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 23:22:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Liocarcinus vernalis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Liocarcinus vernalis.jpg
Info -- Sorry, in this case I thought that the glares from the flash (or whatever light source) would be obvious. Someting I forgot: let the poor thing etc. :) Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should make a template, something like Let the poor thing breathe. But you think this crop is too tight? It should be easy to fix, since it's on a black background. --TheHighFinSpermWhale02:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Oct 2010 at 20:49:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose -- Sorry, but not up to the current macro standards. The subject is dark, unsharp and undetailed. Please check the present insect FPs. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what? Why do we critically judge a picture by the digital quality (E.G. it's missing a pixel) as oppose the the image quality (E.G. This picture looks nice)? Thomas888b (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Shooting good quality photographs of bees is a difficult business because they are usually fast, nervous and dark. It takes time, patience and technical skill. I'm afraid that "looking nice" is not good enough for reaching FP status. We have a good set of quality criteria and they should be used by all reviewers just before applying the subjective 'wow' or 'no wow' factor. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh well, You guys obviously don't appreciate it. I could always take it somewhere where people will apreciate it for it image quality, not critisize it for being a tad too dark. everybody who I have asked say that they think it's really good.Thomas888b 12:51 11 November 2010 (GMT)
Info -- The use of "Strong support" and "Weak support" templates, which are not considered in our voting system, is making the FP bot to close this nomination before time, as if it didn't have any supports. Plese keep to the normal templates. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restoring votes and closing. Please do not delete votes, or change the closing date (which was the 19th). I advise against renomination, because this is a very compelling vote, but if you insist, you will have to start a fresh nomination at a new nomination page. --99of9 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand: Isn't it allowed for FPs to have fake skies?? Else I think it's not a bad picture and would be careful with delisting it.--McIntosh Natura (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines state:
Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive.
For photographs, typical acceptable manipulations include cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulations, such as removal of distracting background elements, should be clearly described in the image text, by means of the {{Retouched picture}} template. Undescribed or mis-described manipulations which cause the main subject to be misrepresented are never acceptable.
Keep I find it silly to delist a picture because of a fake sky. As Cordless Larry said, "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in an image is generally acceptable provide it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." This is not meant to deceive. It is meant to fix a blown-out sky. Maybe this should be written in the description, but I don't see how either the educational or photographic value is destroyed by a fake sky. --TheHighFinSpermWhale00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 01:59:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support historical significance and technical circumstances qualify for fp. if compared original .tif and edited .jpg in photoshop or else differences can be made out. although only subtle improvements, they pay out well. regards, PETER WEISTALK21:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 11:24:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Water Planet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Water Planet.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 22:07:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Addax (Addax nasomaculatus).JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Addax (Addax nasomaculatus).JPG
Neutral -- The picture is good, but not quite FP quality. If you posted a version with a wider aspect ratio (not a square) and use of rule-of-thirds, I would support it. However, it does seem better than pictures of similar subjects in Category:Addax nasomaculatus-- LeavXC (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is it a bad photo only because it is (or it could be) a zoo photo ? No zoo photo can be good ? No zoo photo can be featured ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For a zoo photo I find the defensive posture and closed eye less than ideal. The intensive green of the background is also distracting. --Elekhh (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 22:42:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment Puis-je répondre en anglais pour le bénéfice des autres "reviewers" ? May I answer in english for other reviewers ? Please have a look on the file description page. This weapon is used (as less as possible !) by all the homeland security forces in France (National Police, Gendarmerie, Custom Department, Correction Department). The specimen here is used by a member of these forces (notice that the engraved identification numbers were masked by me for evident security reasons), and then "belongs to the State" ("Propriété de l'Etat"). Thanks for support.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support. What is shown is not only the gun itself, but all concerning it, even the "packaging". I made this choice for an encyclopedical use, and I agree it probably mays take too much space. But it is so... Maybe, if possible, I'll took soon another closer shot (funny word in this case !) with the weapon only.--Jebulon (talk) 08:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Yes, that is my problem and I don't know how to solve it. The orange-yellow parts are very harsh in real, and there is a reflection on the grey plastic foam (good english word ?), in real too. I tried to reduce the "fuzz", as you say, but there is nothing I can do against reflection. Improvements ideas (I use GIMP) are welcome. Thanks for review anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not very sharp and has some nasty glare on it (al, flash, etc. ???). a second try would be nice if possible. has high ev though. regards, PETER WEISTALK19:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose poor composition, the orange part draws most of the attention if you look at the picture, while the main object of this picture is/should be the gun. Gorgo (talk) 12:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, the composition cannot be poor, because there is no composition. It is as it is. (OK for nasty orange glare noticed by Peter Weis)--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would you please explain why, dear horse ? I should be happy to do better in your opinion next time, but I need your opinion for this...Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome and thanks for review. You should surely find FPC project more interesting if you read the FPC guidelines (only few minutes) (after reading the welcome page of "Commons", useful too).--Jebulon (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection (wow, please notice the nice english "pun" ! Lol), I think I could surely make a better photo of this kind of object. Thanks to all reviewers, especially to supporters, but I withdraw my nomination --Jebulon (talk) 09:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 01:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment a lot of the Diliff's panos photos seems oversaturated imo. I understand that you like them.. but I find it is not polite/fruitful to make comparison of a user work with another user. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I respectfully disagree, as Diliff pictures are an example of excellence. Please remember that in FPC we aim to choose the best Commons has to offer -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for your personal point of view all Diliff's panos photos are example of excellence. You can believe this.. Is this a general view of all the community (Diliff's panos photos are example of execelence)? The point for me is that is non-polite to compare other images with the nominations of the users.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff's panos shown in his userpage have been promoted to WP:FP and so, they are examples of excellence for the community (not just for me). Also, this is a forum where candidates for FP are evaluated, not an exibition or a social event. In this perspective, I find perfectly adequate to compare the candidates with other images, particularly better ones. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many users show their showcase with featured pictures.. general you can say that all the featured pictures are example of excellence.. IMO when you make comments to other user image.. you have to focus to comments concerning the aesthetics, technical details (advices to make it better) etc. As easy is to find a example of "excellence" it is easy to find a FP that is really bad. Each one has different point of view - you can see it in the nominations.. both opposes and support votes exists.. Art - aesthetics do not have limitations. Here the only limitation is the rules. Ggia (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of comments a reviewer makes when evaluating a picture in FPC is his/her own business, as long as they remain within scope and address the picture, not the author. Drawing the attention to high quality images of the same kind is a valid and constructive type of comment, used often in this forum. In this particular case, Diliff's works are very instructive examples of good lighting, colouring and composition of panoramic images, and I really fail to understand why showing them to the nominator may be considered unpolite. Neither I understand the suggestion that my comments may not comply with the present rules. But if that is what you really think, maybe it is better to start a discussion in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* All the FP are considered the finest images in commons. If you like open a discussion in FPC talk page if you believe that only some of the FP commons are example of excellence.. And these FP pictures (that are example of excelence) should be used as an comparison example in the nominations. Ggia (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support probably a increase of saturation make image colors more vidid. The composition and the details make this image education enough and it is aethetically good to be featured. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand. This image is now FP. What happens? To me it's FP, but I don't know if I must vote.--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry--Miguel Bugallo20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alvesgaspar. I know it, but it's different. A {{neutral}} vote have exactly the same value as a "Oppose" vote and I don't like it, but... nobody protest--Miguel Bugallo21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. pt: Creio que nesse caso não tenho razão e, se você o diz, eu acredito. Acaso noutro tempo, quando eu andava algo por aqui, fosse assim--Miguel Bugallo22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 02:12:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jesuit smelter.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jesuit smelter.jpg
Question Lycaon, would you be kind enough as to give us a dissertation as to what constitutes "unfortunate lighting conditions?." I chose that particular angle just because of the lighting conditions. You see, a fully lit subject generally is flat, which would have been the case had I taken the picture from the other side, so from this perspective, the lighting creates what in photography is called "volume", thus creating the visual illusion of 3d.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture with a great encyclopedic value. I agree with you about the flatness of fully lit subjects. But when the major part (including the whole front!) of the subject remains in a rather dark shadow, that's far too much: on that point Lycaon is right when he is talking about "unfortunate lighting conditions". -- MJJR (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues here: 1) The object itself. An interesting smelter built by the Jesuits 400 years ago in a rich mining area in the state of Guanajuato, source of huge amounts of gold and silver during the colony. 2) Photographic technique. a) Exposure renders all areas in acceptable dynamic and texture ranges. b) DoF enough to give acceptable focus across the frame. c) Composition. I framed it tightly in order to depict just the subject matter. Here people are free to like it or not. d) Point of view. I chose this point of view deliveratley in order to have a diagonal perspective, and take advantage of graphic elements of photography such as countour, perspective, volume and texture. Interesting subject? For some, yes. Pretty subject? If you are a mining or structural engineer, historian, or academic, perhaps. If you are into video games, perhaps not. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment your other version look much more better [12]. May-be applying some masks to the dark (shadow) area and adding more light can enhance your image. Or if you travel-visit again this place.. try more images stitched together to panorama.. the dry landscape around seems to be interesting. Ggia (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support more sky to the top (regarding comments by McIntosh Natura & The High Fin Sperm Whale), more light to the dark areas, several correction masks has been applied to the image. I hope that also the nominator likes these enhancements. Ggia (talk) 00:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The contrast is better, but some DOF issues, like the cacti to the left. Both are pretty eye-catching though and the angle's ok. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunate lighting per Miguel; the front of the subject should be lit instead of the back. It would also look nice to have more of the smelter's surroundings composed into the shot. LeavXC (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Oct 2010 at 21:56:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:20100728 Corfu island old town panoramic Greece.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:20100728 Corfu island old town panoramic Greece.jpg
Comment Stitching error as annotated; also the street right of the building in the foreground seems to be distorted (or better: the line of the houses along the street). --Llez (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that most of the buildings are really old (70 years from the birth of the architect - Corfu is in Greece not in Italy). But if I am wrong let me know. Ggia (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this image violates freedom of panorama.. this and all images from corfu (old town) has to be deleted. Ggia (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 05:54:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:52nd Street, New York, by Gottlieb, 1948.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:52nd Street, New York, by Gottlieb, 1948.jpg
Support -- Fantastic 1948 kodachrome photonegative of the legendary jazz nightclub scene on 52nd street in NYC. See annotations for headlining acts. Scewing (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's a night shot. the guideline does not say images have to be taken in daylight. supreme picture, showing how the city looked way back at night. PETER WEISTALK07:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a film photo from 1948.. it is not a photo where the quality has to compare with new high-tech digital image sensors.. Ggia (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As an overexposed night image, a little blur, neon glow and diffuse light is understandable. It is illustrative for New York's nightlife. --Alex:D (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose encyclopedic value is probably good, but commons should be more about the picture itself and quality + lighting is rather bad. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 01:39:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment a lot of the Diliff's panos photos seems oversaturated imo. I understand that you like them.. but I find it is not polite/fruitful to make comparison of a user work with another user. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I respectfully disagree, as Diliff pictures are an example of excellence. Please remember that in FPC we aim to choose the best Commons has to offer -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for your personal point of view all Diliff's panos photos are example of excellence. You can believe this.. Is this a general view of all the community (Diliff's panos photos are example of execelence)? The point for me is that is non-polite to compare other images with the nominations of the users.. Ggia (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diliff's panos shown in his userpage have been promoted to WP:FP and so, they are examples of excellence for the community (not just for me). Also, this is a forum where candidates for FP are evaluated, not an exibition or a social event. In this perspective, I find perfectly adequate to compare the candidates with other images, particularly better ones. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many users show their showcase with featured pictures.. general you can say that all the featured pictures are example of excellence.. IMO when you make comments to other user image.. you have to focus to comments concerning the aesthetics, technical details (advices to make it better) etc. As easy is to find a example of "excellence" it is easy to find a FP that is really bad. Each one has different point of view - you can see it in the nominations.. both opposes and support votes exists.. Art - aesthetics do not have limitations. Here the only limitation is the rules. Ggia (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of comments a reviewer makes when evaluating a picture in FPC is his/her own business, as long as they remain within scope and address the picture, not the author. Drawing the attention to high quality images of the same kind is a valid and constructive type of comment, used often in this forum. In this particular case, Diliff's works are very instructive examples of good lighting, colouring and composition of panoramic images, and I really fail to understand why showing them to the nominator may be considered unpolite. Neither I understand the suggestion that my comments may not comply with the present rules. But if that is what you really think, maybe it is better to start a discussion in the FPC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* All the FP are considered the finest images in commons. If you like open a discussion in FPC talk page if you believe that only some of the FP commons are example of excellence.. And these FP pictures (that are example of excelence) should be used as an comparison example in the nominations. Ggia (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support probably a increase of saturation make image colors more vidid. The composition and the details make this image education enough and it is aethetically good to be featured. Ggia (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't understand. This image is now FP. What happens? To me it's FP, but I don't know if I must vote.--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry--Miguel Bugallo20:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Alvesgaspar. I know it, but it's different. A {{neutral}} vote have exactly the same value as a "Oppose" vote and I don't like it, but... nobody protest--Miguel Bugallo21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. pt: Creio que nesse caso não tenho razão e, se você o diz, eu acredito. Acaso noutro tempo, quando eu andava algo por aqui, fosse assim--Miguel Bugallo22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Nov 2010 at 17:27:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone) red base.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Condylactis gigantea (Giant Anemone) red base.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 23:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flor-Murraya manipulata.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flor-Murraya manipulata.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Oct 2010 at 16:20:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
InfoTwo bridges in Luxembourg City. The stone bridge was erected in 1685 by Vauban as part of the fortified walls of the ancient fortress. The Red Bridge was inaugurated in 1965. The old bridge and the fortified tower at right are part of a UNESCO World Heritage Site.
Support I like composition. Quality doesn't look so good at the full res, but reduced to required minimum looks good, thus support. --Lošmi (talk) 11:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do like the composition and the contrast between the two bridges, but unfortunately overall quality is poor. -- Gorgo (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 06:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zion Virgin River EF.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zion Virgin River EF.jpg
Oppose Sorry, I like the image, but to me it's not FP: Nothing realy in focus. With lightroom 3.0, dark areas underexposed. When I have tried to illuminate those areas, I have not been able to do a good work, and I have seen a little vignetting--Miguel Bugallo14:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What isn't special? Is it the subject matter? Technical details? Could you please elaborate? I figure it is valuable because it captures a neat section of the North Fork of the Virgin River, which carved out Zion National Park. LeavXC (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 13:25:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose As an old friend would say "unfortunate lighting conditions" with unfortunate pose added. Unnatural pose, and I suspect, unnatural behaviour. What does it illustrate, if the pose illustrates something, it is missing in the description? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question (Sorry, perhaps I can not understand english). Why "unnatural pose", Tomascastelazo? Unfortunate lighting conditions, why? What you do not like? Do you speak of the position of the bird or of the user? I do not understand. What you suspect?: The image is the image. I can't understand. Have you a problem with Lycaon?: There are pages "User talk:...". This one is not the place. Sorry, probably I can't understand--Miguel Bugallo16:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here, it is FP, not QI. The technical quality of the image is maybe not absolutely perfect (I wrote "maybe"), but I've never seen such a behavior or pose, which only deserves the FP status IMO, even if it needs a short description or explanation. Furthermore I agree with Lmbuga...--Jebulon (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny, I did extensive search of internet and I did not find any references to this "typical" behaviour of these species. Lycaon, could you please shed a little light on this please?--Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Typical" in the image description is really puzzling, and might need to be corrected, nevertheless the image is IMO in scope as it demonstrates the range of positions this bird can take. It's really bizarre and striking, and if not useful for Wikipedia for being uncharacteristic, could appear one day in Wikinews or other sister projects. --Elekhh (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- It is irrelevant whether this extraordinary behaviour is typical of the species or not, it is amazing anyway (and probably rare to capture)! But I still hesitate because of the less-than-optimal lighting. Why didn't you ask the critter to turn to the other side? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Napoleon once said "From the sublime to the ridiculous there is but one step." In this case, the picture is funny as it is, typical behaviour or not. But one thing is to be funny and another is to be a rare photograph of a typical behaviour, which if were truly typical, there would be more pictures of this typical behaviour, at least statistically. If this is typical behavior, and considering the rarity of photograps of this typical behaviour, then this would indeed be an extraordinary picture. Almost as rare, or more rare, than a picture of the Monster of Lock Ness. But if not, it is just a funny picture.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every nominator is absolutely free with his nominations, yes. But I think it is not very well "brought up" to despise so the reviewers, especially the supporters (I was happy to be one of them...). By the way, what kind of storm ? --Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 12:24:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 64.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 64.jpg
Oppose Sorry, to me is good, QI, but not FP: Rule of thirds possible (composition), not sharp enough: I don't like the crop--Miguel Bugallo19:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Also with 99of9. Looks more like a snapshot than a high-quality photograph for the great subject material presented. LeavXC (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 14:11:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent flash reduced.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Nicrophorus vespilloides in dead rodent flash reduced.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 16:46:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Silicon Graphics SpaceBall model 1003 (1988), allowing manipulation of objects with 6 degrees of freedom. On display at the Musée Bolo, EPFL, Lausanne. Created by Rama - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama -- Rama (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 17:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Esel-Pilatus Kulm.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Esel-Pilatus Kulm.jpg
Comment Not "enormously wonderful", because of the bad crop of the mirador, in the corner left below. And IMO this object does not add.--Jebulon (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 23:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment beside the color of the sea, general interesting landscape, I added this image to get the feeling of the area when you see this image. This image is also tagged on the image. Ggia (talk) 00:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Very good quality (I want a D700) but a bit boring, imo. What about increasing the constrast and saturation a little? I don't like the almost square aspect ratio either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Oct 2010 at 22:50:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Image of an African Songye Power Figure in the collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (2005.21).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Image of an African Songye Power Figure in the collection of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (2005.21).jpg
The original uploader (Richard McCoy) removed this picture from the French WP and changed it with the other one (radiographic). I corrected the caption in (better) French.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 05:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Psittacus erithacus qtl1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Psittacus erithacus qtl1.jpg
Comment in this image I don't like the flash light.. you can see it in the eye (this can be corrected) and the shadows of the legs. Ggia (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not a question of sharpness but of detail, which is affected by noise. Yes, I have the same problem with my D80, even with a relatively small ISO of 250. I want a D700! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I removed the flash spot in the eye and slightly decreased overall brightness, but I am unable to remove the shadows behind the claws. --Quartl (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was close to decline (see my comment above), but I think your work now is very good, and the picture looks very much better to me. By the way, Thanks for all so nice pictures, Quartl. --Jebulon (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 14:13:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Mühlengebäude im Winter.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Mühlengebäude im Winter.JPG
Weak support I have been valuing the image several days. I do not feel able to do it. The image has defects, but the image has more merits than defects. It is very difficult--Miguel Bugallo21:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Very nice image, good composition and lighting. Some overexposed parts, but this is inevitable in such conditions (direct sun, reflections on the snow). The tree that "obscures part of the building" doesn't bother me. Please complete the description, preferably also in English: name of the mill, location. And please add geocoding too. -- MJJR (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Oct 2010 at 19:20:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Inveraray Castle, Argyll and Bute, Scotland-31May2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Inveraray Castle, Argyll and Bute, Scotland-31May2010.jpg
Comment I would like less sky to the top (this is possible with a new crop) and more creative position of the tourists inside the image.. or the image without tourists. Ggia (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Nov 2010 at 14:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tonna galea 01.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tonna galea 01.jpg
Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez Tonna galea, Tonnidae, Giant Tun, length 14 cm. From left to right: Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view. -- Llez (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support there must be some kind of cornucopia with those pictures in it. very good illustrations + composition. is there any "making of" documentation for this kind of shots? regards, PETER WEISTALK14:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]