Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2009

< Commons:Featured picture candidates | Log


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


edit

Voting period ends on 27 Jul 2009 at 11:38:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Jul 2009 at 21:21:51
Middelgrunden offshore wind farm, Øresund, Denmark

  •  Info created, uploaded, edited, and nominated by Slaunger - further edits (color correction, dust spot removal) by Richard Bartz -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info When built in 2000, Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) was the worlds largest offshore wind farm supplying 3% of the electricity for Copenhagen. Since offshore wind farms are raised on the most windy areas it is quite unusual to observe them in glossy sea as here. There was a special haze this warm summer day where the sky and the sea horizon was almost unseparable, which made the sight very unusual (for me at least). --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - you missed a dust spot (2nd tower from the left, lhs, 1/3 way up)...... Support - Peripitus (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for noticing and reviewing my image. I see what appears to be a spot at the location you mention in the image page preview, but I cannot see it at all in full resolution (so I would not know how to fix it). Can you see it in full resolution? Maybe it is introduced by the sharpnening which is applied in the preview creation process? --Slaunger (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Very nice composition, but could perhaps use even more color adjustment. Maybe something like this? (Note: I'm not nominating my version as an alternative, at least not yet.) Also, I suspect both versions could use some more tweaking to fix compression artifacts e.g. around the blades. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I agree with you that your more colorful edit is more impressive and eye-catching, and in a previous version of the file I had a quite similar edit. However, I decided to go for a less drastic saturation, as these flashy National Geographic-like edits (this is not intended as criticism of you) are simply not being representative of the subject I am trying to illustrate. I think that since the WMF scope is to provide educational and informational content there is a point in not bending reality too much in trying to get something which looks nice and eye-catching. In the edit I have nominated Richard and I have bent reality to an extend where I still find it justifiable for illustrative and educational purposes. Of course other users may have different opinions or views on this, which I respect. --Slaunger (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment Comment concerning compression artifacts, I acknowledge that traces thereof are visible at the edge of the wings. I really do not know what can be done of that (or if anything should be done). I do not think it is visible at normal viewing resolutions/distances. The image was taken with "finest" jpeg resolution and I have saved intermediate edits in at least 93% jpeg quality (I do not know which quality Richard has used, but knowing his professionalism I would guess a quite high one as well). --Slaunger (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, and I also think Ilmari's edit is very oversaturated. --Aqwis (talk) 22:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A rather dreamy picture, almost looks computer generated. Nice work. --Calibas (talk) 01:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Downtowngal (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Calibas. Very surreal. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Awesome picture. My hat goes off to the photographer. -- JovanCormac (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but it's just too blurry (poor quality). —kallerna™ 09:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info It is my understanding that the blur is caused by the aforementioned "haze", and therefore part of the scenery. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info The original taken with 1/500s exposure and f/20 is in my opinion crisp and clear and has a very good DOF, if you look at the edge structure of the wings and and the masts of the wind mills. The rest of the original has no clear structure, but that is due to the aforementioned glossy sea and haze. The original has other problems though, as it is quite noisy (despite ISO 100) and somewhat underexposed. In the following post processing further noise was visible following curves correction, and I was concerned that I would have to apply a too agressive noise reduction to bring it to a tolerable level - at the cost of loss of detail. In the end I did apply a rather aggressive noise reduction using Noiseware, but was positively surprised that I did not seem to loose noticeable details in the structure of the turbines. The sea looks very glossy afterwards and there is no clear separation between sea and sky, but that matches what I saw. I admit that a little detail has been lost in the finer details of the reflections of the wind mills at the lower edge of the image and at a few wing tips placed at the end of the curve, but that was the postprocessing compromise I made to reach the best end result. In hindsight I would have gotten a more optimal result if I had increased the exposure time for the original a tad when I took it and I respect if other reviewers find the non-optimal starting point has compromized the end result too much. --Slaunger (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Difficult to get shot decent technique interesting subject informative value = fraturable picture. Simple. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – It looks like more than just haze to me – f/20 may have caused some serious diffractions. From an image like that I expect a better quality and a little more crispness. --Ernie (talk) 08:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Karel (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --AlexAH (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Jklamo (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 10:34:23
This animation shows a six-position Geneva Mechanism in operation

  •  Info created by Mike1024 - uploaded by Luigi Chiesa - nominated by JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Reason for nomination: Extremely clear animation illustrating a difficult-to-explain mechanism. Already featured on two Wikipedias. We really need more featured diagrams and animations. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As nominator. -- JovanCormac (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very smooth and clear animation, I think it deserves the FP status. Looking forward to seeing a bigger file if it exists, otherwise it doesn't matter. →Diti the penguin — 10:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Simple, smooth, concise and very informative. And a very interesting mechanism. Thank you for nominating something different! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A bit small but very well presented. /Daniel78 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support   ■ MMXXtalk  15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very well done. --Calibas (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support ---donald- (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As JovanCormac and others. The Museum of Science and Industry in Birmingham used to have a display of this and many other such mechanisms dating mostly from the 19th century (some earlier), which were very informative on the ingenuity of our industrial ancestors before electronics took much of the skill out of machinery. Sadly, this is one of the things lost to the people of (and visitors to) Birmingham when the then Labour administration closed this free museum and transferred many exhibits to the Think Tank to the loss of the people of Birmingham. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 01:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I think it is an intriguing illustration of this mechanical device, but the illustration with its plain coloration simply has not the delicate and professional look and feel and technical quality I would expect from an FP, which could appear on the main page. A 3D rendered version, which shades, texture etc please, see, e.g., File:Simple CV Joint animated.gif for an example of more worked through graphics. --Slaunger (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • IMO it is the fact that this is not a 3D animation that makes it so very clear to see what is going on. 3D often distracts with textures and unnecessary shading and lighting. As long as the structure in question isn't 3D itself (such as the CV Joint), 2D illustrations can be much more clear and legible. -- JovanCormac (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you that this is an important difference between the planar geometry nominated here and the example I gave. To clarify what I meant, I do not mind the current quite simple isometric representation and its current angle of view (which is also three-dimensional as the sheet objects used has to have finite thickness). What I would like to see is a more delicate coloration of the surfaces including light sources, shading and more realistic colors (metallic). That would IMO not distract from understanding the mechanism. In a more sophisticated animation the mechanism could be shown in a real mechanical watch application, where the watch parts interfacing to the mechanism could be shown half-transparent and let the mechanism stand out. Having the mechanism shown in a specific application could give an even better understanding of the purpose of the mechanism. I am not saying that this illustration is in any way bad, I just feel there are so many ways such an illustration could be made even more informative and interesting to look at as an observer. --Slaunger (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Don't forget that JovanCormac is not the creator of this image, only the Nominator, so he is in the same boat as the rest of us in discussing some of the details.) I agree that the simple illustration we have here is lacking some of those "work of art" aspects which would make it "Picture of the Day". The shading Slaunger asks for would be nice. If someone uploads such a version, make sure that Jovan is told so that he can nominate that one as a replacement for this. Meanwhile, this is (IMO with an Engineering BSc) an acceptable illustration of how this mechanism works. William of Occam rules OK. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I like the combination of this clean, simple drawing and such smooth animation. --Lošmi (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Outstanding animation. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - The lunar-shaped section (in green), what is it for? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 21:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I'm not a mechanics expert, it looks to me as if the round side holds the red wheel in place while the half-moon side is cut out so that the red wheel may slide through. The green shape really seems to be the shape generated by the movement of the whole mechanism, and therefore quite optimal. -- JovanCormac (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 17:22:58
Old map of North Africa 

result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 31 Jul 2009 at 20:09:59
Church of St Andrew, Alfriston 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 07:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 00:19:45
Play "Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster" from Svetlana Alexievitch, Geneva, April 25, 2009. 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:50:32
Timon pater tangitanus (North african ocellated lizard) in Prague ZOO(taken through the glass) 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Summer - statue in Oppeln.JPG, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 00:24:59
"Summer" - statue in Opole (Oppeln, Uopole), Upper Silesia 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 07:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:22:35
The chemical element Titanium, as a crystal bar 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006-01-15 coin on water.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:20:16
Coin on water 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hatiora ×graeseri flower.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:19:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rock life.jpg, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:03


Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common blue damselfly02.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:22:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Common snail.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:23:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BrockenBahnWinter.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:24:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EuropeanParliament.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:25:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Mardin to the Mesopotamian plains.jpg, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 19:26:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 4 delist, 5 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LosAngeles04.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:40:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Daniel78 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SalzburgerAltstadt02.JPG, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:43:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 1 keep, 1 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australia Cairns 01.jpg, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:46:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 4 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:WernigerodeCastleWinter.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:39:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pinguicula vulgaris.JPG, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 14:34:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eyjafjallajökull.jpeg, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 12:37:58
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 4 delist, 3 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set Candidate - Platonic Solids Stereo Animations, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 11:36:26
Tetrahedron
Cube
Octahedron
Dodecahedron
Icosahedron 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 16:03:44
SHORT DESCRIPTION

There was no tripod allowed --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral, 1 invalid => not featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 1 Aug 2009 at 18:53:27
black and white lepidopter on a flower

I might oppose because it doesn't have a decent description (filename and description which says butterfly!), which indeed lowers its value. Some seem to demand species id (which admittedly the above comments don't), but often it is better for amateurs to identify at higher level en:Euploea than make inaccurate guesses at the exact species. I don't believe amateur guesses add to value. So maybe we agree :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be a biologist to identify insects. There are hundreds of useful forums (started with en:WP or de:WP) where you can get a identification of your images.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 11:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony - Vlinder is butterfly in Dutch! So it is in the file name. But I guess if it's in Eng Wikipedia, it ought to be in english..- Ashley

Yes, that is what I said, filename and description both just say 'butterfly' in different languages - Dutch and Latin. A rather inadequate description. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Lepidoptera Family: Nymphalidae Subfamily:Danainae Genus: Euploea Species: E. core

I posted this picture to see if it could make the featured picture status, not because of the subject being a Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Danainae Euploea E. core. It was not mentioned in the rules for becoming a featured picture to have a 100% sufficient description. IMHO the name of the subject adds nothing to the photographic quality of a picture. I would never upload an insufficient named cq labeled picture to a wiki article! greetings--Hrald (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ornamental Alphabet - 16th Century.svg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 12:45:32
Ornamental latin alphabet 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:14:45
Yarlung Tsangpo river in Tibet. 

result: 5 support,1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:53:59
Barn owl in flight 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 10:51:31
Barn Owl in flight 

result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 11:14:02
Lightning over Schaffhausen, Switzerland. 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:12:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thanks for the information. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 12:57:37
West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus). 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, o neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:17:27
An image of the coat of arms of the College of Arms from a 1595 manuscript called Lant's Roll, created by Thomas Lant. 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Svgalbertian (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 15:18:33
young Lama

Yes it is the moon, the picture is made 300mmm. --Luc Viatour (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:00:29
Kleiner Fuchs, Aglais urticae 

result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 21:42:21
Picture of Balerdi mountain. 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trompette - premier piston - montage perspective.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2009 at 22:16:41
A trumpet piston valve. 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, o neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 10:25:23
Polar bears approach submarine 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 14:08:26
Erinaceus europaeus, west european hedgehog 

result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 16:30:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2009 at 17:44:51
Oil platform P-51

 Comment - Name one. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 17:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll call him Frank. --Calibas (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 18:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 02:01:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

What a nice welcome!--Two two=4 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to loose my time to look for more examples and I pardon the silly suspicion of yours. I know you are upset I opposed your image.--Two two=4 (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC) [reply] 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral =>  featured. --Karel (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 14:15:42
Morus bassanus flying 

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Karel (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 15:50:35
Atmosphere composition 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. --Karel (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aialik glacier pano.jpg

edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 19:08:38
Aialik glacier

  • Thanks for the kind words ! I added the date info. The image is a composite of 5 vertical exposures. Hardest part was keeping the movement of the boat manageable (as with almost all my pics, a tripod was not used). I don't know how to add direction info, can you advise ? --ianaré (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination above version only, in favor of alternate version below. --ianaré (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate version, featured

Aialik glacier 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 02:08:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment - He likes Coca-cola (surely he could have bought a local Mexican drink). Does that mean he is enabling his own poverty? Possibly, but the composition does not convince me that that is true. Maybe someone gave him the bottle. Do you see what I mean? The idea of causation is there, but the composition just presents correlation. Downtowngal (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment How do you know he is mexican? in mexico we receive tourists from all over the world... could be a camouflaged foreigner... but the point is the image? why the discourse? is it a featurable picture? If not, why not? critique on photographic/encyclopedic grounds, not philosophical! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - ok, Tomas, I'll say it more plainly. The idea is there, but the composition isn't strong enough. Downtowngal (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Now, that´s language I can understand, I am just a humble pipe salesman, but maybe some day I will learn about composition, photography... ;o) --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2009 at 18:00:08

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 06:39:56
Oral polio vaccine 1967

  •  Info Oral polio vaccine added to sugar cubes, Germany 1967. Created by Jens Gathmann - uploaded by BArchBot courtesy of German Federal Archive image grant - nominated by InfantGorilla
  •  Support I was delighted when I saw this image: it is a very powerful piece of documentary history of the 1960s: contemporary with a mass worldwide campaign with a live oral vaccine that is no longer used in developed countries. The narrow depth of field and the composition drew my eye naturally to the action. It is only 0.4 megapixels, which seems to me appropriate given the limited detail communicated, and what appear to be artefacts (small white blotches) introduced by developing or storage. I think the resolution and defects are mitigated by the historical value. -- InfantGorilla (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolution is below 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Cynthia cardui (by) (6).jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 09:27:25
Cynthia cardui 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Pieris brassicae (by).jpg, featured

edit

Pieris brassicae 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 12:05:04
A spidere web in Fiscalina Valley, in Sexten Dolomites, South Tyrol, Italy 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Banksia formosa - open follicles.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 01:54:05
Great image of "an old fruiting head of Banksia formosa, with open follicles" 


result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured.
edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 22:49:34
Sint-Baafskathedraal (Saint Bavo Cathedral) in Ghent (Belgium) as seen from the top op the opposing bell tower

  •  Comment In Belgium – like in England – most days are overcast like this (often even worse than here), therefore getting an image with a totally blue sky is almost impossible (and IMHO less authentic) unless you live there. --Mylius (talk) 07:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It does not have to be a "blue sky" photo. But I guess, that in Belgium (just like in Denmark, where I live) you also have "cloudy" days, where, if you wait for the right moment, you get better light. I think it is also a matter of the time of day. It can be see from the shadow that the facade is in shadow at this particular time of day. One out of 2300 files on Commons gets featured, so I think it is fair enough to expect that the timing in taking the image is just right. --Slaunger (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment What on earth is with the background of the city? Man, what has this place come to... skip the nomination, I won't waste my time here any longer and leave it to the elite (or those who know the right people to get their pictures featured). Cheers --Mylius (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:05:13
A photo of the endangered Kachuga sylhetensis from Pakke Tiger Reserve, Northeast India. 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2009 at 16:10:44
Nuclear submarines being scrapped

 Info Based on data from this article, I've worked out that the 4 submarines most likely being scrapped on the date that this picture was taken (31/07/1993) were the Threasher Class ex-Permit (SSN-863) and ex-Pollack (SSN-603) as well as the Skipjack Class ex-Scamp (SSN-588) and the unique sub, ex-Halibut (SSN-587). There's no way of knowing which is which, but hopefully we can confirm that the above names are correct. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job! I tried to find it myself but didn't succeed. Please add the information to the image description. -- JovanCormac 09:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think V2 is better. The aspect ratio of V1 is a little extreme. I can't decide whether I like V2 or the original better, though. The tilted perspective adds a dynamical element to the picture IMO. -- JovanCormac 14:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 19:45:43
Ara ararauna 

result: 14 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:45:25

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:28:10
Mont-Saint-Grégoire 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 18:09:32
The Church of the Redeemer in Bad Homburg 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joshua Tree - Uncle Willie's Health Food Store.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 03:41:54
Joshua Tree National Park: Ruins of Uncle Willie's Health Food Store in Barker Dam Area. 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 08:34:22
A family of Bolivian Squirrel Monkeys (Saimiri boliviensis)

Well, any user can vote once, if they like. If what you are really saying is that you got the point and would like to withdraw your nomination you can add 

{{withdraw|~~~~}}

to this nomination page - and the reviews will stop. --Slaunger (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user ment that JovanCormac opposed the image 2 times.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry about that, just realized it ;-) I scratched out the second one. Apologies in particular to the nominator, I meant no disrespect. -- JovanCormac 06:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry for overlooking that one user had indeed voted twice - I misunderstood your comment, Julie. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 14:30:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2009 at 22:51:00
Aida 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Rebus 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 19:38:10
Kochenmühle 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Short description

  •  Info created by Challiyil Eswaramangalath Vipin - uploaded by Challiyan - nominated by Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Sfu (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral It is an eye-catching photograph showing in an intriguing way what is in a diaper. Good lightning and colors. The image quality is fairly good, but could certainly be better for such a static studio shot. There are a few things though, which bothers be about the image:
    1. The different water-swollen spheres have different colors. Why is that so? That is not explained on the image page.
    2. There is this ring separating the green spheres from multicolored ones. I find it distracting. What is it?
    3. The source link does not work for me as a logon on Yahoo is required.
--Slaunger (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 09:33:21
White house floor plan 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 10:02:08
Desert Storm 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sydney Opera House - Dec 2008.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 13:36:55
Sydney Opera House 

result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 20:30:40
Inachis io on Astrantia major 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Eastern American Toad 

result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2009 at 23:56:24
Fleckvieh cow in Switzerland 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 00:04:29
Crowds line the Champs Elysees, 1944

 I withdraw my nomination I will nominate a restored version. Yann (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:31:13
The royal crypt below Brussels 

result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 04:48:05
A Horny Toad 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 13:26:18
Aerogel and flower 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 16:35:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:14:38
Vanessa cardui on Buddleja davidii 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 20:30:07
Image of Saturn during equinox taken by Cassini.

 Comment I added the original caption, it mentions that there should be 6 moons in the image, thats how many "spots" I see. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes I am pretty sure that it is a moon. Also thanks for adding the original caption When I uploaded it I tried to condense it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 21:41:41
Panorama of the Tongerloo abbey in Westerlo, Belgium

  •  Support I think you have done well. I am indifferent concerning which edit. It is an interesting building, and the quality is good. A Powershot is not bad at all, you can make very fine panos with such a camera, when you use several images as you have done. Out of curiosity. How much time have you spend stitching it manually in Photoshop? Ever considered using other software for this purpose such as Hugin? --Slaunger (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest and support! Well, to give you an idea from what I started, here File:Tongerloo_abbey-Panorama-stitch_start.jpg is how it looked after lining up the segments. I spent more or less the entire evening. Most of the trouble was in the clouds. I had some 'in between' pictures also, from which I was able to extract a couple of complete clouds that fit in better, but that still left trouble with inconsistent shades in the sky that needed to be corrected. Then I also had to remake the final picture after I realized that I had forgotten to work on the edges of the parts than ran through the building itself and the grass field, lol. But anyway, I have fun with those things so it wasn't too bad. I didn't try panorama software because somehow I didn't expect that to reach the kind of quality (without further extensive editing) that I would be able to reach manually in Photoshop? Also because I didn't use a tripod. Took the pics freehand.... But maybe I should look into that software. JH-man (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used a tripod for my panos on Commons, which all except one has been taken hand held with a compact camera (I used a stone as support for one pano). I have always used Hugin for stitching. Despite that, the two panos i have ever nominated has been promoted. I do not think I could achieve the same results by manual stitching. But it depends on the how well you master which tool of course. I would consider linking to the initial edit instead of showing it here, as it is distracting for other reviewers. --Slaunger (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
original result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
version 1 result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2009 at 22:39:08
Indians hunting the bison 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peilican.jpg

edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 09:32:55

edit

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  •  Comment Thanks for the info about the best way to upload my own noise reduced version. I have now created it and uploaded it, but how do I add it here? Should I just replace the original file name on this one, or add it under yours below as a new entry? I would like to add it here at some point, as I spent quite a long time over the edit, making sure that noise was reduced only on the background, to preserve the detail of the bird - so the feedback would be really useful. Julielangford (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that adding it as another edit to choose from below as you have done is the right way to do it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  •  Support --Slaunger (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Slaunger's edit I actually think the water in the background looks really cool. -- JovanCormac 05:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Julie's below is a little better yet. -- JovanCormac 15:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The above image is not Slaunger edit but even Slaunger edit still has some noise and a red line on the feather.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OOps. It is now the correct photo which is shown. Thanks for noticing. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Regarding noise reduction, there is deliberately some noise left. You have to have some noise to keep the texture and a natural reproduction of surfaces in a photo. Whenever you apply a noise filter you also remove information, and I am normally reluctant to do so. However, when there is noise in a smooth surface as in the background of this image, noise reduction can normally be applied without loosing too much information. It could certainly have been done better though. One of the most evident ways it could be done better was by masking the background and only apply a (more agressive) filter there. However, the edititon of Noiseware I have is a standalone version, where masking cannot be done, so it is applied globally in this case. --Slaunger (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Slaunger's edit - as JovanCormac Downtowngal (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Pelican (Pelecanus rufescens)

  •  Support --Julielangford (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Masked out main subject to preserve detail then applied noise reduction on mainly blue channel of the background, but also a small amount overall to the water. Julielangford (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think it's getting a little confusing now... 3 versions to vote on! I have examined both noise edits carefully, and think that Julie's is indeed better. So I propose we merge those edits into one candidate, and give people the choice between original and Julie's edit. -- JovanCormac 12:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It happens quite often that there are several versions to choose from at FPC and I do not think it is particularly confusing. I have of course the option of withdrawing my edit (which I may indeed do, haven't decided yet), but it is really up to the nominator of an edit to withdraw it. If you find Julies edit is better you should just support it and consider changing the vote for my edit to neutral or oppose depending on how you feel about it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree in priciple, but my fear is that this beautiful picture might not get promoted at all if the votes are "split in three". -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Moved my vote to Julie's as you suggested. -- JovanCormac 15:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes,you are somewhat correct that this is an inherent danger in the process. The problem is that there aren't many alternatives, unless you want even more confusion figuring out exactly which version which user has voted on. But maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning how other version of a nomination should be handled in the guidelines. For instance the nominator could actively post to the user talk pages of users who have voted or commented on the nomination page to ask them to also consider new edits. Also the nomination period could be reset whenever a new version is nominated to give more time. Only problem is that it ends up at the button of the page, where only a few users see it. The best strategy is of course to make sure the first version you nominate is optimal such that editing is not needed. Commons:Photography critiques can be used to get feedback prior to nomination as well, although that page is not as active as one could wish for...--Slaunger (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Well, the feature is not actually that important, but the feedback is. Because of the feedback on this image, I have managed to create a much finer photograph than the original, for which I am truly grateful to contributers. A feature of course, would be a fabulous bonus :) The critique given on my other photograph below has also been useful, and I am now considering a crop to remove the left monkey, so, this page is definitely proving valuable to me. Julielangford (talk) 11:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Agreed JovanCormac, yes, it's very confusing, and please accept my apologies for making it so. I find the feedback here so valuable though, and I like to act on it if it is within my capabilities, so I thought it worthwhile uploading the edit, for further critique. Julielangford (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not think you need to apologize at all. This process is quite normal and you are doing exactly what a dedicated creator and image editor should do IMO at FPC; take criticism on board, and try to address it if you agree and fix it is within your capabilities. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think the background in our edits are equally good. However, the fact that you have used a mask makes the subject stand out as slightly more detailed and with a more natural texture as compared to my edit. Nice work. --Slaunger (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Julie's edit. It's a little more detailed on the beak than the other one. -- JovanCormac 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support —kallerna™ 11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Excellent. Yann (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, Tintero (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Yann (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 16:14:57
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Oppose per JovanCormac. The stitching together ruins its quality. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Those lines are not the result of a stitch but as far as I understand meant to illustrate axes. The image shown a cube of space and its internal structure. I should not be seen as three sides of a cube but a half-transparent cob-web like structure illustrating how dark matter is distributed in a cube of space. Whether this is done elegantly or not is an entirely different matter (personally I think cause more confusion than clarification).
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 19:35:54
Golden Marmot

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo is overexposed, not sharp and has overall bad image quality. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
  •  Comment Despite my comment above, I still think it is an interesting photo in the animals natural environment. We only have a few quite low quality images of this species, and new ones are welcome, so do not be discouraged. --Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:00:38
Loreto Cathedral square , Italia (panorama) 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 20:47:30
the chimical element bromine secure sealed in a acrylic cube

Bromine is a dark brown liquid (up to black if the thickness is large). The bromine vapour is orange-brown. You see both. Please look also for the properties at the linked image describtions. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 21:12:32
a Silver crystac with visible dendritic structures 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 23:53:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Did you see this link [8]?.--Claus (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Symp-rouge-sang-2 (by).jpg, not featured

edit

Sympetrum sanguineum on my finger. 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-4 (by).jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:52:12
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-3 (by).jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:50:44
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Leste-vert-2 (by).jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 08:48:45
Chalcolestes viridis 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capdepera - Torre de Canyamel 03 ies.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 18:05:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 20:41:21
SeaTac tower interior

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the interior shown in the image is severely underexposed and the composition is messy (point-and-shoot-like). --Slaunger (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 16:56:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skomerisle.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 14:21:45
Skomer Island, Pembrokeshire, S.Wales, UK

 I withdraw my nominationJulielangford (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Teklanika river valley panorama.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 13:30:53
Teklanika river valley 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gas planet size comparisons.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 03:18:37
A comparison of the sizes of the Jovian planets.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the resolution is below 2MP. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2009 (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.

 I withdraw my nomination 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conservatory of Flowers in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 00:24:23
Conservatory of Flowers

There are a flower crocodile on the left hand side and a flower clock on the right hand side.--Two two=4 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for reviews. H005 to what side the image is tilted? I nominated it to QI and I was told that "something went wrong with stitching: some parts of the image look tilted others not." Do you also believe that only "some parts of the image look tilted others not."? --Two two=4 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that QI nomination. I couldn't tell exactly before what I disliked about the tilt, I just found it strange and disturbing, but now that I read this I realise that that other reviewer is completely right! It's tilted on the left, but not on the right. I propose you try applying a perspective correction on the left image and then restitching it with the right one. -- H005 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the different tilt you see is an illusion.It is impossible to stitch the images with a different tilt without very noticeable errors. It will be hard for me to redo it. I am not sure what should be corrected. Anyway, thank you for your inputs.--Two two=4 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 --Two two=4 (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 18:17:40
Skansen Bridge 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 17:50:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Both the black and the white parts belong to the same stone. The matrix (the black part)is limestone. The crystals (the white part) are andalucite so two different minerals in the same stone. Everything is natural.--Two two=4 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 17:47:22
Shower 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2009 at 16:00:40


result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2009 at 19:32:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B/W version

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Yann (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 19:57:54
Sea Lions at Pier 39

 --Two two=4 (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 14:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 04:45:37
Kea in snow 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:08:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 11:05:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral =>  featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 09:38:12
HDR steelworks 

result: 7 support, 7 oppose,  neutral => not featured. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 06:45:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. ZooFari 21:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 14:18:14
Female sympetrum vulgatum 

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Female sympetrum vulgatum  Comment Is this one better? --Korall (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 15:43:08
Crowds line the Champs Elysees, 1944 

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 16:29:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 09:55:03
Kirnu, a steel roller coaster in Linnanmäki.

Yes, I believe that setting a faster exposure time manually works better for taking such images. I do not think the people are sharp enough.--Two two=4 (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that a manually forcing of a faster exposure time with same f-stop causes an underexposure. If then it's ISO because the f-stop value with the resulting DOF looks fine 2 me.   &#x95; Richard &#x95; [®] &#x95; 16:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with others here and hope that lots of others do as well - because if an image caught using auto features of a camera are not any good, I may as well pack up and go home :) I am useless with my camera setting, although I am tyring to learn them, but for me, an image is about the image itself, not about the skills of the photographer. This image for instance, gives me white knuckles just by giving it a glance - I'm on the ride. Julielangford (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 11:14:12
Mission Santa Barbara HDR 

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 13:35:00
Panoramica notturna Piazza della Repubblica, Roma 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Solenostomus paradoxus black.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:48:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calopteryx splendens 20050729 504.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:50:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poumatua2.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:53:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Agassiz statue.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:56:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArcticFoxSummer.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:58:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Montinari Milano.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 21:59:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A single white feather closeup.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:02:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port wine.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:04:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CambridgeSunset.jpg, delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:05:55
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 5 delist, 0 keep,0x neutral => delisted. ZooFari 02:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2009 at 12:56:43
Panorama of the Bayer main factories at the Rhine in Leverkusen, Germany 

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Well, here is a cropped version with a slightly corrected perspective:

Is this version better than the previous? --S[1] 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I forgot that on Commons it's allowed to support own works ;) therefore  Support this version, too --S[1] 20:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 13:04:14
Rose window at Speyer cathedral 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

OK, I spent some time cleaning my version up. Here it is now:
Rose window at Speyer cathedral, mesh removed
—Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support Ilmari Karonen's edit. That's a mighty fine editing job. Julielangford (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Wow, what a great work removing the grid! And many thanks for also describing so detailed how you've done it, that is most helpful!
    Unfortunately I still think the quality is not good enough for FP, sadly - it simply isn't crisp enough IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 18:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful  Oppose This is certainly one of the most impressive edits I've seen. I didn't think it was possible to remove such a large object from a photo. But sadly, the image revealed beneath the grid is less impressive (see comment by H005). -- JovanCormac 18:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info Thanks for the comments, both of you. I've uploaded a new version that has been somewhat sharpened, but I agree that it could still be improved. (And, even if improved, might still not be good enough — such things happen, and there's only so much one can do after the fact.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Flambé (Iphiclides podalirius) 

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 17:51:53
Steve Irwin 

Result: 9 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kew Gardens Palm House, London - July 2009.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 18:59:58
A view across the gardens to the Palm House in Kew Gardens 

Result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciudad de las ciencias noche.JPG, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 12:03:03
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 4 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Maedin\talk 13:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 02:21:20
Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) 

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:01:51
Altare della patria (Vittoriano), Roma 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 18:29:45
Colosseo, Roma 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 23:10:08
'Orribly ugly garden spider 


Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

slightly different angle and aperture changed to blurr background 

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 20:53:50
St-Dymphna church in Geel, Belgium - 6x3 combo picture

There are some errors and some leftovers from clone stamp.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, but nothing breathtaking. Ok quality, chromatic aberration. —kallerna™ 20:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. Messy composition (or rather none at all). Unclear subject, is this the best angle you can get of this church? Lacks foreground. Trees on the left sticking unmotivated into the frame. Other trees occlude much of the church. --Dschwen (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Composition is not so bad (one can hardly remove the trees for a while, in order to have a better picture...). But the late afternoon is not a good time for taking a picture from that location, as the sun moved already too far westward. Too much of the building stays in the shadow. -- MJJR (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asiatic-lion.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 13:07:42
Asiatic Lion 

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:spectacled-langur.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 12:09:10
Spectacled Langur

 I withdraw my nomination Julielangford (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nuclear missile launch keys.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 14:17:13
2 Minutes to Midnight...

  •  Comment You should save it as a different picture. I think that's too much denoised, and fine details, especially on letters, has been lost. Overall it looks blurry compared to original. --Lošmi (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination Until I can denoise it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javan langur.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 09:32:38
Javan Lutung, or Javan Langur 

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 17:55:33
Ain Dyalah dam lack, Algeria.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo has a resolution below 2Mpixels and there are no strong mitigating reasons. --Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2009 (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. 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 02:53:10
Inachis Io

Result:  Support = 15,  Oppose = 0,  Neutral = 0, 100%. Featured. Kwj2772 (msg) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2009 at 22:39:09
Thyme 

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Thyme 

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 20:12:05
Hohe Kugel Panoramic 360° 

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2009 at 22:51:15
Marin Headlands

added.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:10:29
x300px|Basilica of St. Pius X of Lourdes

zut, j'ai pas pensé au ¢ du bâtiment.... Je me renseigne! --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
l'architecte est mort en 2002, il faudra donc encore attendre de nombreuses années avant de publier cette photo, elle est donc à supprimer. --Luc Viatour (talk) 05:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 10:36:49
Nature reclaims it's domain. 

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2009 at 15:24:48
Crayfish fighting a snail 

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 06:59:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 15 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:M20 - Trifid Nebula.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 08:33:44


 Unfortunately the powers that be have decided the licensing issue has not been resolved and have subsequently deleted the image :'( I got permission from the author to release it as well, never mind. 

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 09:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 12:18:03
Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge

Sometimes the fog (tule fog) is going over the Bay and the bridge looks like it is the bridge over the fog and not the bridge over the Bay. In my opinion it creates some interesting and unusual contrast between the sunny beach and the fog over the Bay. The man you'te asking about is holding a special tool to throw balls for dogs.--Two two=4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why?--Two two=4 (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, it's not that hard to state a reason for opposing. I really consider it the most basic level of politeness. -- JovanCormac 14:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote will not be counted without a valid reason (see header above). ZooFari 17:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this photo is no wow... That's all... -- Yiyi (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well please specify next time. ZooFari 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that oppose votes with no reasoning are counted. It may be rude to not give a reason, but there is no explicit rule stating that it makes the vote null. Maedin\talk 07:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At last a valid oppose reason! I will work with the image and for now  --Two two=4 (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment You might want to add the information about the fog to the image description. It's a major part of the picture, and for those of us not based in San Francisco (which is most of the world) it'd be nice to have the phenomena explained. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 09:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 00:24:18
bobcat kitten

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: blurred and has lack of detail. --Slaunger (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

That said, it is still a nice shot. --Slaunger (talk) 07:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 14:20:59
Lucignolo, mangiafuoco ai Fasti Verulani X edizione

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moscow City - 2009-08.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 17:38:38
Moscow City

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 13:33:40
Piazza della repubblica di notte, Roma

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 20:38:58
Jacques-Cartier River valley

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 03:52:21
The Wicked Witch of the West, from the first edition of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz.

Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 10:36:44
Idea leuconoe

Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 08:13:53
Shakin' Dudi

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 09:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 15:25:22
Eiger, Mönch and Jungfrau seen from the Flower Trail between Mürren and Grütschalp

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
edit

Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2009 at 16:43:13
Great Blue Heron 

Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:06:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Versions:

edit
edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 04:55:37
Skin of a Crayfish after Moulting 

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 18:10:12
a corrupted jpeg

  •  Info This image is somewhat unique and very valuable due to the fact that it is a broken jpeg file. Created by Codell when the camera was prematurely relieved of power while saving the file, the image contains a broken Huffman table which caused the image to not render correctly and the file size to be much larger than "complete" jpeg files. The broken Huffman table (which determines entropy and minimum redundancy) is used for the optimization of jpeg files (if I read the information correctly).- uploaded by Codell - nominated by carol -- carol (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support While I think it is possible to create a broken jpeg by editing the binary file, having an example that was created naturally and/or accidentally is really cool, useful, unique and educational. -- carol (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Interesting proposal. :-) However, all that makes it possibly eligible for VI status, but not for FP - it's actually the opposite of the here required quality. -- H005 (talk) 19:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Very interesting proposal, indeed (ignoring all rules!), but for the same reason the worst athlete don't get Olympics medals for his absence of skills, this (the worst an image can be) don't deserve a FP status, I think. --S23678 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an attempt to follow the logic of the opposition to this image (and not just the oppose that this is nested beneath) my mind keeps landing on this image: which is an image of a very beautiful home accessory but the original purpose of the craft which created it was for building shelters, navigating the seas and for hunting and procuring food -- all which often required the knotting of vines and later ropes. It seems that the same opposition to this artsy manipulation of a jpeg should also apply to the home decoration which those knots have "de-evolved" into.... -- carol (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful  Oppose This could never be a Featured Picture, simply because what is special about it isn't the picture - it's the file. The actual picture file is corrupt. Not only does the image displayed have nothing to do with the file's value (which is certainly high), but it also depends on factors such as resolution and browser. Try it out. The thumbnail looks vastly different from the full size picture - and not just in size. This is super cool. But you cannot really speak of it as a picture. -- JovanCormac 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would probably do better on English Wikipedia, where encyclopedic value is an issue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Nah. This one looks like someone's really high :-D After all, if making a file like this a featured picture, it would be good to make it more... hmm well not just a raw picture but in a composition with something. --Aktron (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 12:16:56
Night view of the historic centre of Peñíscola, Castellón, Spain. 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 14:59:13
Kitesurfer displays emotions.

It is a rare picture of a person, who displays emotions taken in a "wild". I mean the person did not pose for the picture.--Two two=4 (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The boat could be easily cut off.--Two two=4 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which would be a natural element of the preparation work prior to nominating, but is not easy I think without cropping of other more vital elements of the photo or a massive clone job...--Slaunger (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is what you say. I left the boat in purpose because it was mentioned in the description of the image. Here is the image with "no cropping of other more vital elements of the photo or a massive clone job " --Two two=4 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its better than I thought although a real pedantic (as I am, sorry) could claim that the white wave in the upper right corner is slightly distracting and the crop is a little too tight for his taste . Don't worry about it. Keep them coming. You have some good stuff. --Slaunger (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why, of course I've realized already that the waves on the ocean and sign Pier 39 at Pier 39 are very distracting --Two two=4 (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually like your Pier 39 sign at Pier 39. Seems fitting to have there. --Slaunger (talk) 05:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More fitting than a sign saying Pier 38! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cap Serrat - May 2009.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:08:18
Cap Serrat, Northern Coast of Tunisia 

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:51:12
Chicago 'L' train at Randolph and Wabash station. 

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 21:10:13
Zarren, Belgium: the Wullepit windmill 

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:16:38
x300px|A sawblade at an industrial mill.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Sorry, but is that a joke? 247 x 280 pixels? Please read the guidelines before nominating. 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.

-- JovanCormac 12:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2009 at 19:22:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds
edit

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 07:35:58
Byron Glacier panorama

Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 12:33:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there's absolutely no details Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 01:45:17
Villa Gonzaga fountain (Olgiate Olona - Varese - Italy) 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (11).jpg, not featured

edit

Syrphidae sp. 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 04:42:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION

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 a poorly lit image of a common object --ianaré (talk) Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 01:05:30
Great Blue Heron

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 13:42:14
The Saint Basil's Cathedral at the Red Square in Moscow

Sorry, not the next time --S[1] 08:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sad, because you picked great lighting conditions. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 12:48:59
Pier 39

Why panorama? I believed that it is interesting to show wild sea lions peacefully minding their own business in the center of a big city. There are hundreds of the images similar to the one you mentioned. There are very few panoramas, maybe none is as complete as mine is.--Two two=4 (talk) 22:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Several severe stiching errors - too numerous to point out individually. There is something else, which distracts my eye. It is as if there is some wavyness in the horizon and/or vertical lines in the buildings are not vertical. Have not checked with a ruler (yet) though. But if you fix the stitching errors, I will spend some more time scrutinizing it. --Slaunger (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I cannot fix the stitching errors because I do not see them on my 20 inches monitor. Maybe you could point out three or four the most severe ones? Thanks.--Two two=4 (talk) 01:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral You've fixed two significant stitching errors. One of them gave us a turning sea lion in action, good. So I think we are getting there. I have added observations regarding two minor stitching errors as annotations on the file page - I have reported one of them previously. The annotations are just informative, feel free to remove them again from the file page if you find them too pedantic - the annotations are convenient for pointing them out. Hell, if you fix those two as well, I might even support . --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support despite the stitching errors. Those should be fixed, though. @Two two=4: Look along the bridge in the left half of the picture. You will find it is "broken" in some places. -- JovanCormac 05:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jovan is right, also look along the roofs. A good way to detect stitching errors is to look for discontinuities (abrupt displacements) in lines which ought to be straight, like in the bridge mentioned. There are plenty of those there, which I can easily see on my 15 inch laptop monitor. I am quite surprised no-one else has noticed that and/or withheld support until it is fixed and it makes me wonder if reviewers take the time to go beyond preview size. We should go for the best of the best at FPC at that includes nitpicking over fixable details IMO. Only one image in 2300 image on Commons gets featured after all... --Slaunger (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If you mean the roof of the building just below the palms, there are no errors there. It is how the roof really looks. I could upload one of the originals with the roof, if you'd like me to.Otherwise I still see no errors along the roofs. Maybe you could name one specific roof you have in mind. I could upload an original of the roof and we could compare. --Two two=4 (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could only repeat that it is not a problem to take images of sea lions in California. They are everywhere even in the places where they do not suppose to be like for example here.I believe it is much more interesting and much more encyclopedic to take images of sea lions with a view of their surroundings.--Two two=4 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the nominator on this point. It is more interesting to see the sea lions in a context where its surroundings are seen. --Slaunger (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna. The biggest "Pier 39" disturb me. Between the two "Pier 39" there is two panorama errors : a head of a sea lion is not sticked with his body but few centimeters down. Upper, a part of a sea lion head is missing -- Olivier Jaulent (talk) 08:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no missing head. Sea lions they could turn their heads you know. Maybe it is better to make sure before claiming such severe error as a missing head, Here's the original with a "missing head" --Two two=4 (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not speaking about a sea lion which is turning his head. I saw that you have corrected the first head I was speaking about, the one which was not sticked with the body. But There is always a mistake. The second error is just upper the one you have corrected, it is the sea lion which is sleeping a black one : a part of the head if cover by the wood of the floor. --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the black sea lion who is sleeping on the dock before the last one he too looks exactly the same as he does at the original image that I linked to just above.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinate of error : 4174x1305 (when you take upper left as start point - 0x0 - ), but as I said there is the big "Pier 39" which is really disturbing me too --Olivier Jaulent (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how to work with coordinates. Maybe you could mark the error and upload the image? I'd like to ask Slaunger to do the same. Thanks.--Two two=4 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some stitching problems

Sure, here are my observations. One of them wre the sea lion head which really looked cut of, I have striked that out. Hope this helps in sending the message. It is not easy to do when the animals are moving between images. --Slaunger (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stitching errors in the background are really minor. The major problems are in the foreground. --Slaunger (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will work on it.--Two two=4 (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know which stitching software you are using (could be relevant to specify on the file page btw), but I can recommend thee freely license application Hugin as has an intelligent blend mechanism which avoid moving objects in the overlap between images provided that the overlap is sufficiently large and the movements are not too massive. It may work, or it may not work in your case, I don't know. --Slaunger (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used Hugin but it was a very hard image to stitch. Too much was going on including the tourists who were popping up in my view finder all the time. Thanks for helping me to find the errors. I corrected foreground ones. For correcting background errors I first need to order a new eyeglasses I guess --Two two=4 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your challenges with the stitching. It is a hard job with all those movements, and maybe I am overkeen 'bout them stitching errors, but thanks for addressing the worst ones anyhow. See my changed vote above. --Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slaunger. It is really nice of you not only to help me to find the errors, but even to change your oppose vote. I corrected few more.--Two two=4 (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I realize I am a pedantic pain in the a....--Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I had to search for several minutes to find what appeared to be a stitching error; that's hardly significant enough to justify denying the photo featured status. I also don't mind the sign. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I really like the complete view and showing the sea lions' environment. However, maybe I am also too pedantic, but allowing stitching errors is a no-no for an FP. (I realise the major ones have been fixed, but the others (particularly the one on the bridge) are still important to me.) Sometimes the errors are unavoidable or extremely difficult to fix, I know that, but as a result, not every good view can be an FP. I also feel silly saying this, but that Pier 39 sign is annoying, :-) I would like this so much more if the view was from behind the sign instead of in front of it. Sorry! Maedin\talk 13:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, you wanted me to take the images behind the sign, which means to jump to the docks , hurt myself and then got arrested for the approaching sea lions? Strange.--Two two=4 (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I didn't know if it was possible or not! Sounds like it's a good thing the sign is in the pic, then, . Maedin\talk 14:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is how it looks and by the way all the errors pointed out by Slaunger were fixed.--Two two=4 (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So they have, looks good! Thanks for letting me know, I switch to  Support. Maedin\talk 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleared my cache three times, reloaded again and again, but on my screen I still see the same two medium stitching errors I have marked as annotations on the file page. So either I am hallucinating, do not know how to reload or the errors are still there... --Slaunger (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am missing something but I do not know where to look for the annotations you added to the file page. Could you please link me to them? Thanks.--Two two=4 (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I forgot to tell you about Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. It is a cool new gadget, which will very soon be enabled by default (I hope), see Commons:Village Pump#New interface feature. I think it will be of great help at FPC in the future for discussion specific problems with nominations. --Slaunger (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You simply need to enable that as described, and then, when your mouse is hovering over the file preview on the file page, everything will be clear for you. --Slaunger (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it, but for some reason it does not work for me. Were the errors you poinet out to in the annotations the same ones that you pointed out at the image you've uploaded?--Two two=4 (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you cleared your cache also? If yes, you should see two very small boxes indicating problem areas on the file page preview (not on this page), when hovering the mouse over the image. One of the areas is a previously marked one, which does not seems to have been addressed. The other one is a new one. --Slaunger (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected one more error (the old one) I do not thing there is an error in the other place you poined out. Here's the original.--Two two=4 (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 09:21:11
Juvenile West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 14:47:15
Waterfall at Upper Lehman Creek

 Question how is the camera location? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
edit

Voting period ends on 17 Aug 2009 at 17:35:54
Royal Opera House

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pickering - Greatbatch - Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice - She then told him what Mr. Darcy had voluntarily done for Lydia.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 01:45:17
Pride and Prejudice

Its fine I was just wondering, your explination makes perfect sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 20:38:53
360° Schadonapaß in Austria

Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas
edit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 04:25:14
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  • I am reminded of a family joke here. My grandma begot 3 daughters and one son, mostly in the 1940s. In the 1960s, my grandma and my uncle had the same milkman (milk was delievered via motor vehicle in some locations still in the 1960s) and I overheard my grandma say to the milkman, very politely about my aunt (her sons wife): "She is my favorite daughter-in-law." -- carol (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question - the same question I asked Adam - why of all the images Posada created, do you think this one is among the best? (IMO such a statement should accompany any such nomination). Since almost all nominated restored public domain works of art make FP, we rely on the nominator's judgment. A statement from the nominator wouldn't reduce our responsibility to judge the effectiveness and wow factor of the art, but it would explain the nominator's vetting process. Downtowngal (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The selection had a lot to do with the technical quality of the source file. It's among his calaveras--the work that Posada is best known for doing. Few of those are available in really high resolution digitized versions. Serious digital restoration work starts at about a 10MB uncompressed file. The original for this was over 60MB (around 25MB after cropping), which is a good scan at a good size. For this artist the choices basically came down to this image or "Calavera Oaxaqueña", which is compositionally superior but unfortunately someone at the Library of Congress altered the histogram on that source file, which makes it a poor choice for restoration. It's an exaggeration to say "almost all nominated restored public domain works of art make FP"--often they don't, and the options are usually so limited that specific explanation becomes repetitive. It would be wonderful to operate in a digital environment where such discussions become a feasible FPC requirement. We're several years away from that; possibly by featuring what we can get more institutions will go the route of openness. (Remember the NPG issued a legal threat last month; things are far from easy). Durova (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment With Posada´s art, it is impossible to select anyone print as the best, for the technique was almost the same throughtout his production (in general terms), so what we are left with is basically the strength of the message in his production, that is, the judgement would have to be on content and context, which is practically impossible to determine that type of value. What is real is that he created a character that springs from the mexican ethos in a very, very powerful manner and was able to capture relevant social customs and cultural traits during his time, and at the same time, his work has become ageless... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - thank you, Durova, and please don't take my oppose as a lack of gratitude; I agree the other image is better and I just don't think the artistic merits of this image warrant FP. Downtowngal (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC) a high quality restoration of an important artist.[reply]
  •  Support We're hardly limited to one image from a major artist. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2009 at 13:21:12
kitesurfer

Too late. /Daniel78 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 12:18:28
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panoramic view of Peñíscola, Castellón, Spain, from the castle.
I find neither the building nor the stitching error :S Rastrojo (D•ES) 11:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have marked the problem area with an annotation on the file page. This will be a very handy FPC tool when enabled by default by a gadget shortly. --Slaunger (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's no stitching error: here's a part of the image. Regards. Rastrojo (D•ES) 16:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing me one of the images. It does indeed confirm that there is a stitching error along one of the sides of the roof visible as a nudge/dislocation/small step along the edge to the back - a step which is clearly not present in the original. As if the two photos in the seem are offset by a pixel or two. Do you want me to upload a derivative work where it is explicitly highlighted with a little red circle around the problem area? It is not a big thing, but it should be easy to fix. --Slaunger (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for showing this image, Rastrojo, because there is a misalignment visible indeed. Where? Between the brown sand beach and the harbour basin there is a double decker coach on the parking lot. And then look to the left of the bus and trace the alignment of the roof edges. Compare stitch with your original photo. Why and how? Depending on your alignment method in hugin, first make sure you have enough good control points and taken away bad ones. Then from the drop-down menu (use other alignment options first) choose "Everything" and look whether the alignment has improved. -- Klaus with K (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll upload them tomorrow. Rastrojo (D•ES) 21:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 18:01:36
SHORT DESCRIPTION HIV-1 particles assembling at the surface of an infected macrophage

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena
edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 00:13:26
Looking north from Chicago 'L' station Adams and Wabash

Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 21:05:20
Former Norwegian Di 3 locomotive, now Kosovo Railways number 007, in front of the depot at Fushë Kosovë after a day's work

  •  Info created by Kabelleger - uploaded by Kabelleger - nominated by Kabelleger -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I think there are too few railway pictures in the FP list, so I'll give it a shot with this evening scenery, captured during my stay in Kosovo. -- Kabelleger (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose for its composition. Nothing much to see here; I would've liked to see much more of the train and its surroundings—a shot farther away from the train. I don't like the angle and half the image is only a small portion of the train, the other half being a blurred out building. ZooFari 23:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose good composition, but low F-number makes the mosque way too blurry. --ianaré (talk) 05:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Interesting and unique. --Aktron (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak  Oppose The train is excellent, and the composition is nice visually, it creates an intriguing visual connection between the train and the mosque, but then when you think about it there is no relation in fact, which is confusing and pointless. And the mosque, I don't think it should be sharp, on the contrary: I don't find it blurry enough. -- H005 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment There is, in fact, a good reason why the mosque is in the picture. The NoHAB AA16 locomotives were built for Norway, Belgium, Denmark and Hungary, none of these are islamic countries. This particular locomotive spent its "regular" life span in Norway. So the fact that this locomotive can be pictured together with a mosque tells us what a huge jurney it had made. About the mosque not being blurry enough: I tend to agree, but my equipment can't do lower F-stops, sorry. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm, I see, there's a point in that, indeed there's even some educational value. Not strong enough to support it, but at least I changed my mind from  Oppose to  Neutral -- H005 (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:36:27
Scarce copper (Lycaena virgaureae) - female.

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:32:46
Emerald Damselfly (Lestes sponsa).

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:34:58
Common Brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni).

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 21:13:03
Dresden Castle

 Comment I added some notes on the bottom of the description page. --Kolossos (talk) 19:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /→Diti the penguin — 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture
edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 16:04:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 25 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People
edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 10:06:31
Black and White Barack/Michelle Obama

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 23:30:51
Benjamin Franklin

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 17:14:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 23:04:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION

I do not think we have enough trees in our FP collection.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Apis mellifera (by) (1).jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 07:09:24
Apis mellifera

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ComputerHotline - Chalcolestes viridis (by).jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 18:05:25
Chalcolestes viridis

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

File:ComputerHotline - Chalcolestes viridis (by) (2).jpg, not featured

edit

Chalcolestes viridis

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 16:11:27
I'll miss you Dad

Btw. I foresee that this will once again be a controversial nomination with many comments, just like the first one... -- JovanCormac 16:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope you don't think the less of me for nominating it Jovan, but believe me, I'm not trying to make a point in favour of, or against the US, warfare, or whatever else one happens to see in this image. To me, the sheer range of reactions and emotions make this picture perfect for FP status; it inspires something in people, whether that reaction is good or bad is up to the viewer. How many featured pictures have we seen pass through this page? 4000? 5000? How many of those have inspired you to write a full paragraph in response? Isn't that what a picture is meant to be? Worth a thousand words? Not arguing with you, merely explaining what I think makes this picture stand out. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not at all thinking less of you. And you are right about this being one of the images on FPC which has excited me most, albeit in a negative sense. This picture does elicit strong emotions in everyone: Either compassion for the little girl, or disgust of her being used in war propaganda. And propaganda pictures can be featured, of course, provided that they are of excellent quality, which this one is. The real problem with this photo is that it is a propaganda picture of our times, and its likes are still seeing widespread use. Featuring it might stain our reputation in the eyes of some people, as we are not clearly distancing ourselves from it; in fact, we cannot, since whether the image actually is propaganda may be a point of disagreement. When we feature, say, Soviet propaganda pictures, or those from WWII, no one can seriously believe that we do it for any other reason than their historical value. This is not the case here, as this picture isn't history yet. It is for this reason, and because of the picture's highly ambiguous nature, that our "always on"-policy of NPOV is insufficient here. Simply featuring this picture, without an explicit inscription of neutrality about its contents, falls just short of a political statement. However, and this is the crux, putting it in the "Propaganda" category is a political statement as well! IMO, this picture is simply too controversial to be displayed in our "showcase", Featured Pictures. -- JovanCormac 19:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Making something a featured picture is not making a political statement, it is simply saying that the image meets certain artistic and technical standards. I would gladly support an image like this one of a Lebanese women crying after her vilage had been bombed by the Israelis (if it were of good enough quality), even though it could easily be used as a propaganda image. When it comes to images NPOV is not refusing to feature images that contain a certain sentiment, it is being willing to allow images from both sides to be featured if they meet the criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 12:45:05
Southern King Crab

This image gives a false impression of a crab photographed in its natural habitat. The fact that the crab is dead should be added to the description of the image.--Two two=4 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I've added a note to the description. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info the mean objective of this picture is scientific that is why I applied it to be evaluated by the people like a valued image because it's unique not only in Commons... Here (Features pictures) Dead or alive this King crab is not the issue. The subjet is if this picture is featured or not. There are many other scientific pictures with dead animals, aren't there ? My objective is to offer scientists the possibilty to see in details this animal. Otherwise, if this animal is under water it can not easily be seen in details. Precision : the color of this animal is clear and real, its size is about 60 cm in total. More precision in fr:wp. In fact, it is not its natural habitat, but it is better there on shore than on a dish at restaurant without its shell !!!--Butterfly voyages (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot agree that "it is better there on shore than on a dish". If it were "on a dish" there would not have been any doubts the crab is dead. The nominated image tries to pretend that the crab is alive, which is a false information for encyclopedia. I strongly believe that the info that the crab is a dead one should be added to the description of the image.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni => thanks and I changed it into french too ; @Two two => I apologise for the phrase "...on the dish" but it was meant to be a joke (this crab is very very very delicious !!!!!). Anyway, the biologists agree with this picture and of course they are well aware the animal is dead. At the beginning I didn't know whether to specify this in the description or not. Now I hope you change your vote.--Butterfly voyages (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marina - Nuits de Hautecombe 2008 - 1.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 19:53:08
Marina, singer and guitarist, Hautecombe Nights, 2008.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 09:00:19
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
edit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:55:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods
edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 15:51:44
Baron Münchhausen overriding a cannon-ball

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

File:Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain - Jan 2007.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 14:20:36
Port Vell, Barcelona, Spain

Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 19:43:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 14:42:20
Juvenile West European Hedgehog (Erinaceus europaeus).

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 09:55:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

File:Toruń - Old Town by night 01.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 20:54:33
Toruń Old Town by night.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - St. Simeon Stylites.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2009 at 07:26:06
St. Simeon Stylites

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 11:50:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Natural
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 10:29:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated
edit

Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2009 at 12:03:50
Seattle Center as night falls

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2009 at 23:29:12
A grey goose (anser anser, Graugans)

As for the centering, as Dschwen says, the head is not centered, and moreover I don't think that rule of thirds should be applied to everything in a "no questions asked" manner, if there's nothing else on the image but the object and a single homogenous background I believe it would make it worse. Imagine the duck centered to where now the head is, I do not think that would be an improvement. -- H005 (talk) 16:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I was not at all implying the RoT should be applied without switching your brain on ;-). --Dschwen (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've not even been inclined to think you were. :-) -- H005 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

A grey goose

Thank you. The alternative looks better. --Two two=4 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Question As everyone agrees that the edit is better, shouldn't we upload it as a new version of the original image rather than keeping two separate images? -- H005 (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info As no one opposed I have done so and will request deletion of the now duplicate File:Graugans Anser Anser new.jpg. -- H005 (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2009 at 16:36:41
Foggy morning in San Francisco

I uploaded one.--Two two=4 (talk) 01:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was not only early morning it was a foggy morning as well. The fog is seen in some places at the image but it was everywhere.--Two two=4 (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Foggy morning in San Francisco 

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 01:45:53


Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit 
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2009 at 00:23:42
Jug band 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Jug band

Before nominating my images I compared the quality of my images to the quality of few similar FPs File:Freaky Age 1 Luc Viatour.jpg File:Harri Stojka 30.08.2008c.jpg File:Metalmania 2007 TYR Terji Skibenas 001.jpg and came to conclusion that the quality of my images is not worse at the very least. Besides the size of my image is bigger and it is the only image that shows a jug band. --Two two=4 (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The voting period for this candidate is over, but the FPCBot is leaving this for manual investigation due to use of multiple images. Closing this candidate needs to be done using the manual instructions.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 23:16:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

William the Silent statue
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 13:33:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cabo da Roca, Portugal, the most western point in the continental Europe.
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nepal - Sagamartha Trek - 057 - chorten silhouetted by Lhotse & Everest.jpg, not featured

edit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 12:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nepal - Sagamartha Trek - 057 - chorten silhouetted by Lhotse & Everest
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 10:52:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cloud shadows on the sea
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jackson County, Alabama tornado damage.JPG, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 04:51:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Jackson County, Alabama tornado damage.JPG
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image size is 1.2 megapixels, below the 2 Mpx lower limit. →Diti the penguin — 13:20, 23 August 2009 (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.

 ...I see fluffy white stuff...Ks0stm (T•C) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 03:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very small, 946 × 700 pixels 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.

--Claus (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 20:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lupin cover the mountaintops of the Kodiak Archipelago
I am the creator and uploader, I must have forgotten to add a tag, thanks for noting. I have now added the copyright tag. [email protected] (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the email, I have since added the copyright tag releasing to public domain, thanks! [email protected] (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I thought the composition was breathtakinly wonderful, but, alas, I am my own most sympathetic critic! :p [email protected] (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 18:49:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A field of wild purple iris' on the Kodiak Archipelago
I think the glare makes the picture all the more wonderful but thanks for not being as outright oppositional as the guy who voted just above you! : ) [email protected] (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I appreciate your comments. I took a look at the present list of featured pictures of flowers and I guess I have a different view of what makes a good picture. Like Mozart, I like busy, however, the king thought his music had "too many notes". [email protected] (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very regretful  Oppose The picture is beautiful, and the flower in the foreground gives it a special touch and a great composition. But the glare mentioned above is a show stopper. I really hope that someone will step in and photoshop it away! -- JovanCormac 11:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, I did not know that there was such aversion to glare in photos on this page. I rather liked the glare - its the sun voicing its approval of the flower's beauty! [email protected] (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 12:33:00
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there's absolutely no details Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. 
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 09:51:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: Sir Thomas Munro, 1st Baronet, original author is Sir Martin Archer Shee. The image was retouched by Sanferd Rodrigues
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Very small. 0,84 Megapixels only George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:42, 21 August 2009 (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. 
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2009 at 00:47:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Absolutely terrible quality, you can see the window's frame, and the reflection of the hotel room in the glass TonyBallioni (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2009 (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. 
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 23:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image suffers from low quality, high noise, confusing composition, tilt, blurriness, bad lighting... 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2009 at 22:17:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2009 at 12:38:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Las Vegas Strip
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Gustave Dore Vase in Golden Gate Park.jpg, withdrawn

edit

Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2009 at 03:30:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
It does have it in both the file's name and the file's description.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got the message, and agree about background. @S23678, I do not think the rule of thirds will work here. The idea was to show details of the vase. The image was made out of 12 images.To show the details of the vase in "the rule of thirds" means to create even much more complex panorama and it will be the task for Diliff, not for me .@Diacritica, I know there are some ways to remove backgrounds but I am not sure how to do it. (I only know how to add fog digitally ). I will ask around what could be done with the background, and for now  
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 13:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 22:51:47 (UTC)
en: Rear view of "Museo El Castillo" (The Castle Museum), where lived the Echavarría family. Southeast of Medellin.

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 14:40:13
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Wayside crucifix


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 16:50:44
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Minute black scavenger flies (Scatopsidae) on oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare).


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 18:45:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

M/1 fossil teeth of a Microtus oeconomus (Tundra Vole) from Kiputz, Gipuzkoa, Basque Country.
 Comment Maybe you won't know but the unique way of identifying a Microtus fossil species is by the top shape of the M/1 tooth. It's to say the depth of the teeth it's not important in this image, but the top shape must be perfectly focused. -Theklan (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 13:57:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Now I understand why you opposed few of my images --Two two=4 (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, most (if not all) of your pictures are of better quality than this, but most of the ones I've voted on are also of human subjects, which I have higher standards for. I probably would have been neutral on this image if it weren't for the FPX, its just there is something I find intriguing about this image, and I believe that it deserves a vote. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 17:10:16
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Chipmunk
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 18:30:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Umayyad Mosque, Damascus, Syria. 180º panorama made with photostiching technology.


Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.E.F. Britten - Alfred, Lord Tennyson - Lady of Shalott.jpg, featured

edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 14:10:24
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 21:55:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

I clearly see the noise in the full resolution. I did not blow the image up to 200%. Of course the noise could be cleared as well as the dust spots could but I do not find the rocks in the background are sharp enough either.--Two two=4 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2009 at 22:44:25

Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 16:14:24
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crissy Field beach
The stitching errors were corrected thanks to Slaunger. The color balance was corrected. The info about the fog was added to the description of the image.
It is correct that I have pointed out some errors. I do not agree though that they have been fixed. I have marked one pretty severe stitching error in the moving waves on the file page as an annotation. Remember to clear your cache, if you have not used annotations before. I am by the way wondering how come I cannot make local annotations on this nom subpage. Did you make the new subpage as a copy&paste of the original nom, or did you use the new revised nomination process, where annotation "magic" is added to the nomination page?--Slaunger (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reason is that this nomination subpage was not created using template {{FPCnom/Basic}} but manually. I've fixed that manually and moved your nomination-related notes to this nomination page. Lupo 08:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image was nominated before. That's why I created the nomination with a new name. I was not sure how to do it. Sorry if I have done something wrong. It was not in purpose.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have acted in good faith and it is no big deal. It is a mess to renominate an image and you have to switch to manual when that happens. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I will never learn how do it as well as I will never learn how to find stitching errors --Two two=4 (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason please?--Two two=4 (talk) 18:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no stitching error on "the blue thing near the boarder". The images were not stitched even close to that place. The images were stitched only horizontally. "Diagonal edge" in the sea is absolutely natural.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here you can see what I talk about! --Leviathan (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying to help me out. I've corrected some of the problems you mentioned and I cannot see the others. I am sorry but maybe you could work with my latest version and mark the errors you see with a red mark and uplad the full resolution that I would be able to see the errors. For example I am not sure what problems you see in your third insert. If you're talking about the white things in the background these are only saleboats and some structures in the fog and not the waves. --Two two=4 (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Prblem! I look at the new version and I will post a marked version tomorrow. Greetings, Leviathan (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here (don`t forget to clear the cache) is the new version with marked errors. Its, again, the blue thing near the boarder and the light buoy on the right looks like "cut off" in my eyes. The rest is OK imho! Greets Leviathan (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I am sure these are no errors. They both are too close to the borders. There was no stitching done there. I'll try to take a close up of the buoy today and upload the image. I will let you know. Cheers.--Two two=4 (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
now  Neutral, to good to oppose, but I´m not 100% happy with it. (per Slaunger) Greets, Leviathan (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 OpposeModified my vote, see below. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC) How would you control in Hugin that images are only stitched horizontally? I do not agree that the diagonal edge is the sea is natural. It looks like a very typical example of the kind of stitching error you can get in Hugin when stitching over moving sea waves. --Slaunger (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say that I worked with a single row of the images. I do not know how Hugin could make a stitching error all over the image.--Two two=4 (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK. My pioint is that recent versions of Hugin tries to make seams between images by traversing a path in the overlap betwen images, where the difference between the two images is minimal. In this manner conflicts between two images caused by a moving object placed differently on two neighboring images can be avoided if the image overlap is sufficiently large (the seam path avoids selects one of them for inclsusion). That means the seams are not always vertical even on a horizontal strip of images. And when there are large differences as with moving waves bwteen images, there is no way it can find a good path, and you get these odd looking edges between areas taken at different moments in time. It is almost impossible to do right with the kind of wave crests you have there unless you do extensive cloning afterwards, using, e.g., individual projected image files from Hugin as selective clone masks. It can be done though, see File:Porto Covo pano April 2009-4.jpg but that also required a lot of cloning and the detailed knowledge of the creator, who is a physical oceanographer. --Slaunger (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
I did more work in the areas you pointed out (Thanks). I hope that it is OK now and even a physical oceanographer will not find any problems with the waves now.--Two two=4 (talk) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Neutral The stitching problems are less severe than before, but they are still quite prominent in the two problem areas I have marked. They do not spoil the entire photo anymore, though. Thus my change to a neutral vote. --Slaunger (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a normal fog for San Francisco. Have you read the Info about the fog I added to the image description?--Two two=4 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 23:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 20:48:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Gold crystals, synthetic made
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 12:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Emperor scorpion Pandinus imperator
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 20:02:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fallen Leaf Lake (California)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 01:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown Hare
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 11:57:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The porch of the wooden church in Budurăşti, Vâlcea County, Romania
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2009 at 12:46:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2009 at 03:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stow Lake
The tilt is fixed. If you believe it is still present please tell me what side and how many degrees I should turn it. Thanks.--Two two=4 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The composition doesn't work for me. There are 2 focal points, the waterfall and the small temple, each at an end of the panorama, with darker trees inbetween. Each of the focal points seems to have insufficient breathing space on their right (resp. left). It almost looks like the projector got stuck between 2 slides... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 16:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Tilt successfully removed. It's a very nice subject, makes me wish I was there, however I'm not sure whether there's enough wow for an FP - I think the composition is not ideal, too much water and to little of the trees and sky above the waterfall and pagoda. -- H005 (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you voted two times now.I did not want to cut off the reflection of the pagoda. So I believe there is just enough water to show the reflection.--Two two=4 (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, yes, I stroke through my original vote but then ran into an edit conflict with Maurilbert, and forgot to strike it through again when I fixed that. Done now.
And reading Maurilbert's comment now, I believe he's right, it's probably the distance between the objects and the too little space to their left and right that doesn't appeal me, anyway, something just feels wrong when I look at it, sorry. -- H005 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. I would only like to repeat one more time that I could not do less of the water in order not to cut off the pagoda's reflection and I could not do more of the sky because there was not much of the sky anyway only the fog.--Two two=4 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ISO was 100. It was very, very foggy.--Two two=4 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
edit

Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2009 at 23:40:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION


Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /FPCBot (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tick 2 (aka).jpg, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2009 at 13:55:00
A tick 

Result: 3 delist, 9 keep,  neutral => not delisted. --Karel (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platetrum depressum 1 Luc Viatour.JPG, not delisted

edit

Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2009 at 10:30:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

Result: 3 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --Karel (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/August_2009&oldid=27826278"