Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/August 2010

File:Wieselgrensplatsen HDR photog.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 19:36:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Erik Söderström - uploaded by Ainali - nominated by Ainali -- Ainali (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ainali (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poorly made HDR  Richard  [®]  20:21, 30 July 2010 (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: Nothing featurable there. The so-called HDR does not automagically enhance an ordinary picture. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Old man near Jaura, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 17:49:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I like photos of people and it is a shame when I cannot support them. In this case something is wrong with the lighting as most of the face is in the shadow. Also, I would prefer a slight different angle showing better the expression in the eyes. Let us wait for more opinions. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think that any of File:Old man near Jaura, India.jpg or File:Old man near Jaura, M.P., India.jpg is better? Yann (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What about permission of this man to public photo of his face? Przykuta → [edit] 21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked him, and he agreed. And there is {{Personality rights}} anyway. Yann (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I find that label stuck to his specs too distracting - MPF (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he bought new glasses, but forgot to remove the label. I think that this adds a bit of fun to this rather dramatic image. This is real world, not a staged model. Yann (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is such an interesting image, but I can't support for the reasons Alvesgaspar gave. I wonder if a better version of this shot could be nominated, and if there is some background as to why the label on the eyeglasses. Jonathunder (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucerne - Rigi.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 15:38:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Didier Baertschiger - uploaded by MadGeographer - nominated by Matasg -- Matasg 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Matasg 15:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, very poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong chromatic aberration in the top left corner, overall oily appearance, probably because of an aggressive denoising/smoothing. FPX might have been harsh, yet not totally unwarranted. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great view, and I think that it has potential. However, in addition to what Maurilbert said, I feel that there is too much darkness in the foreground, which creates almost too strong of a contrast, especially with a bright background such as this one; the dark trees, especially the one pretuding from the top left, almost "invade" the background view, which is one of the greatest aspects of this image IMO. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple de posido.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Aug 2010 at 20:06:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fajardoalacant - uploaded by Fajardoalacant - nominated by Fajardoalacant -- Fajardoalacant (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fajardoalacant (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not sharp and overexposed.--Avala (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, the image is severely overexposed -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I actually think it captures the harsh, enervating oppressive heat and brightness of the place very well - you can just imagine yourself standing there with the sun beating down, your eyes screwed up against the intense light, and a splitting headache from dehydration. That's exactly the way the Mediterranean coast is in high summer. To show it with less exposure would be telling a lie. - MPF (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if you like the exposure levels, it's not sharp enough for Featured status. Steven Walling 18:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fair; I mainly supported because I thought FPX was too harsh, and breaking FPX needs a support - MPF (talk) 19:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Exposure. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Focus stacking Tachinid fly.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 14:58:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is created to easily illustrate to interested people about the photographic technique called focus stacking. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent example that shows how focus stacking works. Unrelated to why I support this image, but the water droplet near its left wing adds an interesting touch. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 16:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support perfect show of focus stacking. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very encyclopedic. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent indeed. -- MJJR (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jet engine.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 23:53:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Jeff Dahl - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic work! --JovianEye (talk) 01:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. Masur (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Esztergom basilica organ Hungary.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Aug 2010 at 16:20:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivanhoe - uploaded by Ivanhoe - nominated by Ivanhoe -- Ivanhoe (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is my first nomination here. This image is featured in Hungarian Wikipedia. Esztergom basilica is one of the best known building in Hungary. I hope you will like it and be satisfied with its quality.-- Ivanhoe (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Welcome and good luck! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting is rather poor, and I don't understand why it's cut off at the top like that. Not the best of the best. Steven Walling 18:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case the organ would have "sat down" in the composition. That is why I cut off there. Yes, the lightning is really poor. Basilica... :-)--Ivanhoe (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Noisy (look at the clock at full res). --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 14:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much much noise and perspective not corrected. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain me why you think that perspective is not correct? I would like to learn... Thank you.Ivanhoe (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote "perspective is not corrected". The walls are leaning inside, this is an effect of tilting the camera upwards. This is correct but not "beautiful" and should be corrected. Formerly this was done with special lenses, today you can use software to do this. For more information and how to do look at www.shiftn.de for example. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallus gallus domesticus, Hahn.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 20:01:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, ,uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely deserves the QI it already has, but there are plenty of freely-licensed photos just like this one available, and the unsharpness over the top left and the slightly dull lighting don't add up to Featured quality in my opinion. Close, but no cigar. Steven Walling 20:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven Walling. Jonathunder (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral At full size the beak is in focus but the eyes are not in sharp focus. --JovianEye (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think that the image should include the top of the flap of red skin on its head. Snowmanradio (talk) 17:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting mood and colours, and technically good. --99of9 (talk) 08:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Böhringer (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:The paddling surfers under crepuscular rays.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 00:43:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't really have any educational value. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has lot's of educational value: w:crepuscular rays; paddling just to name two. And what about the dogs behavior, who are standing still at surfboards? And what about reefs seen in the ocean, and what about w:sun glitter?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Now it's a background of my desktop :) Thanks! -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, like painting. Strong support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support . . . nice pic, but needs more info: I'll add the extra brackets for support with this extra info: (1) location, (2) date, (3) a bit more clarification of what "manually done panorama" means. If available, some info on why the people were taking their dogs out on surfboards would also be of interest (and may greatly enhance the educational value) - are they working dogs, e.g. being used to sniff out shellfish for harvest, or just dogs out playing with their owners? - MPF (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The date and location is added."Manually done panorama" means that I was not able to stitch a few image using a program, and done it manually instead. I know nothing about the people on surfboards,except that the owner of the restaurant I took the picture from, told me, it was the very first time they paddled so close to the shore in this place. The tide,and the ocean conditions were just right for them to paddle there, and then they got behind the reefs, and were gone, except one of them caught a small wave, when he passed the reefs. They were two boys and one girl. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - MPF (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I don't know how the merging process was done, but it seems that something went wrong. The line of the horizon is too sharp. Looks like the background is fake. Sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I explained I added the images together in photo shop manually, but I am not sure what you mean under fake, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it looked like the sea is just cut and pasted on the sky. It's much better now. --Lošmi (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - the horizon does not look natural. Jonathunder (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I tried to fix it. Does it look natural now?

--Mbz1 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. Jonathunder (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Mila and her crepuscular rays. What a really nice pair... I needed a while but now, after looking at it some times, i really like it. Good work and very aesthetical. bg mathias K 11:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very interesting sunset. Quality is very very good. Kooritza (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Tambo Quemado.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 12:48:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support because of the opposition between the trucks and the landscape -- Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 12:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral No wow factor for me, nothing truly featurable either... but well, why not. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert, I did nominate at at QIC though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but i dont like the composition. Have a look at the pics of User:Kabelleger, he has many pics which are nearly the same kind of shots with mostly a more pleasant composition. --mathias K 11:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me! --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Housefly mating.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 02:47:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - nominated by me4ever22c -- 71.7.168.123 02:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ -- 71.7.168.123 02:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC) Please log in to vote  Richard  [®]  16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting but 2 harsh lighting  Richard  [®]  16:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh lightning and oversharpened. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thanks for nominating but this does not meet the size requirements. --Muhammad (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversharpened (Muhammad is a gentlmen) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's well below the 2 Mb minimum. Pitke (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:STS-132- Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis.ogv, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Aug 2010 at 08:32:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kozuch - nominated by Kozuch -- Kozuch (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kozuch (talk) 08:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose commentator only provides data in obscure archaic units incomprehensible to 90% of the world's population - MPF (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why didn't you nominate the higher resolution version? Although we don't have clear rules for a featured video, I think that most users would agree that the featured video should be in the best available quality. --Lošmi (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion the video should get featured in all bitrate versions - when put into article, lower bandwidth versions are more accessible (because not everybody has fiber at home). --Kozuch (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher resolution version

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same problems as above of obscure archaic units incomprehensible to 90% of the world's population - MPF (talk) 19:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It shouldn't be hard for someone who knows English, to convert miles to kilometers and pounds to kilograms. --Lošmi (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But as a matter of principle, they must not be required to do so - MPF (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are worried about the units then we could just as well be worried about the English language as well and require subtitles for everyone not knowing English. /Daniel78 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great footage, great quality. --Lošmi (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Jonathunder (talk) 01:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 18:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kozuch (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are videos eligible? A nomination of a video has been FPXed in July for that reason, see Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Yeager_supersonic_flight_1947.ogg. --Myrabella (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is the first, I'd prefer NOT to start a trend. If we decide not to feature, we should also write it into the rules so that it's clear for nominators. --99of9 (talk) 03:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia, videos get normally featured as "Featured (motion) pictures". I see no reason why we could no do that here. Of course, including videos direcly in guidelines would be much better...--Kozuch (talk) 09:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discussion on Commons doesn't seem to have been very conclusive : Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates/Archive_5#Videos (maybe I didn't find the very last one on that topic, though). --Myrabella (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv is the highest resolution of the video, and the one that was chosen on the English Wikipedia for their FP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

The chosen alternative is: File:STS-132 Liftoff Space Shuttle Atlantis 1080i.ogv

File:Fort-13-30-11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 15:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a pity the picture gets distorted and unsharp at the edges. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice composition, but poor quality at full res. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This picture is 12 times the required resolution, and the author has adhered to the guidelines by not downsampling (which would make it look sharper at "full" resolution). However, I'm only neutral because there are some quite strong chromatic aberrations, and the subject does not wow me - I find the foreground shed and building materials a bit disturbing. --99of9 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this foto and the very high resolution. Its taken from a good perspective of this building too. --Korman (talk) 05:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jiráskovo náměstí, Tatra T3R.P a Tančící dům.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 12:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jagro (cs.wiki) – uploaded by Jagro – nominated by Jagro — Jagro (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Jagro (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose valuable but not featurable, somewhat cluttered. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a great subject, but the composition does not quite work here for me. Jonathunder (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe without tramp stop composition will be better. Przykuta → [edit] 21:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 19:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Maurilbert on the clutter; the tram wires in particular spoil the view of the buildings - MPF (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it's obviously a very cluttered picture because it's a cluttered scene, but the photographer has taken advantage of this. At first glance, it confuses and perplexes and it seems as if the tram were heading up into the sky - the perspective on the tram lines cuts in front of the oddly warped buildings intersecting with their own ornamentation of sagging arcs, the tram's power connection is aligned with the balcony, the sign for the stop is aligned with the edge of the building. I think this shot highlights the oddity of the building itself. Wnt (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Libellule-14-45-07.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 15:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How sure are we about the ID here? J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Look here. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that impressive, compositionally. We have a ton of equivalent photos, and this one just doesn't stand out to me. Steven Walling 20:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow factor... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. Nice colours. --99of9 (talk) 10:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The colours give the wow for me. --Elekhh (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wildlife primate monkey-of-japan macaca-fuscata closeup 31-05-2010.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Aug 2010 at 21:11:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by an uploaded by Alfonsopazphoto - nominated by SaippoGuru -- SaippoGuru (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SaippoGuru (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent portrait! And how similar we are to them (check the next nom). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shoot --The Photographer (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just the right amount of DOF. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks good, but I think there is an easy improvement to make. The face is not quite centered. There is a little extra space on the right hand side, which if cropped would also make the background a little cleaner. --99of9 (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would ruin the thirds' composition. --Muhammad (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not much is on the thirds at the moment, so I don't think it is giving away much. --99of9 (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but I fell the little head cut-off a the top slightly messes up the composition. A crop somewhere along the lines of the note I have added may improve it --Muhammad (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good. Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 14:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support and I would prefer not centred and not cropped. --Elekhh (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't mind the top crop at all. It think it brings the focus closer in to the subject in the a valuable way. Steven Walling 20:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the non-centered composition, but the crop suggested by Muhammad may improve the picture. --Cephas (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find it a bit too heavily cropped - it is missing some of the hair on its chin and the top of its head, wile the pic dimensions are a bit too broad for its height. Is there an original with more visible at top and bottom? - MPF (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support because it is very good even as it is, but I agree with 99of9 about the composition (crop). --Petritap (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good image, but like MPF, I would prefer a different crop. Jonathunder (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Two Saddle Wrasse are feeding on sea urchin.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 05:50:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative 1

I hope alternatives are allowed under new rules. If they are not, I am sorry, and I will remove it. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2010 (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: very poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is an underwater action shot taken in the wild. It should not have been FPXed, but you know what

who cares?--Mbz1 (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erinaceus europaeus in Avesta 07.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 06:53:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by V-wolf - uploaded by V-wolf - nominated by V-wolf -- V-wolf (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- V-wolf (talk) 06:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Be careful, little hedgehog! There may be cars. --Schnobby (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I dare you to hug it! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sweet! --JovianEye (talk) 01:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly a... risky shot, but the background is unappealing to me, and the animal's face is out-of-focus. Sorry, but not up to par in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton --ianaré (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fine with me.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I absolutely love the sharpeness, and it so important to this subject. --Ainali (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Juliancolton and the forelegs are not visible. --Citron (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not Featured quality. The expression is great, but the lighting is not so good and the background is far from ideal. Compare to this Featured shot of the same animal. Steven Walling 19:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice shot, but not exceptional. -- smial (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice guy. --Karel (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven Walling. --99of9 (talk) 05:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aloe July 2009-1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 15:58:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Flowers of Aloe against the sea. Porto Covo, west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - I'm not a huge fan of the relatively straightforward composition, but the image is quite nice on the eyes, and it has plenty of EV. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with Julian; it's a very simple and straightforward composition, but in this case, based on the subject and coloring, I think it serves its purpose well. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 16:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't really like the blurry flowers. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice color, but I don't think the composition is quite right. It's hard to make out any real detail on the subject, and that decreases potential educational value. Steven Walling 20:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with THFSW, some of the flowers are not in focus. --JovianEye (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice colors, but just quality so-so, sorry... -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MarsPanoramaa.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 21:40:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Durova - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Von.grzanka (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic image. -- bydand•talk 04:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic image indeed -- MJJR (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 (talk) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 11:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Radiometer 9965 Nevit.gif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 20:25:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nevit - uploaded by Nevit - nominated by Nevit -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous and educational. ;) Steven Walling 21:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Neat. Tiptoety ^talk 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There's a slight "shake" in the frames. But as it's an old invention, and the image is B&W, it gives a feeling of an old film, so I guess it's ok. --Lošmi (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Lošmi and Steven Walling. -- bydand•talk 05:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cvf-ps (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice -- MJJR (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

File:San francisco in fog with rays.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 13:50:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mbz1 - uploaded by Mbz1 - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Waw! --Citron (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - something a mite disturbing in the shadow angles; the angle of the shadow of the hill at the top left doesn't appear to match the angle of the crepuscular ray lines at the lower left. It's as if the sun's rays are travelling in a dog-leg. - MPF (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they need to be parallel in the picture given the geometry. bamse (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all need to converge radially on a single point (the position of the sun) - MPF (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but can I take the rays in a 2D projection (the image, any image), extend them and will I end up at the sun in the same image (assuming it was included)? Actually on second look, I noticed that I might have mistaken a hole in the clouds for the shadow of the mountain. Possibly the uneven surface of the clouds on which the shadow falls could give the wrong impression you were talking about?! bamse (talk) 06:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to say that the original (see below) I uploaded shows both shadows in one shot.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I don't get this. You took this image and pasted it on some image of Golden Gate Bridge. If you wanted to make a photo montage you should clarify that. Is this picture made of images taken at totally different places as well? --Lošmi (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a photo montage, it is a normal panorama photographed at the same time, the same date and the same place. All the images included in the other image you refer to were taken at the same place also. I am not sure how you could have thought I combined the images taken in a different places! This image is also a panorama photographed on the very same day,at the very same place, and at the very same time as the images used for the nominated image. And if you don't get it, it might be better to ask first than to make insinuations. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm sorry about insinuation that they are totally different pics, but this just doesn't look realistic to me. The perspective doesn't fit. It's like you took the images at the same time and place, but from the different points. I see two different pictures here. And again, sorry about that insinuation, but I don't think this panorama is merged correctly. --Lošmi (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used tripod to take the images. They all were taken from the very same place. The only thing that was moving from shot to shot was the tripod's head. --Mbz1 (talk) 05:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And to end all the suspicions I now uploaded one of the original (not post processed at all images

. I do not remember, if this particular one was used to create the panorama (I took few sets, and I do not remember which ones I've used for the panorama), but it gives you an idea how it looked in the real life. Not even in a bad dream I would have thought about adding Golden Gate Bridge to the place it does not belong!--Mbz1 (talk) 05:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could swear that this is not merged correctly. Sry, my mistake. Thank you for clearing all doubts. --Lošmi (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 15:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Mmm, I was just around there earlier this summer...of course, it wasn't at 7 in the morning, so I just got your typical, boring, sunny view of the Golden Gate bridge. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 22:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Staudammkrone Lünersee 2.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Aug 2010 at 21:47:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Böhringer - uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Grauer langweiliger Matsch. sугсго 13:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support = support. Fantastic! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Albertus teolog (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A bridge to nowhere.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent in terms of composition and atmosphere. --Petritap (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Danke für die Nominierung --Böhringer (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Petritap --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Natural phenomena

File:Nikola Zrinski Sigetski - spomenik u Čakovcu.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 07:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Silverije - uploaded by User:Silverije - nominated by User:Silverije -- Silverije (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Silverije (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting, overexposed in some areas, noisy background. -- Sdgjake (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lambis truncata 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Aug 2010 at 16:09:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez| - uploaded by Llez| - nominated by Llez| -- Llez (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - why "Own collection, therefore not geocoded"? Can't you look up the coordinates of where you collected it? Also, can I assume it was collected legally? (knowing some species are protected in some areas). - MPF (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was bought from a professional seller more than 30 years ago. The exact localitiy of collection was not mentioned. "Own collection" means "a shell of my collection", not necessarily "collected by myself". --Llez (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Useful, but the colours of the shell itself seem too dull (sun-bleached?) to make an impact on me. --99of9 (talk) 08:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think so. The shell is white to creamy-white (upper side), the base (callus and mouth) is brownish. Perhaps you refer to the "periostracum", an organic layer on the shell, which is brown. But this periostracum you mostly see only in living or fresh caught animals, is normally not preserved as it is lapsed. So the colour of the shell (and not the periostracum) is correct IMO. --Llez (talk) 08:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Please, can you clean the borders of the shell on the left? --Citron (talk) 06:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please make an annotation of the area you mean in the picture. --Llez (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Thank you for the hint, I've overlooked it. --Llez (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Good job! =) --Citron (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Old man near Jaura, India.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 06:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is a different picture than the previous nomination, and I think that the other one was not even properly reviewed. Yann (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 06:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough, slight blur. Not for me. -- bydand•talk 10:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Girl at Saboten-Con Cosplay.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 23:24:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kevin Dooley - uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lošmi (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Colourful. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC). I prefer the alternate crop. --99of9 (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Certainly colorful and interesting, but I don't like the crop. Jonathunder (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yukk. MPF (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Support I made a wider crop. --Lošmi (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yukk. MPF (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per my comment above, switching support to this crop. --99of9 (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this crop. Jonathunder (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Couple at Con-Nichiwa Cosplay.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 22:24:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kevin Dooley - uploaded by Lošmi - nominated by Lošmi -- Lošmi (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lošmi (talk) 22:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to illustrate the theme very well. I would have preferred the man in focus too, but the woman is the primary subject. --99of9 (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Yukk. MPF (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:2010-07-29 20-33-23 Switzerland Schaffhausen Dörflingen, Hinterdorf.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Aug 2010 at 20:30:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by simisa - uploaded by simisa - nominated by simisa -- Simisa (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Simisa (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, very noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are using FPX way too often, and it is absolutely unnecessary.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I can see the noise if I look for it; it isn't enough to detract from the interesting atmosphere of the pic. - MPF (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The noise is no problem, but the composition is. I don't like the foreground at right. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 16:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Alvesgaspar. --99of9 (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Alvesgaspar--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amsel weiblich m.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 16:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Romate - uploaded by Romate - nominated by Romate -- Romate (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Romate (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty good (the lighting is especially nice), but I don't like the composition much, with the way the fence is cropped and the space around the subject. Just not that outstanding, especially compared to the scads of other avian FPs we have already. I would suggest a QI nomination. Steven Walling 00:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral A QI nomination might be better actually per Walling. --Korman (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have it nominated as QI now, thanks Romate (talk) 07:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vanellus miles miles.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Aug 2010 at 06:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. -- 99of9 (talk) 06:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Llez (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting shot. Steven Walling 20:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Tiptoety ^talk 01:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 21:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. This is an excellent foto indeed. --Korman (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bronchial anatomy.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2010 at 11:41:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Patrick.lynch - nominated by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator, keen to support professional educational illustrators who become wikipedians and release their artwork under free licenses! -- 99of9 (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I consider any anatomical illustration that grosses me out to be a success. ;) Steven Walling 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect! -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support high educational value, great! --Taraxacum (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support a masterpiece.. --Hydrox (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support Could be SVG --The Photographer (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could be, but why should it be? That just removes editing options for the vast majority of people who don't have svg-editing capability - MPF (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a very good free svg editor called Inkscape, so editing is not exactly restricted. Nevertheless, my reason for nominating this is simply that I did not see any svg anatomy images that looked this good. If anyone makes a fantastic svg image, I'll support that too! --99of9 (talk) 00:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't come packaged in with computers that people buy; how many people go through the difficulty of finding it and taking the risk of installing it? Very few, I bet. I tried once, and got a warning that installing it might harm my computer, so I didn't. - MPF (talk) 08:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to draw in SVG, if you need help. I could convert this to SVG like other works --The Photographer (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do convert it and it looks better, I'll be happy to vote to replace this if it becomes a FP. At this stage however, the somewhat comparable SVG File:Respiratory_system_complete_en.svg (which is already a FP) is not as nice looking in my opinion (although it is a very fine diagram, and is somewhat more comprehensive, so I'm not voting to delist). --99of9 (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that you might be under the impression that I drew/painted this. I'm afraid my abilities are no where near this level. I've drawn some figures in svg Category:Diagrams by User:99of9, but they're nowhere near this league. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can do it in SVG. You've convinced me I see it as easy to make but I can not wait for all the world to see so. Nice work, but bad format. --The Photographer (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - because it's not a svg ;-) MPF (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Equus grevyi 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 07:03:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awesome and extremely encyclopedic. Masur (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great encyclopedic value. -- bydand•talk 05:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can you equalize the colour temperatures? Each part of the image has a different colour. --99of9 (talk) 05:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Llez (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, those colours are much better. I've also added a note to show some possible masking errors, can you compare back to the original? --99of9 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Thanks for the hints --Llez (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It still looks jagged there, and it even looks like there's a semi-circle cut out. --99of9 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I just compared the photo with the original cranuim. The cranium has two narrow ridges ("carinas") with irregular outline in this area, one you can see as border of the cranium in this region (the right one), the other (left one) is seen just a bit below. The photo shows the cranium as it in reality. --Llez (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Support OK, thanks for checking. I support now. --99of9 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Obiki-no-hana Kasumi Coast Hyogo pref04bs4500.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 12:17:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- 663h (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 663h (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified {Support} - after geolocation info added - MPF (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 06:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Tilted, washed out, blurry, unimpressive composition. Nice shot, butt he quality is not up to FP standards IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tabanid July 2010-2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 11:34:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Tabanid fly (Haematopa pluvialis) in a mountaneous area of Portugal. The females are voraceous blood-suckers, attacking large mammals, including men. Notice the blade-like mouth parts, used to cut the skin and draw blood. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info -- Sorry, I removed the other nomination (and the FPD template of this one). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very ugly bug/fly, I absolutely hate them, but the good composition and colour scheme makes it bearable to look at it in detail. --Elekhh (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that's the nicest shot of a haltere I've ever seen on an intact insect. Though I wouldn't mind seeing a shot that gets those beautiful wing patterns in full. Wnt (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athenry Priory East Window 2009 09 13.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 13:14:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by AFBorchert - uploaded by AFBorchert - nominated by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 13:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kooritza (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A good image, but I find the symmetry of the composition unattractive, an the dull houses in the background distracting. The perspective distortion on the right hand side is also disturbing. --Elekhh (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for nominating one of my favorites. The depicted tracery window of Athenry priory (see my German wp article) is from the 14th century. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Bolsa de mocochinchi 1.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 20:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by user:ferbr1 - uploaded by Ferbr1 - nominated by User:ferbr1 -- Ferbr1 (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Confused. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would be much better without the package --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - bag is distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - maybe some more traditional packaging would serve. White background is boring. Hydrox (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jaroměř from air 5.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 21:37:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 21:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No reason to promote. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karlskirche panorama.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 20:27:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Marcus Winter - uploaded by Fetchcomms - nominated by Fetchcomms -- fetchcomms☛ 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- fetchcomms☛ 20:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice pic à la Taj Mahal in small sizes, but some rather obvious blurring and distortion over to the left side (compressed vertically, stretched horizontally) spoils it at full size. Green-clothed person at foot of main steps appears twice, one needs to be removed. - MPF (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as MBF and I see no sense in the panorama format. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indiandhaba-interior.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 14:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Barun -- Barun (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Barun (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, don't like the fisheye effect, particularly the curved wood pillars - MPF (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - sorry, but I have to agree this is not a shot where fisheye works. Also, the symmetry of the bowls is somehow distracting. Jonathunder (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Everything said. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cheyenne dance4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 18:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Henry Chaufty - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very valuable historical image. Steven Walling 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Educational. Tiptoety ^talk 01:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Educational with great encylopedic value. My favourite type of image! -- bydand•talk 05:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Image qui a du sens" --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems overexposed on the left compared to the right. Perhaps a little more restoration is in order here before promotion? --99of9 (talk) 13:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per my comment. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Cephas (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - have to agree with 99', too over-exposed and sky burnt-out at the left end in particular - MPF (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with 99of9 and MPF, but as this is a historical print, I'm afraid that the technical flaws cannot be fixed in an appropriated way. We have to accept this great and valuable document with its technical weaknesses... -- MJJR (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Skillshare, Alter Hafen Lüneburg.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Aug 2010 at 18:26:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer, so of course Neutral. Quality image on Commons; original file is File:Lüneburg (DerHexer) 82.jpg. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support some small technical weaknesses, but nice colours and nice composition --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 08:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mylius (talk) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Carschten. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nach langem Überlegen. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Osvaldocangaspadilla (talk)

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Russian Imperial Crown.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 15:21:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Avalokitesvara - uploaded by Avalokitesvara - nominated by David Liuzzo -- David Liuzzo (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- David Liuzzo (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Obviously someone's done a lot of work to make something like this, and I don't mean to be dismissive of that, but for me it's not up to FP yet. In particular I find the colours applied to imitate lighting to be too inconsistent. Are the lights from the left or right, top or bottom? Usually it looks like the same motif is simply cloned from one part of the image to another. --99of9 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support imo good as a heraldic reconstruction --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The outlines around every face and facet are distracting. Makes me think of a wireframe-3D model. Suggest eliminating lines where possible and better color selection elsewhere. Braindrain0000 (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck (edit).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 03:48:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Royal Family of Bhutan - uploaded by Howcheng - nominated by Spongie555 --- 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Spongie555 03:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why the unedited version? The page says it's been superseded! --99of9 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spongie let me know he intended to nominate the edited version, so I've swapped it in (hardly any difference). --99of9 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Impro (talk) 06:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (preliminarily FPX) only 0.8 mpx, well below minimum - MPF (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]
Info close the FPX because there is a support-vote outcluding the nominators vote --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose way below minimum size requirements. --Dschwen (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Κατά sorry, not large enough for Featured Picture. If the picture had the right size, I would probably support it. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Thaddeus Monastery By Amir.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 20:16:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Amir - uploaded by Amir - nominated by Amir -- Amir (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Amir (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Random crop, strong perspective distortion, somewhat overexposed, overall lack of extraordinariness. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 23:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing unconvincing.--Elekhh (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- bydand•talk 10:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Maurilbert -- Sdgjake (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a shot of the whole building in this quality would have more chance here. --Don-kun (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chalcolestes viridis qtl1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2010 at 20:38:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl. --Quartl (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 20:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks too oversharpened to me. Please fix it, then I'll vote {{support}}. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I slightly sharpened the image. I cannot replace the current version since it candidates at FPC in the German Wikipedia (where it has already garnered 10 Pros). I put the original, unsharpened version under File:Chalcolestes viridis qtl1 orig.jpg. Should I switch images here? --Quartl (talk) 09:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this sharpened version is better. --99of9 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn and replaced by Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Chalcolestes_viridis_qtl3.jpg. --Quartl (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grande sauterelle verte - Portrait.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 10:34:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not bad. --Mile (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Llez (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop and lighting. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2 harsh lighting  Richard  [®]  21:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The crop is not bad, and neither is the light. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bad crop, but proximity is extraordinary! --Citron (talk) 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's something wrong with the image notes; "No.3" is missing. Tried to work out what was missing but couldn't work it out. MPF (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done Error corrected, Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition --Böhringer (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the crop and the composition. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dansker und Marienburg.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 15:39:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer, so Neutral of course. —DerHexer (Talk) 15:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It has my initials "LZ" at the roof! --Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Warum korrigierst Du nicht die Perspektive? --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good idea. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In welcher Weise? / In which way? —DerHexer (Talk) 20:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probier doch zuerst mal Shift-N. --Mbdortmund (talk) 11:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - <erbsenzaehler>shiftn</erbsenzaehler> -Berthold Werner (talk) 15:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Naja, so drastisch ist das bei diesem Bild ja nicht. Und gemeint waren also die leicht stürzenden Linien und nicht dioe Perspektive; kann ja schlecht nochmal hinfahren und mich woanders hinstellen. ;o) Eine Alternative scheint Carschten hochgeladen zu haben: File:Dansker und Marienburg neu-Carschten.jpg. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of Arms of Georgian Orthodox Church.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2010 at 12:59:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rastrelli F - uploaded by Rastrelli F - nominated by Gaeser -- George M. (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominator -- George M. (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Avala (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Geagea (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frankfurt Am Main-Main Plaza-Ansicht von der Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2010 at 06:55:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mylius - uploaded by Mylius - nominated by Mylius -- Mylius (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Main Plaza in Frankfurt on the Main, a 88 meter highrise citing the style of the 1920's, finished in 2001 according to plans of Hans Kollhoff
Support -- Mylius (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- nice lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 08:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 09:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very fine. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - overdone perspective correction in tower, with parallel sides make it 'look' wider at the top than lower down (because the brain expects it to show smaller angular diameter higher up), and disturbing green glow under bridge - MPF (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually very little perspective correction was done on this particular image (here's the unprocessed original from RAW), I rather guess the one expecting a smaller angular diameter is you as this building's top is quite unusual. As for the light, this can't be avoided in situations where lighting from sources with a highly dissimilar colour temperature mix (here: blue hour natural and artifical) --Mylius (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try re-taking the pic at a different time of day, when the artifical lights are off? That would likely give better light on the building, too. - MPF (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good picture. No perspective issues IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the foto, the lighting and the overall perspective. No problems here. --Korman (talk) 05:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically very good, but no wow and boring composition. --Taraxacum (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Taraxacum. --99of9 (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Taraxacum and 99of9 --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Taraxacum. --Mile (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good shot of an architectural interesting tower in the evening light. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically good, we need more pictures of architecture for the wikis and it is a problem that it's so difficult to promote one here. We have very fine details here and no technical problems. It would not get more useful using an extreme angle or lighting in order to receive a wow-effect... --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A piece of media does not need to be assessed as Featured to be used widely in Wikimedia projects. Need in Wikipedia or elsewhere has zero bearing on whether or not we think something meets the Featured criteria or not. Steven Walling 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike the composition (cropped out background/foreground elements leave a strange, angular frame) and simply do not think it's the best of the best on Commons. I would suggest a QI nomination. Steven Walling 22:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's interesting, and while it is a good photo with technically correct perspective, it doesn't "feel" quite right. Perhaps it's the composition. Try a bit different angle, or less centered subject? Jonathunder (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 10:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lünersee vom Saulakopf 1.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Aug 2010 at 19:04:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Lüner Lake in Rätikon. Viewed from the 2.517m high Saulakopf. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tilted. --Dschwen (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done danke --Böhringer (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Wow!! - MPF (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive landscape. --Elekhh (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --663h (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support An english description would be appreciated. --Cephas (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
en Done --Böhringer (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. --Petritap (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Die Qualität ist noch okay, aber die Komposition gefällt mir nicht. Das halbe Hauptmotiv ist von einem Berg verdeckt, was die Artikel-Brauchbarkeit einschränkt. Das sieht für mich eher nach einem Schnappschuss aus. Exzellenz ist hier imo nicht vorhanden. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Translation: Quality is still ok, but I don't like the composition. Half of the main subject is occluded by a mountain, which limits its usefulness in articles. This looks more like a snapshot to me. Nothing featureworthy in my opinion. --Dschwen (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to somewhat agree with kaʁstns assessment, although calling it a snapshot is a bit harsh. The mountains look impressive and the weather was sure nice. I'm just not convinced that automatically makes an FP. --Dschwen (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ich weiß, dass das hier kein Schnappschuss ist, aber die Komposition lässt es auf mich so wirken. Das wollte ich damit ausdrücken. Danke übrigens für die Übersetzung; im Englischen hatte ich nicht die richtigen Worte gefunden, weswegen ich es auf Deutsch (als für Böhringer verständlich) schrieb... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vonwegen Schnappschuss und Komposition, ich war 3x auf diesem Berg und habe stundenlang gewartet um das richtige Licht zu bekommen. Damit der Stausee nicht so langweilig wie die meisten aussieht, habe ich bewusst die Staumauer mit einbezogen. Das gibt dem Bild eine zusätzliche Tiefe und dies wiederum lässt sich nur von diesem Standort ablichten. Solltest du mal einen 2500er schaffen, kannst du ja gerne einen besseren Standort für die gewünschte Komposition suchen, du wirst auch mit Seil und Bickel keinen finden. mfg. --Böhringer (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einem Bild immer sofort anzusehen, welche Arbeit dahinter steckt, ist nicht leicht. Ich kenne mich in der Gegend nicht aus, und vom Klettern halte ich nicht viel. Du kannst es garantiert gut einschätzen, ob man einen besseren Standpunkt für den ganzen See hätte finden können. Jedoch bleibt mir nur das zu bewerten, was ich sehe, und da nur das halbe Hauptmotiv zu sehen ist, gefällt mir nicht (wohl Geschmackssache, dem einen gefällt es mehr, dem anderen weniger). Ich möchte auch noch mal sagen, dass die Qualität wirklich in Ordnung und die Farben/Lichtverhältnisse sehr schön ausgenutzt/aufgenommen wurden. Das alleine macht für mich aber die Verdeckung nicht wet und reicht imo alleine auch nicht, um ein Bild Exzellent zu nennen. Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Die Fläche, die nicht eingesehen werden kann, entspricht nicht der Hälfte sondern weniger als 1/4. Trotzdem vielen Dank für die Antwort. --Böhringer (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though kaʁstn has a good and valid point (but I am still in support). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The color is especially good. Steven Walling 00:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding foto. --Korman (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support @ Böhringer: Next time nuke the disturbing mountains, please.. --Mbdortmund (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent picture (but please remove the white dot in the middle of the upper edge) -- MJJR (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done genau hingesehen :-) danke --Böhringer (talk) 21:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heute morgen beim Fruehstueck ist mir aufgefallen, dass mein Alpenfotokalender fuer August auch ein Bild vom Luenersee hat :-), und zwar der Blick in die Gegenrichtung, vermutlich aufgenommen von der kleinen Halbinsel. --Dschwen (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 10:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kuks from air 3.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 21:57:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj -- Karel (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think a crop and levels adjustment improves this image (see right). What do you think Karelj? I'm still not sure if it's featureable, but it's certainly a nice view of the subject. --99of9 (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for quality improvement. Do you want to nominate it another version or just to change images in this nomination? --Karel (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Totally up to you - it's your picture and your nomination! --99of9 (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw this nomination, new version exists. --Karel (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karel (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

File:Janellemonae (300dpi).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 02:54:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rehes - uploaded by Rehes - nominated by Bobamnertiopsis -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dynamic portrait of a favorite artist of mine, but the blurring around the hand is unfortunate. Steven Walling 03:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, that's what I was worried about. If this fails FPC, I might try to hit up Rehes who has a Flickr with more images of Monáe from the same event, some of which probably feature less blurry hands. Maybe. Anyway, this is the only CC one he has, but I could bug him about it. Anyway, I'll let this one go through FPC first. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is dance-blur such a bad thing? As long as it's not the head it might actually add dynamism to the image... --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurring around the hand is bad but the number of clashing of lights here damages its composition. Its very hard to get Featured Fotos in a live concert. There are bright spots and shadows everwhere and you cannot hide them. Sorry. --Korman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Κατά The quality of the picture is not very good. I agree with Korman that it' s very hard to get featured photos in a live concert. Thank you, --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful concert shot. It's a shame the dumb rules here aren't made for this type of image. --Calibas (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to the others - MPF (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mostar-StariMost.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Aug 2010 at 20:14:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

View of the Old Mostar in Bosnia and Herzegovina including Stari Most (Old Bridge)

Info created by Hegor - uploaded by Hegor - nominated by Hegor -- Hegor (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I rarely take good photos, but I hope you'll enjoy this one. It was taken in 2010 and not in 2008 (ignore data files). Hegor (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some stuff I don't like about this picture. The background is very white - it makes the people on the bridge look like the vague angels at the end of Ghost. And the foliage of the trees on the right bank shows some .jpeg damage (you can see the little square boundaries). Wnt (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wnt's comment largely. Fairly nice composition, but there is some pretty bad overexposure. Steven Walling 00:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting and noisy... A featured picture of this subject already exists here. --Citron (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 19:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The existing FP that Citron pointed out is clearly superior. --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose overexposure --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Via appia.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2010 at 18:55:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Kleuske -- Kleuske (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kleuske (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Kudos if you can spot the guy who kept me waiting for 10 minutes... Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Truly lovely, yet it seems a bit soft at places and a little washed out... --MAURILBERT (discuter) 14:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Seems quite washed out to me, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yellow Lamborghini Gallardo edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 18:00:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Hoiles from Summit, NJ, USA; Papa (derivative work) - uploaded by Papa - nominated by Papa
Support -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support J Milburn (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Glary reflection on the windscreen, and an uninspiring background. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - nice car; background a bit distracting, especially at left. Jonathunder (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back-scattering crepuscular rays panorama 1.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Aug 2010 at 19:50:45

Info Badly made composite panorama with crepuscular rays from two sources in different directions (see marked copy, right). This does not match nature, where only a single light source (the sun) exists, with all crepuscular rays converging on a single point. While this panorama may be otherwise of good quality, I do not consider that it merits Featured status given this seriously misleading appearance, which is not explained at all in the image caption. (Original nomination)
Delist -- MPF (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The tops of the center trees (the dark green ones) in the right group undeniably have the exact same pattern of branches and leaves. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist , sadly. 99of9 (talk) 02:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Petritap (talk) 09:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - per above. Jonathunder (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Cathy Richards (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fossil shrimp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Aug 2010 at 03:30:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm guessing you made an error on the cutouts on the bottom side? --99of9 (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, I know what are you talking about, but do you believe it is very important?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not even sure if I like the starry cutout on the top, but I definitely don't like the pixellation-like cutout on the bottom left. It seems that if you're going to be artsy and go out of your way to make something non-rectangular, it's worth making sure it's very aesthetically appealing. But this should be easy to fix, right?? --99of9 (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen a fossil plate with such an outline. Why cut off in this way, why not the natural outline? --Llez (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that this image is a panorama. For me it was the only way to take such high resolution image of the rather long shrimp, but of course it was a crazy idea to take panorama using close-up settings. If you look at the edges, you will see they do not look good at all Isome part in focus, some parts out of focus). Of course, I could have fixed them manually, but it is very time consuming job. So I decided that the shrimp - the most important part of the rock is to be shown good, and cut my panorama as I did. I agree it looks strange. I did left a natural edges in the front and in the back parts of the rock. --Mbz1 (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment upper left part is perfect and sharp, lower bottom is sharpless. Did You use same settings ? --Mile (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images for the panorama were taken with point-and-shoot camera, with the same settings. The rock itself is sharper in some places than it is in others. I uploaded a new version over an old one. I hope it is better now. BTW thanks for the comments, everybody. I am glad you found the image interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support The outline may look strange but it emphasizes the fossile remainings of the shrimps. This remembers me to some panoramas constructed from shots of distant planets or moons (example) and it helps to focus on a particular feature. Just compare it with the first low-resolution upload to see the difference. Overall, I found it stunning and would just want to know where it was photographed or in which collection it is to be found. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Horrible cut! This is Pseudoastacus from the Cenomanian to Mekel Lebanon. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ID! It already worth the nomination. Do you see any other problems, but the cut?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know these fossils Lebanese, and this one is very good. You do not do him homage. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, if I fix the cut, would it be OK, or there are other problems you see in the shrimp itself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded File:Fossil shrimp cropped.jpg as a demonstration of how I'd like to see this image fixed, and trimmed down to a less unmanageable size. With the original images I'm sure you can do better, and you're welcome to usurp this filename for any similar crop. Wnt (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work! I uploaded a bran new version of the complete rock. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support now with the small fish, which adds so much. Completely different perspective now. Jonathunder (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially now that it shows more than one organism, it should be renamed from "Fossil shrimp" to something else. Jonathunder (talk) 15:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Beautiful piece. There is no problem of presentation.
For an image FIP in paleontology, it is necessary: The genus name to a minimum and if possible the name of the species, stage specific as possible, the deposit: Lebanon is great. This information must be included in the caption of the picture.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better!--Citron (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - new version much better! MPF (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - don't think 'shrimp' is really the right designation; 'lobster' or 'prawn' would be more accurate. Shrimps don't have the large claws, and are much smaller. - MPF (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. An FP image must have a perfect caption. He lacks the size of the specimen, but I've pretty bored like that. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support thanks, I still prefer the black background. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like both variants -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I favour the "black version" --Llez (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:The fossils from Cretaceous age found in Lebanon.jpg

File:August 2010 CME SDO Multi-Wavelength.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Aug 2010 at 16:23:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SDO - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info On August 1, 2010, almost the entire Earth-facing side of the sun erupted in a tumult of activity. This image shows many different aspects of the news-making solar event.
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant. Kleuske (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quite unusual. --Schnobby (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Econt (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - 16 million pixels, but only 756 kilobytes . . . that is very thinly spread, low quality. Other pics this sort of size are usually something like 7.56 megabytes. Is a higher quality original available? MPF (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Zimba Panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 10:20:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Morgenaufnahme der Zimba. Dunst im Lechquellengebirge all by -- Böhringer (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful waning perspective. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 18:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and colours. If metadata is available, be so kind as to upload those as well. Slightly visible clipping around the mountain. --Peter Weis (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

metadata

Done --Böhringer (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view and good use of image notes. --mathias K 10:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disturbing landscape...! --Citron (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100413 Meswnikh Gefyra Kompsatos Thrace Greece 1.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 18:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 18:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info other views of this bridge.. Ggia (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A landscape shot without the two ends of the bridge cropped off would have been better - MPF (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are right.. but it is not always feasible to have what you want.. (in the right part there were a lot of trees hidding the bridge (if I remember correctly)) this is why I added the other to photos to get a feeling how the bridge is. Ggia (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hm... it is not just that the ends of the bridge are cropped off but from the supplied additional shots we can see that this bridge has two semicircular arches of which just one is shown. While this shot may look good, it is quite misleading in regard to the bridge. For me File:20100413 Meswnikh Gefyra Kompsatos Thrace Greece 2.jpg is far superior. Next point is that I would expect a more detailed description for FP candidates, i.e. when was this bridge constructed? The description tells that this is a "Middle ages bridge" — did you mean that this is a medieval bridge? And if, from which medieval period? Do you know anything about its span width and/or its breadth? --AFBorchert (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is 17-18 century bridge. It has opening 21,8 meters, height 12 meters. The east part has opening 17 meters. (from a web page of Greek ministry of Culture -- but in Greek). I will visit this place soon and I will try to find betters angles for making a photograph of it.. thanks for the comments.Ggia (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Cat'sEye.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 12:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Hubble Space Telescope - uploaded by Salamander - nominated by Salamander -- ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (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: too small (only 1.7 megapixels) --The High Fin Sperm Whale 13:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Metra Locomotives F40PH-2 & MP36PH-3S.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2010 at 23:47:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Still quite noisy (top of the sky), very static and square composition. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - crop on right-hand loco - MPF (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a huge fan of the crop on the right, nor do I think that the sideways view of the train is the best choice. Being a train, I expect some sort of "excitement" from it, whether it be a show of motion, a view that shows both the train and it's surroundings, or even just an interesting angle of the train, one that gives depth and an interesting perception. A side-view angle, however, is rather straightforward and un-exciting. It certainly has it's positives in an encyclopedic sense, though. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 03:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Underexposed :-( --Aktron (talk) 08:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JovianEye (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt, not featured

Info created by William Hoiles from Summit, NJ, USA; Papa (derivative work) - uploaded by Papa - nominated by Papa
Info Following previous comments, what was cited as most distracting has been cloned out (fence on LHS). Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still glary. --99of9 (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose very nice car, but the random background and reflections make the image unappealling to me. --Elekhh (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chalcolestes viridis qtl3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 06:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Quartl. --Quartl (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image replaces the withdrawn nomination Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Chalcolestes_viridis_qtl1.jpg. It is a different image from a series of shots of the same animal from a slightly more oblique angle. It didn't require sharpening and is, thus, less noisy. --Quartl (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Quartl (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really good! --mathias K 10:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Insects are competitive, but this can keep up, for now. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the level of detail and glancy eye. --Elekhh (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Colaptes auratus deformed beak CT.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 20:27:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chrumps (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image and very good bird --Dr Çlaudio ^{segnali radio} 06:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support --Quartl (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What a strange beak ! Totodu74 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wirecoral goby.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 18:44:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Nhobgood - uploaded by Nhobgood - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality underwater shots are rare. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is anyone up for fixing the blue CA? I agree this is a wonderful shot, so it would be nice to get it to featured quality. --99of9 (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the blue CA? Compressed Air? --Citron (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

w:Chromatic Aberration, one of the things all reviewers are meant to be looking for according to Commons:Image guidelines. --99of9 (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je suis français désolé de ne pas comprendre tous les sigles anglais (Aberration chromatique en français). --Citron (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AC then? :-) Apologies for not being clearer originally. --99of9 (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AC = alternating current . . . . just spell out "chromatic aberration" so it is easily understood ;-) MPF (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is a more detailed camera location available? Latitude, longitude, maybe even depth below sea surface. MPF (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I' m not the creator, but I have added the geolocation. --Citron (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- superbe image! --Luc Viatour (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Versailles - vasque et façade.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 20:08:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good composition. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support composition and colours --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Mbdortmund! --mathias K 10:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good. --Mile (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition and lighting. -- Sdgjake (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition. Steven Walling 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
是 -- Takabeg (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chlamydoselachus anguineus head.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 02:43:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Citron - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Elekhh -- Elekhh (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Elekhh (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ - Really scary image, but the background looks heavily processed (maybe I should turn down the brightness of my LCD). --Quartl (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better now. --Quartl (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cool pic! --Aktron (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Am I right, it's not a living animal? The eye seems artificial. --Llez (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a taxidermy animal. --Citron (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support As creator --Citron (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Big erasing problems in the background. --99of9 (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where? plz--Citron (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All over the background, I can see the path that your eraser took! This might not be visible on some monitors, so if you can't see it, try brightening the whole image. --99of9 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Waw! I don't knew you could see it! --Citron (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the fix, now I can think about supporting :). --99of9 (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Funny and... sharp. Totodu74 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Oppose}~~ - ditto to 99of9. The pic is too dark, and brightening it really shows up the eraser work. The fish looks dead too, with a plastic eye (why do you say it is "naturalised"??). - MPF (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, bad translation of naturalisé in french, I would said "taxidermy animal", it's correct? --Citron (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, or more commonly, "stuffed" - MPF (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Interesting.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks scary ;) --AFBorchert (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 09:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Elbląg, Mostowa, okno katedrály svatého Mikuláše II.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 08:39:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Aktron - uploaded by Aktron - nominated by Aktron -- Aktron (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aktron (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor composition. No reason for the top and rest of the window to be cropped out. Steven Walling 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven. --Elekhh (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven. In addition I would expect such FP candidates to be geocoded and a more detailed description than One of the cathedral windows in [..] given. At least the window should be identified and the century should be given when this tracery window was created. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Javorník (Jauernig) - CoA of Ludwig von Pfalz-Neuburg.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2010 at 10:49:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Educational for sure, even if it's not the most exciting subject. Maybe QI would be better if it doesn't pass. Steven Walling 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well done, but FP status may be a bit challenging due to the somewhat distracting background. To support it, I would like to see it geocoded. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Geocoded --Pudelek (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for geocoding it. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:V838 Mon HST.jpg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2010 at 20:25:41

Info The bar for astronomy pics has risen since 2004 quite a bit, and I don't really think it meets the standards anymore. (Original nomination)
Delist -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - agree, not good enough - MPF (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --99of9 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Ggia (talk) 11:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Horst kasteel R01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2010 at 20:28:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nice composition but looks a bit oversharpened to me. --Mbdortmund (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support However, could you please add some additional information about the castle in the description, i.e. time periods of construction, who used it, when was it abandoned? --AFBorchert (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More information about this castle: 1 and 2 - (and please: can you add your signature? Thanks!)
  - Comment Please add a summary of this to the file's description. --AFBorchert (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tree on the right is too distracting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - wouldn't a vantage point slightly to the left show more of the building and less of the underexposed tree to the right? Jonathunder (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lee Bollinger - Daniella Zalcman.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 01:50:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Recently, I've succesfully requested that this photo be changed to a Commons-compatible license, with success. I think this is an excellent portrait, and I hope you all will agree.
Info created by Daniella Zalcman - uploaded by Connormah - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need more great portraits. --99of9 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Grainy, unsharp, and the composition has too much of a "commercial" feel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a very good portrait shot (lighting, composition); I concur, however, with Juliancolton as it is for me indeed too grainy and unsharp at full resolution to get FP status. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too noisy, sorry :( (Apart from that I quite like it) --Kabelleger (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's an edit on en.wiki (also a FPC there) - I'll post it here in a sec. Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 01:54:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sodacan - uploaded by Sodacan - nominated by Connormah -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sodacan (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support David Liuzzo (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Citron (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--The Photographer (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very intricate indeed! --JovianEye (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Sir Iain (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:STS115 Atlantis undock ISS.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Aug 2010 at 21:31:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded by Kurun - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great photo of the shuttle and Earth, but the bit of the ISS (or whatever that is) hanging in the frame is distracting I think. Crop? Steven Walling 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Support This any better? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better! Composition is much more balanced now. Steven Walling 23:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{Oppose}~~ Support - sorry, but the removed part is easily visible as a black rectangle against the not-quite-black of the photo. Cloning some 'sky' would be better. - MPF (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC) change vote following fix MPF (talk) 00:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impossible image --Dr Çlaudio ^{segnali radio} 06:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support --AFBorchert (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this version. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that I look at it again I see broad red smudges in the bottom left quadrant. I believe they are reflections from a window that this was taken from. Please look again everyone. --99of9 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I was too late spotting this, the nomination period is almost over. --99of9 (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those are from the window. They seem to be under the clouds. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

The chosen alternative is: File:STS115_Atlantis_undock_ISS_edit2.jpg

File:Tiber River in Roma.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 06:27:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Cody escadron delta - uploaded by Cody escadron delta - nominated by Cody escadron delta -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is noisy, unsharp and tilted. Sorry! --mathias K 07:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:02 days old .jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Aug 2010 at 16:03:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Romate - uploaded by Romate - nominated by Romate -- Romate (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This is one (I think the best) rarely picture of a set. The five blackbird chicks are two days old.
Neutral as nominator -- Romate (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality not the best, but OK. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd really like to support, but I find the blur in the lower left to be too distracting. Same with the dark spot in the lower right (though I consider that minor in comparison to the blur). Sorry. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The nestlings can be seen very clearly, I don'f find the blur in the lower too distracting.--Cactus26 (talk)
Support - Rare and very good quality image. --Quartl (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic wildlife shot well executed. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question - what is the situation of the nest, and legal position in Germany of taking photos of birds at the nest? - MPF (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The nest was in my own garage and in Germany it is not legal to disturb them with photography, film, or similar acts. I have not disturb them of course ! I have not used my car about 5 weeks and I have only taken pictures when the parents are away or I have used an EOS with a zoom from far away ! --Romate (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Im Originaltext: BNatSchG 2002 § 42 (1) Es ist verboten... 3. wild lebende Tiere der streng geschützten Arten und der europäischen Vogelarten an ihren Nist-, Brut-, Wohn- oder Zufluchtstätten durch Aufsuchen, Fotografieren, Filmen oder ähnliche Handlungen zu stören...

Ich habe die Tiere (die freiwillig zu mir gekommen sind) selbstverständlich nicht gestört und es erfreuen sich nach wie vor alle 5 Amseln bester Gesundheit (soweit ich sie noch gesehen habe).--Romate (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Danke schön! MPF (talk) 16:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support 99of9 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The series of day-to-day photos of these birds is of high encyclopedic value, and since the creator assured the birds werent disturbed, I absolutely find the image worthy of featured picture status. Calandrella (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

FIle:Rose trémière.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 17:16:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Caps-91 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caps-91 (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Badly over-exposed, blurry; plant and bee not identified. File not categorised. - MPF (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2010 (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: blown-out areas, blurry, very poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Silvretta Stausee Bielerhöhe Panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 19:31:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Unter dem Bieler Kopf (2.389m) liegt der Silvretta-Stausee in 2.037m auf der Bielerhöhe. Der frisch gefallene Schnee zeichnet die Höhenlinie an die umliegenden Berge bei 2.100m. all by -- Böhringer (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Böhringer (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great pano! Do you know what the focal length of your lens was? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info 16mm --Böhringer (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 05:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. English caption needs some attention (place names shouldn't be translated), I can't quite make sense of it. - MPF (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can just google english would be nice of you if you could make translation Tues. Thank you --Böhringer (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sehr gut -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Shame the foreground is washed out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great view! bg mathias K 08:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support das gefällt auch mir ;-) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:14-46-35-f-mutzig.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 11:00:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JukoFF (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no description of what it is. May change my vote if a good description is added. - MPF (talk) 00:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info It's a tunnel inside the Fort de Mutzig. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The description is still very scanty! Please add more info ;-) MPF (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks good but I would expect a better description, i.e. what kind of tunnel was this, which function did it have within the fortification? When was it constructed? --AFBorchert (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's built in 1893. This fort is one of the forts built at the end of the 19th century by Germany to defend Strasbourg. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please add it to the description and I would also like to know the function of this tunnel. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fort-14-06-23.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 10:58:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fort de Bois l'Abbé : inside the double caponier.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Elegant shapes in the roofline. 99of9 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely lighting and composition. Steven Walling 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no description of what it is. MPF (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Caponier on wp. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The description is still very scanty! Please add more info ;-) MPF (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great photograph but the description is still lacking. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment probably in black and white this picture is more interesting.. actualy there is "no colour" in the photo.. Ggia (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grooming monkeys.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2010 at 05:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 10:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support although it's quite small --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not really. It's 2.3 megapixels. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Quartl (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uvegna (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20100803 Santa Severina Calabria Italy Panorama.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Aug 2010 at 14:50:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ggia - uploaded by ggia - nominated by ggia -- Ggia (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ggia (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - bit of a pity about the ugly yellow building at the right, but I guess you can't just demolish it to take the photo - MPF (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 10:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:American 757 on final approach at St Maarten Airport.jpg, not featured

Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2009 at 19:18:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by toddneville - uploaded by toddneville - nominated by Dacrone -- 82.20.106.136 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- 82.20.106.136 19:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a visible clockwise tilt. Besides that, it's great. Wolf (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose pretty close to call it oversatured flickr kitsch! The tilt could be corrected but the composition (cut people and parasols) and the imo very overdone saturation are ko creteria for me. --mathias K 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ferrofluid Magnet under glass.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2010 at 03:43:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Gmaxwell - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yay, magnetic hedgehog, but the license is not suitable for pictures, see Licensing#Well-known licenses. Matt (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support good license. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neste Oil Rally 2010 - Jari-Matti Latvala in shakedown.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Aug 2010 at 13:21:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kallerna - uploaded by kallerna - nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 13:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —kallerna™ 13:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very good sports still with lots of action. A similiar rally FP was a Picture of the Year finalist in 2007. --Hydrox (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose now wow Support I thought that this file chould be featured when I saw it at QIC --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Aqwis (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lot of ads... --Citron (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Petritap (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support So much wow... --Von.grzanka (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot. Steven Walling 22:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work kallerna. --99of9 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Great picture --Simonizer (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. /Daniel78 (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support gut gemacht --Mbdortmund (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course! --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 01:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While it is a decent picture, it fails to pass off as a good picture of the subject and subject matter that are: a race car and a car race. The subject is too confined within its context, a rally with no room to move into, we don´t know in which direction the car will continue into. The car itself is too clean, giving an indication that it is the early part of the race and thus depriving it of a rugged feeling, typical of these types of races. The shutter speed is a tad fast, freezing all movement, including the tires, as we can see the tire pattern clearly, as if the car was not in motion, therefore, there is no feeling of motion, speed, which is what car races are all about. The copilot cannot be seen and the pilot is very difficult to see. If I were an editor of a racing magazine, would I use this picture? Probably not. For me that would be the standard for FP.--Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting! | Picture at the official WRC Website, but kallernas picture is much better in my opinion --Simonizer (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And what does that prove? Just because a picture is in a page like millions does not make it a good picture. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a chosen pictures from an editor ;-) --Simonizer (talk) 18:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Minimal educational value, as explained above, and I'm not impressed by the composition. Sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are several ways to show motion. Here it is shown by the raised sand. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Flying dirt shows action. Jonathunder (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Overwhelming --The Photographer (talk) 15:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing shot. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great shot, well done!! --mathias K 10:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Shows the action rather well I think. -- Sdgjake (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --AngMoKio (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Easy image --Dr Çlaudio ^{segnali radio} 06:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support Great. Yarl ✉ 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find it impressive and I like the composition with the car and the raised sand in the front and the spectators and the Finnish forest in the background. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 26 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 11:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ondatra zibethicus CT.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Aug 2010 at 20:24:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 17:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Located pic of animal in wild - MPF (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very good image. --Dr Çlaudio ^{segnali radio} 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Support --Quartl (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papilio machaon emergence.jpeg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 14:04:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by entomolo - uploaded by entomolo - nominated by entomolo -- jean-pierre (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the composition. --Citron (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't really favor the lighting. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not up to macro standard. (lighting, composition) --mathias K 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Ikiwaner (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kuks from air 3 edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2010 at 15:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karelj - uploaded by Karelj - nominated by Karelj - quality improvement by 99of9 -- Karel (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karel (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lovely place. I think I like this view of it better. Jonathunder (talk)22:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment, when the first will be not succesfull, I shall try to nominate this one :-). --Karel (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 12:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Panorama Gersfeld.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Aug 2010 at 17:25:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Colors seem off (too warm?) and washed out, and the sky has many specks of dirt. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Dein Freund der Baum (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jak-18 Płock.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2010 at 16:07:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - & nominated by Łukasz Golowanow a.k.a. Wolf (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe it's the first ever picture I took where I managed to achieve panning without disrupting the photographed object. Wolf (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 16:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well-captured motion. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 03:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 08:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Where did you take this picture from; where you in an airplane as well? If not, could you geotag the picture? -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wish is my command. The picture was taken from a slope rising above the level of the river. Wolf (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Looks good. -- Sdgjake (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question can you add a bit more info about the plane, e.g. age? It looks a fairly antique type. - MPF (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean info about the type (Jak-18/Yak-18) or this particular machine (SP-YYY)? Wolf (talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! This particular machine, if details available. Otherwise, the type more generally - MPF (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - About the type, you might want to refer to w:Yakovlev Yak-18. As for this particular aircraft, it was built in 1956, it is a property of the Aviation Museum in Kraków (I highly recommend it, if you happen to be around), but is operated by the "Polish Eagles" Foundation. Wolf (talk) 22:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks! Support - MPF (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a great composition with a well chosen background. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CT Webcam.gif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 14:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by SecretDisc - uploaded by SecretDisc - nominated by SecretDisc -- SecretDisc (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- SecretDisc (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty unique I guess. But two questions: Is this the original resolution of the CT or are the images scaled down? And is there a specific reason why the images don't use the full contrast range (the lightest "color" is some sort of grey, not white)? --Kabelleger (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The detector / x-ray camera delivers images with up to 3000x3000 pixel. Anyway, in these x-rays a physical factor 2 pixel binning was used, resulting in 1500 x 1500 pixel images. Image resolution is 77 microns/pixel! Image contrast was set to this level to make sure no details disappear. That´s how it is in x-rays... If you raise contrast, some of the light elemental materials might disappear. --SecretDisc (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support 99of9 (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support RickP (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - is this supposed to be an animated gif? If yes, the animation isn't working, all I see is a still pic, which is nowhere near feature-worthy. - MPF (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can not see the animation too. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please open the file in full res and wait a few seconds until loading has completed. If it still doesn't work, try a different browser (definitely works on FF 3.6.8 on Ubuntu 10.04). --Kabelleger (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keep in mind that the file is 24 MB, so it can take a while. --Kabelleger (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Częstochowa - Jasna Góra Gate 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 12:50:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Yarl -- Yarl ✉ 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yarl ✉ 12:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support interesting lightning --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 09:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice colors -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Image:A380 bmn4.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Aug 2010 at 18:53:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Maxe.wiki - uploaded by Maxe.wiki - nominated by Jule N. -- Jule N. (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jule N. (talk) 18:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Poor composition, WB seems a bit off. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd rather see it from the front. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - pic has a slight pink-purple cast, can this be corrected? - MPF (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue-and-Yellow-Macaw.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 00:27:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue-and-yellow Macaw (Ara ararauna) at Jurong Bird Park

Info created and uploaded by Benjamint444 - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Below size requirements. I don't know if the eye-blasting saturation counts as a mitigating factor, though. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Pretty, but way oversaturated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Virtualage (talk) 05:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 06:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Juliancolton; also a captive specimen in non-natural habitat - MPF (talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nuclear parrot. --Dschwen (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose below size minimum (~1,7MP), oversaturated --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination

File:Collier de Penne.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 06:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Archaeodontosaurus -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Pourquoi y a t'il des écrits modernes sur les perles? Ça gâche un peu l'authenticité du collier...(Why is there of modern writings on the beads? It wastes a bit of authenticity of the necklace.)--Citron (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ce sont les notes autographes de Jean Baptiste Noulet , qui peut être regardé comme l’inventeur de la préhistoire en tant que science. Ces graffitis ont une valeur historique. Les artefacts préhistoriques sont souvent « enluminés » de ces notes qui sont conservées si elles sont du XIXe siècle. (These are the autographs notes of Jean Baptiste Noulet, which can be regarded as the inventor of prehistory as a science. These graffiti are of historical value. The prehistoric artifacts are often "Illuminated" of these notes are retained if they are of the nineteenth century.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haha! C'est ce qui s'appelle signer sa découverte! --Citron (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 13:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great encyclopedic value. --Cayambe (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice to have the description in English, due to the fact that it is practically the universal language. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very rare ancient object, high EV -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A suggestion, however: photograph these type of objects on black velvet, the reflexions distract, specially the double reflexion. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - fascinating object, likely a valued image, but the reflection distracts too much for FP, in my opinion. Jonathunder (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jonathunder. --99of9 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The reflection is natural: the necklace is placed on a glass plate, the double reflection is due to the thickness of the glass --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sure, it's just distracting and unnecessary IMO, a matte surface would have been better for my personal preference. --99of9 (talk) 10:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support reflection is not a problem to me. Very nice, interesting, rare and high (pre)historical and encyclopedic value.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Other qualities, including educational value, outweigh the small annoyance of the reflection for me. Steven Walling 14:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support really nice work! --mathias K 08:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Reflection keeps me from supporting. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tarangire Warzenschwein1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 18:37:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Simonizer (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Nice composition and colours! --mathias K 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice snapshot --Schnobby (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yarl ✉ 09:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hah! --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support g.S. :-) --Böhringer (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice. Jonathunder (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Budapest Vajdahunyad Castle R02.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 19:35:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the photo is nice.. but it is a little bit distorted.. Look the buildings at the right and left part of the image.. and the notes.. Probably this can be corrected using a image processing software.. Ggia (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your remark, but I don't see the distortion you mention. If you look at full res, the vertical lines are nicely vertical. Only the spire of the second tower from the right is slightly lopsided (in reality!). Otherwise, the 'distortions' are merely an optical effect, I guess. -- MJJR (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overdone perspective correction. Buildings in photo have parallel edges, but the eye expects them to show perspective (the more distant tops to appear converging), so the result is an optical illusion making the buildings in the photo look wider at the top. - MPF (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MPF. Before reading his (her?) comment, I felt something strange in this pic, and now I know why.--Jebulon (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puvar 20080220-1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 14:08:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Haros, nominated by Jovianeye -- JovianEye (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JovianEye (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition. --Citron (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the composition too, but imho dof is too short and there are several dustspots in the sky. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You were right about the dust spots. I have removed most of them. As far the DOF goes, the metadata has f/10 which I dont believe is too shallow. The reason why the background appears out-of-focus is because of the rising sand due the strong wind conditions. --JovianEye (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better now. Some dustspots remained at the left border. The rising sand should be mentioned in the description. I hope the lens survived the sand. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support While the image does have a short DOF, in my opinion, it is not necessarily a bad thing in this case. I like it, as it focuses on one specific item out of many identical ones. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 19:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The focus seems fine to me, and the composition is quite nice (especially with the birds). However, I have several concerns, among them the fact that I'm not sure what I'm looking at, and the file description is vague. These are obviously boats of some kind, but why so many lined up along the shore? Also, I'm not very fond of the lighting situation; the closest boat, which is presumably the main subject, is darkened by its own shadow to the point where much of the detail is invisible. Finally, the image is either tilted or distorted, as the sea shouldn't tilt downwards. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Juliancolton. Jonathunder (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comment The composition is good. Combination of horizon and vanishing point is well balanced. The point Juliancolton made about the focus of the view is reasonable: if cropping this via rules of thirds (cropping out from left to right until approx. where the vanishing point is) solves this issue. Using ISO 320 here is disputable though. In a daylight situation, even if photographed out of hand this should be avoided. Note the CA on the bird - removing this in post processing should as well be reconsidered. The sea tilting downwards could easily be corrected (a rotation of 1.2° would be sufficient). Applying these changes for another version of the image using the OOC image (RAW if available) would be great.--Peter Weis (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think I will support my own picture, although when I took it, I just saw the scene, took the picture and did not process it as far as I can remember (except correcting the time in the exif). The boats are probably for fishing as this is in Kerala in a small village. The picture indeed has a rotation of approximately 1 degree, possibly 1.2 as Peter Weis indicates. I don't remember any rising sand just where I was, and the lens has been used for a five digit number of pictures since. (I do not have a raw version of this unfortunately.) Haros (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Dead Vlei 4.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 17:25:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This version already featured. --Elekhh (talk) 21:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Virtualage (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support that is a really nice picture with great composition and lighting. In fact that the other "version" is a completly other picture I have no problem to feature this one to! --mathias K 15:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For composition, lighting and colours. --Cayambe (talk) 09:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gorgeous color. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice foto. So sad that the trees are dead though. Korman (talk) 06:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Histrio histrio by A. H. Baldwin.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Aug 2010 at 23:58:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created A. H. Baldwin - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality. Just one thing: a little dark point still remains on the left side (see my Note), and I don't like it :) Totodu74 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tourist cycle on texel beach.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 05:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Virtualage - uploaded by Virtualage - nominated by Virtualage -- Virtualage (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Virtualage (talk) 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose Please be sorry, but that was a mistake of myself! good idea, but the result is not the best. the composition could be much better... --mathias K 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just looking at the composition by itself, I think it could be better. The bike being so close and cut off isn't the best IMO. Perhaps if the bike was off a bit and to the right, it would be better. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holland countryside wide open plain.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 05:28:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Virtualage - uploaded by Virtualage - nominated by Virtualage -- Virtualage (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Virtualage (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not extraordinary --Citron (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --mathias K 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Could you please explain why you think this view is so special? MartinD (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olive baboon Ngorongoro.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 10:06:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An olive baboon in th Ngorongoro Conservation Area. C/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, it is definitely a nice picture, but your other one is much better imo! Indeed this one shows the whole monkey but I don't like the composition that much. The dark area in the upper right side is a little bit disturbing. I never would call it so, but the pic has a little snapshot character. bg mathias K 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image has another purpose IMO. Unlike that image, this one shows the whole body view including the tail. The dark background is expected since there is a forest behind the monkey. I appreciate your kind tone in airing your opinion. --Muhammad (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfly&Flower.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Sep 2010 at 09:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by ДимонЪХ (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ДимонЪХ (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Poor technical quality, far from the presente macro standards. BTW, this is not a butterfly but a moth, probably a Zygaena sp. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most likely you are right, it's a moth, but about quality, just the camera is not very. Composition is very good. ДимонЪХ (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2010 (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: although the composition is very good indeed, the technical quality (focus and sharpness) is unfortunately far from our standards for pictures of bugs and other hideous creatures. Wolf (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you. In fact, I did not expect to choose from, just wondering was, what will they say. Quality of summed ( ДимонЪХ (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Man with a moustache, Chambal, India.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2010 at 16:43:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Yann (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yann (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally well-executed, but no "wow" factor, and I don't think this image has enough value. -- King of Hearts (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good, but not special enough. Light is rather flat, face expression too. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo August 2010-5a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2010 at 23:56:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info "Where is Wally?", Portuguese version. Taken at Porto Covo, Praia Pequena ('Small Beach'), west coast of Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You need to fix the top left corner. --99of9 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, fixed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing special in the composition.. or in the general concept. Ggia (talk) 08:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - distracting shadow in corner. Jonathunder (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Jonathunder and Ggia. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Shadow on the corner cloned off. I wouldn't like to give up on this one... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I love beach pictures, especially ones with enough detail to see what people are doing. However this one was not done very well in my opinion. The composition leaves much to be desired: several people are cut in half, and what I find most irritating about this image is that almost everyone has their back toward the camera. It would be so much more satisfying to see some faces. Also, one area, which I specified using an imagenote, is quite washed out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I think it was better with that shadow. That little part of it that was left doesn't look realistic. --Lošmi (talk) 00:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of Hearts (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo August 2010-4c.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 00:03:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Porto Covo, Portugal, detail of the coast. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose nothing special in the composition Ggia (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree that the composition is less than spectacular, and the image is washed out and/or blurry in some areas. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but per Ggia and Juliancolton. bg mathias K 08:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /King of Hearts (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:15-35-46-fort-mont-bart.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 16:09:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bart hill fortifications : panoramic seen from the viewpoint, above the fort.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry it's a really nice view, but ~50% of the picture is uninteristing sky. With more impressive clouds it would be much better. --mathias K 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dojikko.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Aug 2010 at 20:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot
In original this is an SVG file, but with 18 MB it is to large for the current SVG-renderer of commons. PS: Don't try to open the SVG with your browser, it will be stuck for a long time, until the image will show up. (Maybe a good test for hardware acceleration in beta state browsers) -- Niabot (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Beautiful colors! But there are the strange movement and the anatomic aberrations of the girl at right that annoy me. Why the girl at left is partialy out of the image frame? Where is the eighth arm of the octopus? =D --Citron (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please describe what does not look right with the anatomy of the girl to the right? The left girl is intentionally outside the image, giving the feeling she is pressed against an invisible wall, with no escape from what is comming. Why seven? My little secret, since this is fictional and not an anatomic study of an octopus. ;-) --Niabot (talk) 06:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm my english is approximate. The anatomy of the girl to the right isn't correct especially it looks like she has not bust, the breasts are placed on the pelvis. Her position is impossible : trying to do the same, you can't have your right head when you lose balance! Especially on the tip of one foot. For the left girl, the idea is not bad, but why leave a big gap in front she? The space is poorly managed... For the octopus, you're excused! :) --Citron (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not educational. Steven Walling 01:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Niabot asked me explain further. To educate is to train or instruct someone on a subject. This image has no edifying purpose or quality. It's a cartoon. There are major composition problems as well, like Citron points out above. Steven Walling 14:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment} It is an illustration for a dojikko, a clumsy character type, common in anime and manga. Why shouldn't it be educating or used to illustrate this subject? --Niabot (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Even if you disagree about educational value, the quality is just not there for FP. Steven Walling 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with educational value is that the concept of a clumsy character can be pretty well described by words, so this illustration does not add much value. But that is not the only reason why this can be featurable - the guidelines say "Of high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.". Trouble is, I don't have the slightest clue whether that is the case here or not... It definitely looks like it was a huge amount of work and (I think) it is well made. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, Support for the effort of creating non-photographic content. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons is not deviantART Przykuta → [edit] 22:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lošmi (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Dojikko Moeeeeeeee. I think that this image is educational for the Otaku culture. Takabeg (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kabelleger. --mathias K 08:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - without meaning any disparagement of the work here, I don't see the wow for a featured-level image. Jonathunder (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb work. Rastrojo _(D•ES) 17:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Steven Walling and Jonathunder - MPF (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not a very compelling image. Definitely not featured picture caliber. Kaldari (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the tripping girl supposed to be wearing? A transparent skirt that's open in the front? Isn't that a bit absurd (and gratuitous)? Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, because it is very common that a dojikko exposes herself. ([1], [2]). In this case we have a mixture from maid costume and an apron. --Niabot (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems unnecessary for illustrating the concept. Would it at least be possible for the underwear not to be skin pink? Kaldari (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 05:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose see at the top--Citron (talk) 09:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not educational. --Llorenzi (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Citron. I do enjoy the septopus however. -- Sdgjake (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ggia (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support what is education?Bunnyfrosch (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Venus de Milo edited.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 01:25:32

Info The image is low-resolution, unsharp, and poorly lit. Not up to modern FP standards. (Original nomination)
Delist -- King of Hearts (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This was already delisted in 2007. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/removal/Image:Venus_de_Milo_edited.jpg --99of9 (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I saw the FP star and didn't notice it was cut off at a corner. I withdraw my nomination King of Hearts (talk) 04:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carretera a Guardalavaca. Holguín, Cuba.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 03:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) - uploaded by Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) - nominated by Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) -- Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yfrojas (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uvegna (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Foreground is underexposed. -- Sdgjake (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Sdgjake - MPF (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition and lighting --mathias K 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Sdgjake. Yann (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Besides lighting, the resolution is below 2 MP. --King of Hearts (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiyonaga bathhouse women-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 03:28:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Torii Kiyonaga - uploaded by Torsodog - nominated by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --by Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 03:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high quality!--Citron (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Mbz1 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no 'wow' factor - MPF (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not an especially compelling or well-executed image. Kaldari (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bunnyfrosch (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loc7798 R01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 18:46:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Marc Ryckaert - nominated by Ikiwaner -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do I see a gentle tilt to the right or is it just an optical illusion? If so, I'll be happy to support. Wolf (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it needs some perspective correction. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I gave it a try. --Kabelleger (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I would support the corrected version by User:Kabelleger. --mathias K 07:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perspective corrected and image slightly rotated by Kabelleger
Support as author. Thanks to Kabelleger for the image correction! -- MJJR (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I told, Support for this version. Good shot. --mathias K 12:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Either version --Ikiwaner (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wolf (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JovianEye (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Loc7798_R01_alt.jpg

File:Opernturm.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 22:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Der Wolf im Wald -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Der Wolf (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there's a lot I like about this image, but there is a strange artifact to the left of the streetlamp. Can this be fixed? Jonathunder (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still an arm hanging in space between the left frame and a streetlamp. Jonathunder (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support : extremely detailed, sharp, well lit and well balanced, with an unfortunate ghost on the leftmost edge. May I suggest, in addition, that a suitable template such as Template:FoP-Germany be added to the file ? --MAURILBERT (discuter) 01:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ changed vote, see below. sharpness and details are great, thats true. but for my taste the perspective correction is overdone at this one. Sorry. --mathias K 07:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mathias - the perspective looks unnatural --Schnobby (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info A few minutes ago, I uploaded a IMO better version. I think, that the perspective now looks quite natural;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perspective is ok, but now its tilted ccw. When this is corrected... bgmathias K 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't see any tilt.. -- Der Wolf (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how, but it's gone. Now it is a grat picture with awesome sharpness and it shows the building really good. changed my vote, now Support! bg mathias K 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose subject and perspective have no wow for me. --Taraxacum (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Overdone perspective correction. Building in photo has parallel edges, but the eye expects it to show perspective (the more distant top to appear narrower), so the result is an optical illusion making the building in the photo look wider at the top. - MPF (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mystic River Bascule Bridge closing.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Aug 2010 at 20:42:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by User:Juliancolton –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light not good (contre-jour). Yann (talk) 07:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain how the lighting is unsatisfactory? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Commons has a lot of images of this sort. The dim lighting adds little artistically and subtracts from the image's value to other projects.Bdell555 (talk) 03:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Llavedepaso.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 23:47:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by elemaki - uploaded by elemaki - nominated by elemaki -- elemaki (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- elemaki (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Um... a gas tap? Also, the tilt and barrel distortion are bad. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is a gas tap. I did not know there were subjects you colud not include for a FP nomination. BTW, the image is not tilted, is the way the plumber did the job. Thanks anyway for your comments. elemaki (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Educational, informative, useful, uzw, but no wow, no extraordinariness, nothing to make it featured. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 13:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No encyclopedic value --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plafond mihrab mosquee cordoue.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 22:03:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Jebulon, except construction -- Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Comment Bad composition. Depending on the point of view and accessibility of the area results such as [3] [4] or [5] would be possible. ISO 400 creates visible noise and should be avoided by using a tripod or other suitable device for fixing the camera. If not possible denoising is recommended while post processing the image. The image lacks proper sharpness, post processing can improve this slightly. Levels/curves should be used for creating proper contrast and white balance here. Another version with more post processing and distortion/cropping would be great.--Peter Weis (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good foto but there are many clashing colours. Many bright and dark places that cannot be fixed. This can be a Quality foto but a Featured foto is very hard. Korman (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plasma-lamp 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 00:54:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Lviatour - nominated by -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info This version is already FP. --Myrabella (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose see Myrabella --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--CyberNat2000 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fern-frond-sori.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Sep 2010 at 17:59:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Petritap -- Petritap (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Petritap (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I opened the image to support, but sorry! Upper and lower parts are not sharp. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nice, but the top is OOF. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petritap (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baltic Amber necklace with insects inclusions .jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 16:40:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Here's the story. I bought 3 amber necklaces, when I visited Riga.I gave one of them to my mother-in-low. Then, cannot remember why, I decided to check it out with a magnifying glass. To my great surprise I found not just one, but 2 insects in that necklace. Two other necklaces had none. The size of an amber pieces included in the necklace is just a little bit more than a size of a w:pea
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality not the best, but hard to get sharp amber photos. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare object --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know you're trying to get the insects in the amber shown, but I don't think a shot this tight is compositionally up to snuff for Featured status. Just not the best of the best. Steven Walling 20:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor photographic quality: no insect is in focus --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mariposa en Flor.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Aug 2010 at 14:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) - uploaded by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC) - nominated by Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yfrojas (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, blurry, high levels of noise. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just because the FPX is not necessary. Yann (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uvegna (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose maybe FPX looks a bit to harsh, but do you (Yann) think it is nicer for the creator to read a lot of opposes? I think FPX was the right choise cause it is way below the actual macro bar and didn't have a snowballs chance in hell to be promoted imo. --mathias K 11:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The worst is the lack of review. I prefer some negative reviews if the pitcure deserves it than no review at all. I do not add my opinion if I think that others have already expressed my view about a picture. And we need to give time so that people can actually review a picture. This one may not be featured but it is so bad that FPX is needed. I find the composition and the harmony of colors pleasant here. Yann (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think FPXing this one isn't a lack of review! The picture has NO chance to get featured. Why discuss endless about it? FPX and fine! IMO! To show a picture and ask for some critiques we have Commons:Photography critiques. When a potentially good picture gets a too fast FPX it is a completly other situation, but not here imo. bg mathias K 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - no species identification, no location, and even tagged 'media uncategorised'. - MPF (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As MPF. --Karel (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Poor quality photographs. Too many areas out of fucus. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rolling-element bearing (numbered).png, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 14:34:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, nominatedby Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support English translation of elements would be great. --Cephas (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs an English description. Steven Walling 01:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{oppose}} until the English description is completed. I can't understand de, so the educational value is near zero for me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
Support I think requiring a specific language translation is a little unfair, and will tend to make FP English-centric. Is it legitimate for Japanese editors to insist that I provide a Japanese translation of every image I nominate? I hope not! A numbered version is good enough, and it is up to us English users to provide an English translation if we want one. Personally I found this informative even without labels, and it's a high quality and well laid out diagram. --99of9 (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every image you nominate does not rely so heavily on its description to complete the fragmented information it provides. In this case, a translation into English (and ideally several other major languages) is necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info english translation added. --Niabot (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JovianEye (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - just amazed no-one has demanded it be changed to .svg yet ;-) MPF (talk) 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work!--Citron (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support displays the subject very good! --mathias K 17:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loveparade-Unglück-2010-CN, Ostrampe.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 18:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created Carschten, uploaded and retouched by Carschten/Niabot, nominated by Carschten. The image shows the situation at the stairs ten days after the Loveparade 2010. Including in the composition are the candles and wreaths in the foreground, flags at the fence of countries where some of the dead persons come from and a/the central point of the whole catastrophe: the stairs at the ramp in the background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support And with good image notes. --Timk70 (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but the picture dosn't work for me. The composition looks a bit random. Why cuting the wreaths left and right? You wrote that they are countless; why don't take a picture of the whole scene with a wider view?! And I don't think "Die Todes-Treppe" is a good image note! This would be a nice name for a Hitchcock movie but not as a image note in a picture with that background story. --mathias K 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with mathias. The composition does seem kind of random. More of the memorial would help. -- Sdgjake (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its OK as a quality foto but it might be pushing it to make this be a featured foto. The composition is random (and understandable) as one would expect here but I cannot say if this is a superb foto since the composition is also distracting. Korman (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Brackenheim (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Peter Weis (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 09:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Villa de Gibara.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 15:26:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uvegna - uploaded by Uvegna - nominated by Yfrojas (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Yfrojas (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose tilted, missing sharpness, composition and lighting --mathias K 15:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Foto is sharp but composition is 'so so.' It is passable, I think. Lighting is not bright but the day is dark. Korman (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because a so-so composition is miles away from an excellent composition. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias. Yann (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Has too many issues... --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 09:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vineyard in Napa Valley.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 02:14:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 02:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't you feel it's a bit oversaturated? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, I do, but... I like it the way it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - was about to say "Oversaturated Flickr Kitsch", but it isn't flickr . . . so just "Oversaturated Kitsch" - MPF (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unnatural colors. No wow. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but per MPF --mathias K 14:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way oversaturated. -- Sdgjake (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So many opposes! I see deep inside you like the image --Mbz1 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AntigenicShift HiRes vector.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 19:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mouagip - uploaded by Mouagip - nominated by Mouagip -- Mouagip (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Vectorization of the Antigenic Shift image. Shows the three ways how Antigenic Shift can happen.[reply]
Support I don't know if there is a special category for quality vector images but man, I spent ~~days~~ weeks making this. Mouagip (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support CommentCongratulations, excellent work. It is possible to reach such a level using inkscape? --The Photographer (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it is possible. It is not made of fancy effects or something; just simple forms and gradients. But I don't know about the performance Inkscape has handling such a large and complex image. I'm happy that I've got Illustrator. --Mouagip (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment typo "whithout" in caption B. - MPF (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, thanks. Corrected it. --Mouagip (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work! --Taraxacum (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment . . . bit of a tricky one, but the appearance of the person in the diagram is a bit biased - can it be made a bit more ethnicity- and gender-neutral? - MPF (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like in the original, I don't intend to alter it. My goal was to vectorize the original and stay as close to it as possible. --Mouagip (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JovianEye (talk) 01:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you think it's worth a Valued or Quality image nomination? --Mouagip (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gu Kaizhi 001.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 06:38:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Original - The entire nine scenes of the British Museum copy of the Admonitions Scroll, Scene 4 at the right, and Scene 12 at the left.

Info Traditionally attributed to Gu Kaizhi. Original uploader was w:ru:User:Евгений Ардаев from the Russian Wikipedia; moved to Commons by a bot. Nominated by User:Benlisquare -- -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed map with excellent scanning quality; high resolution and well digitally preserved/restored; of considerable encyclopedic value and significance. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 06:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Korman (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bunnyfrosch (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Econt (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work. --99of9 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kath. Kirche Helminghausen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 18:44:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carschten; retouched by Niabot and Carschten. You can see the Catholic Church „St. Maria von der Immerwährenden Hilfe“ in Helminghausen, Marsberg, Germany --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 18:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Timk70 (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose solid shot, but nothing extraordinary what make this picture featured for me. --mathias K 11:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extraordinary like burning houses or what? And it's not only a shot but a composition of four. Well, are there any weak points concerning technique or composition? In my opinion not, so you're arguing about the simplicity of the composition? It's a church, most of them look similar. If you call that a simple composition the architecture of regular churches would have to be changed first. Or are regular churches not supposed to be featured? In my opinion they are. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and what is at this picture more extraordinary than at mine?? When I saw something like that I doubt a impartial assessment of you at FPC! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, don`t understand me wrong. As I wrote allready, it is a solid picture. The fact it is a stitched image is secondary and doesn't make the picture any better, quite the contrary, but thats another thing... This side (FPC) is to review and feature the best pictures on commons and imo this picture is a perfect quality image but NOT the best on commons! Not every nearly sharp picture which is showing something needs to be featured!! @Carschten: To assume me a partial assesment is just ridiculous and damn close to malicious! And this picture is a well balanced picture with a nice composition, better lighting and a more appealing background. IMO!! If an own oppinion is allowed... Sincerely yours mathias K 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best of what? Churches at all? Churches in Germany? Of Helminghausen? … “Not every nearly sharp picture which is showing something needs to be featured!!” I don't find criteria against that except personal opinion. So have you ever asked why not doing that? In which way does it hurt anyone to feature featurable pictures? Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 09:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cathy Richards (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice high angle, good lighting, nice and sharp. --99of9 (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, amazing image. Kind regards,, —DerHexer (Talk) 18:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good image, but see Mathias above. Yann (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very good view/perspective, high resolution and very good quality and sharpness. Of course it isn't like a burning power plant with war in the background (...), but it's a solid shot and it's extraordinary good, so why it shouldn't be featured? -- Felix König ✉ 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clouds overexposed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mhm, yeah, that's right. This annoys me too, but it was not prevent at all. The church hans't any overexposed pieces. The sun shined hard on the clouds to this time in this mountainous landscape. I think that reflections from the water reservoir also provoked the cloud-overexposure. So, as I said, it was inevitable, and meanwhile I'm not thinking that the overexposure is disturbing. Regards --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OE is allways avoidable! --mathias K 15:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

really? Then can you please explain me how I could avoidable the OE-clouds in such a situation. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. correct exposure (check the camera intern histogramm after taking a picture)

2. using a filter (polarizer, graduated ND, or just ND)

3. exposure blending -- mathias K 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking more pictures of the same situation with different blends combining all of them in the aftermath. (Which I would not longer call photography.) —DerHexer (Talk) 11:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA, thats funny! So you say raising the dynamic range of an digital camera by using exposure blending isn't photography? But stitching 4 pictures to one panorama using a computer program is still? Hm what a pitty, than are these pictures ([6] [7] [8] just 3 for example) just good enough for the recycle bin cause theire are all done with exposure blending... Thats sad! --mathias K 16:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I neither like stiching. But you're mixing statements and actions resp. FPCs and photography: I can of course support stiched and dynamic range raised images because I like them or cannot see whether they are changed. But simple photography (pressing the button in a given situation) is neither of them, imho (I have never said that this file is done by photography, it is, in fact, not). But not only simple photographs can be FPs on Commons: Art in any way, also photo manipulation, can be featured on Commons. Kind regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - MPF (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral changing to neutral Ggia (talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reason? --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the quality is high, but I don't like a little bit the aesthetics of the image.. ie. the object is in the middle of the frame.. I would prefer a more creative view.. Ggia (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter Weis (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kecskemet 2010 Türk Yıldızları photo 36 brightened.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 18:59:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Łukasz Golowanow a.k.a. Wolf (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Destek -- Takabeg (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice shot! the details of the alighting gear are great! --mathias K 14:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support JovianEye (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done. Impressive colours, illustrative. --Ikiwaner (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbz1 (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Wolf (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurgiväät.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 20:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by WooteleF - uploaded by WooteleF - nominated by WooteleF -- WooteleF (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- WooteleF (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Lovely, but oversharpened I fear. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion I'd suggest a crop on the left hand side so that the point of the spiral satisfies the rule of thirds horizontally as well as vertically. --99of9 (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Maurilbert. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ngorongoro Spitzmaulnashorn.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Sep 2010 at 17:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by Ikiwaner (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ikiwaner (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wouldn't like to pet it, though. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and sharp. Only minus is the eye in shadow. --Elekhh (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice neutral background, too --Schnobby (talk) 09:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support sadly the legs are not completely visible but the details and the nice compostion are great! --mathias K 14:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support For sharpness, excellent lighing and background. --Cayambe (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 16:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 19:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've been on safari several times and an obscure view of a Black Rhino is rare, never mind a good view on a clean background like this.Bdell555 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sdgjake (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like color combination, great pitty. --Mile (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good to know in what county is it. --Mile (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzania, added to file description. --Elekhh (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Excellent composition, good enough quality, valuable picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SFA005003951 edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Aug 2010 at 19:22:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bert Verhoeff for ANEFO - Digitally restored by Peter_Weis - uploaded by GerardM - nominated by GerardM -- GerardM (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- GerardM (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Peter Weis (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Fontes (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Huib talk ^{Abigor @ meta} 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't currently see the picture due to the thumbnailing problem, but anyway I think this file needs to be renamed to a more useful name. --99of9 (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The file name refers to the name at the Dutch National Archive. Given that I do not know yet how to properly refer to the NA the name was kept this way. GerardM (talk) 05:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The file names of my other restorations feature [Description] [ID] [original/edit]. So here Laurens_Jan_Brinkhorst_SFA005003951_edit.jpg would be considerable. Add {{rename|new name.ext|reason}} if you agree.--Peter Weis (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Blurpeace 11:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No thumbnail or preview. Corrupt file? - MPF (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The file is not corrupt. This seems to be a thumbnailing error, a recent issue with several files affected. See Village Pump for various entries on this topic.--Peter Weis (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support NativeForeigner (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karel (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Any1s (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too noisy for me, even in thumbnail. Also I don't find the scene particularly striking anyway. --99of9 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose historic value yes, but as image not FP. --Elekhh (talk) 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to Neutral -- I think it's a good illustration of how cabinets are cobbled together in the Netherlands, perhaps.;) As to the historic value: not really outstanding, I would say. I could think of a number of photographs of episodes in Dutch politics that might qualify as a featured picture (nl:Nacht van Schmelzer and nl:Lockheed-affaire), but this isn't one of them. MartinD (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You either oppose or you are neutral. As to selecting other episodes of Dutch politics is not relevant to the criteria for a featured picture. Ask yourself what are the chances of an American politician of this level of prominence in such a position ? Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Please can you decide whether you oppose or are neutral? Your vote could be the deciding vote. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to 99of9 and Elekhh; looks like a photocopy of a newspaper photo. - MPF (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a matter of fact this is a scan from a print. Negative seems not to be available for access atm.--Peter Weis (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Dutch National Archive provided us with an extremely high scan from a picture. There is no negative of this picture. GerardM (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chworld (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:14-20-22-fort-mont-bart.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 16:10:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one is pretty nice! I like the colours and the symetrical composition. --mathias K 16:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically good, but I dont see the wow factor in this! Previous pictures of forts by ComputerHotline were much better. JovianEye (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Video-linearführung.ogv, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 13:55:05 (UTC)

principle representation of a mechanically propelled shaping

Info created, uploaded, nominated by Niabot -- Niabot (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Niabot (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An indefinitely repeating loop would have been more useful IMO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment impossible on commons. GIF images are to big, and won't be displayed correctly in articles. APNG is not commonly supported. Videos can't be looped currently. But if looping would be supported, it could be looped, since the animation (even 5 loops long) can be looped. --Niabot (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about File:Frontal lobe animation.gif, for example? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has much less colors, which can is better suited for a GIF file. Since GIF only supports 256 colors, and the resolution is much higher, it will be a very large file. The reader must leave the article page to view it, which is in my oppinion no good idea. --Niabot (talk) 08:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer GIF, but still good. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spectre.svg, delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 02:39:56

Info Image has been noted incorrect since 2007, see File talk:Spectre.svg. I made some attempts at repair in 2009 asking for help at Commons:Graphic Lab School/Images to improve#Spectre fixes but I ran out of steam. Original nomination was at Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Spectre.svg - it seems the nominate process assumes "File" is in the title. (Original nomination)
Delist -- 84user (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - MPF (talk) 07:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The visible range is clealy marked, but I can see how this could be misconstrued. --99of9 (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Karel (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Cayambe (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --Petritap (talk) 05:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 7 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empidonax flaviventris GJ.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 23:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Cephas (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I favour this version. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose small (colour) noise in the very distracting background --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 10:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition, ligth, background. --Mile (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This version shows the legs it has more encyclopedic value. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Aug 2010 at 23:37:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Same bird, different perch, different lighting
Neutral --Cephas (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Small subject, good angle (were you also up in the tree??), good background, decent lighting, nice and sharp. --99of9 (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better --Schnobby (talk) 15:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition and background.--Mile (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 20:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this version too. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent detail and lighting. --Elekhh (talk) 00:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent sharpness and lighting. --Cayambe (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful colours, sharpness and great focus on bird. Foto is not overexposed, too. Korman (talk) 06:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 15:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's simply beautiful. :) Admiringly, Clementina talk 04:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mbdortmund (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Ikiwaner (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Empidonax flaviventris GJ2.jpg

File:JNR-D51-349.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 06:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sakurami - uploaded by Yaguchi - nominated by Sushiya -- Sushiya (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sushiya (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very poor quality. Nothing of historical importance to compensate for that. Yann (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I'm sorry, but I have to agree with Yann. MartinD (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above Yann, sorry --Chmee2 (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wenzelschloss, 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Sep 2010 at 12:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Wenzelschloss.jpg is imo better, it hasn't a blue colour cast like this candidate --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to kaʁstn (and you've exceeded your permitted 2 current nominations ;-) MPF (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Das in der Klammer verstehe ich leider nicht. Grüße -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
das ist eine relativ junge Einführung hier bei den FPC. Jeder Benutzer darf maximal zwei parallel laufende Kandidaturen haben (habe die Diskussion selber nicht mitbekommen, aber ich denke wegen sonst drohender Überfüllung). Am Besten du wartest ab, bis die anderen beiden Kandidaturen durch sind und startest dann die Abstimmung von File:Wenzelschloss.jpg. Grüße --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:48, 29 August 2010 (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: sorry, but just 2 active nominations per user --mathias K 11:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Archilochus colubris CT.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 18:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Cephas (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 20:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Prefer it sitting on a branch to a red feeder, but I know it's hard! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So do I. One day I will come up with one on a branch. --Cephas (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cathy Richards (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Oppose ... until the plastic turns into a branch :-). Sorry, I think we have enough birds to insist on a natural setting (unless there's a truly exceptional reason, e.g. extinction). --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The plastic is very bright red, distracting and artificial. A thousand apologies, Korman (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wolf (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose just composition. Przykuta → [edit] 21:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Call me weird but I find the composition has something strong in it, a sort of nature vs. culture tension. The square format reinforces that strenght of the "bird with red plastic" composition. Not naturalistic, but memorable. --Elekhh (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is good, quality not so much. --Mile (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9 --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cremastinae wasp.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 18:45:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u/n by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Muhammad (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Muhammad (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice JukoFF (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Good but, what's the specie? The label need at least the genus. --Citron (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The mating version passed with the same level of id. When I researched and asked specialists, they were unable to go further because of lack of Tanzanian samples. --Muhammad (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No doubt excellent once taxed and the 5 dust spots removed. --Ikiwaner (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good but needs identification. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Good but not enough for FP, the main problem being the flat flash lighting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flat lighting? The main light is coming from top which is natural for insects. The additional flash is weak enough not to produce additional shadows on the legs. --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sun ligthing is coming from above, behind the camera, adding to the flat depiction of the thorax and specular reflections. I know we cannot put the bar at Richard's level (yet). But pictures like this one and this one are standards we should pursuit. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info I aksed the taxonomy specialists for help. --Ikiwaner (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. --Muhammad (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Steven Walling 01:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too out of focus areas. No identification of the specimen. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sensor dust removed --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks --Muhammad (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support When other animal pictures passed with the same level of categorization and the specialists can't help either nothing speaks against FP anymore. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is there no Kiswahili file description? It's sad all the Tanzanian FPs dont't have it... --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will start adding them soon. Asante kunikumbusha --Muhammad (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asante kushukuru :-) --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per above --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Expedition 23 Landing.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Aug 2010 at 13:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/Bill Ingalls - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor technical quality yes but, impossible to recreate, unusual vantage point (I think it was taken from a helicopter) & good example of a Soyuz capsule landing. Originalwana (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the high historical value outdoes the poor quality. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cody escadron delta (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - ditto to Originalwana; the fire (showing how hot the capsule still is from re-entry . . . how do the cosmonauts avoid being cooked??) is a particularly valuable aspect. - MPF (talk) 23:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--M Zaplotnik ^{(my contribs)} 10:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a remarkable foto indeed. I wonder if anyone else will vote for or against it. --Korman (talk) 06:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

File:Shortnose greeneye Chlorophthalmus agassizi.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 00:40:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Edie Widder - uploaded by Citron - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Interesting subject, and I really like how the top fish turned out. Alas, I must oppose, due to the retouching job; it seems that, when the image was being retouched to turn the background black and to remove distractions in the background, the editor did blacking-out on only a portion of the bottom image in which the background had an original greenish-hue. As a result, there are black blotches on an otherwise greenish background all around the bottom image. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 04:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Citron (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, much better. I am now in

Support. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work and very interesting --mathias K 15:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Never seen by me. Interesting and good job ! --Jebulon (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Taraxacum (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:People in Tanzania 2196 Nevit.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Sep 2010 at 22:17:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Masai baby carried with mother, photographed in Tanzania. Created by Nevit Dilmen - uploaded by Nevit Dilmen - nominated by Nevit Dilmen -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cute baby photo, but the composition is not really the best of the best in terms of portraits. Steven Walling 23:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steven. Yann (talk) 09:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose,too bad composition. Trance Light (talk) 22:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination--Nevit Dilmen (talk) 09:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chevaux estive Pyrenees.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 12:52:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Myrabella - uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Myrabella -- Myrabella (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Myrabella (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very natural colours, the triangle of the herd, within a magnificent scenery. --Cayambe (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice scene. --99of9 (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - MPF (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Υπέρ --патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice color, but I don't think the composition is anything special and there's no breed identification for the horses. Steven Walling 06:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing. You even got the little pony on the left. Nice composition overall. Its what one expects in the Pyreness mountains. --Korman (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Takabeg (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Playa de bobures al sur del lago de maracaibo.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Sep 2010 at 12:38:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by The Photographer - uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by The Photographer -- The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The Photographer (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad composition, no subject worthy to be featured. Yann (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann --mathias K 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 t.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Aug 2010 at 13:33:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Łukasz Golowanow & Maciej Hypś - & nominated by Łukasz Golowanow a.k.a. Wolf (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, the Red Arrows are my favorite topic. They are probably the most exquisite contemporary British artists; sorry, Kieron. :) Wolf (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolf (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Amazing! The curved fume lines make it look very dynamic. I like the non-centered composition too. And finally someone who dares to go for FP with some clipped pixels. To me this is accurate for this contre-jour lighting. --Ikiwaner (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clear, sharp and satisfying. Clementina talk 02:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not that sharp in full resolution... but great composition. --Cayambe (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I prefer the "Patrouille de France", but very good nevertheless !--Jebulon (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

delisted 2024-06-12 (0-7) The image has been delisted, see the corresponding nomination. -- Radomianin (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]