Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/June 2010

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 11:54:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A black headed bunting
Voting period is over, sorry. --Eusebius (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 01:51:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's very small, reading the guidelines before submitting might have helped. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 20:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blue Beard Tongue in natural prairie environment
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: most part of the subject it is out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:13:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element molybdenum
Confirmed results:
Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 May 2010 at 20:56:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ostrea edulis cross section of the shell
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 12:47:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The chemical element Tungsten
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /ianaré (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Working child near Batman, Kurdistan, Turkey.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:45:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground troop shelter. Roppe fortifications.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Roppe fortifications, underground.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 11:39:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Underground, at the Fort de Roppe.
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 08:40:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Juniper Springs
  • Yeah there's just TONS of natural springs in the world that have been turned into swimming pools. Completely uninteresting, to be sure, a place like this. No reason at all for it to be called the "jewel of the forest". I wonder why I even went there in the first place, or spent at least an hour waiting for people to jump so I could get a more interesting shot. --ianaré (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2010 at 06:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The spiral galaxy Messier 81 is tilted at an oblique angle on to our line of sight, giving a "birds-eye view" of the spiral structure
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 19:42:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Location is added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:44:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 06:19:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 07:47:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Saint-Maimbœuf church
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 4 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 12:26:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stained glass in Žilina train station
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:54:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco, CA at sunset taken from the Marin Headlands.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:04:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

3-D Echocardiogram
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animated

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:13:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stagactites and stalagmites in the Cango Caves, South Africa
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2010 at 20:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Charging Leopard in the Rhino and Lion Park, Gauteng, South Africa
It's categorized as a Panthera pardus and called a leopard (corresponding vernacular name) in the description, I'm not a specialist but it looks reasonably identified. --Eusebius (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 18 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 14:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Statue of Liberty (more formally, Liberty Enlightening the World, and more colloquially, Lady Liberty) is a structure located on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, presented to the United States on the centennial of the signing of the American Declaration of Independence as a gift from France. It was designed by Frédéric Bartholdi and gets its green coloring from patination of the outer copper covering. The statue is world-renowned for being the first thing sea-borne visitors, immigrants, and returning Americans see upon entering New York Harbor and has been known as a beacon of freedom to much of the world. It earned UNESCO World Heritage Site status in 1984.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 07:41:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

cnideria
En effet, la "peau" de la méduse est comme granuleuse (désolé pour la réponse en français) --Luc Viatour (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Translation of above message : Yes, the "skin" of the jellyfish has a granular texture (sorry for answering in French) --ianaré (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
corrigé et réduction du bruit apliquée --Luc Viatour (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- Very nice composition but too much noise, caused by the very high ISO setting. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support He had no choice but pushing ISO setting very far, otherwise he would have had to use wide aperture, which would have shallowed DOF. I think that it's a very good compromise overall, and 2800 iso for a D3S probably is much like 400/800 on older cameras such as my venerable 400D... :) Based on that, I guess that's the best we can get today. I've tried same shot at f/2.8, iso1600, and few years ago and don't get this good results (otherwise would have been on commons for loooong already). Here we have two for the same price.- Benh (talk) 05:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The species is not identified. Cnidaria is an animal phylum with over 9000 species. I'd like to support once the species id is given. Might it not be obtained from the Pairi Daiza Park? --Cayambe (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demande au parc effectuée this is "Aurelia aurita"--Luc Viatour (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 19 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 15:41:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the NGC 4631 galaxy.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:06:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chestnut-sided Warbler
According to google this means: nice picture, but I like shadow disturbing enough that the image should not be selected .--Elekhh (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 22:07:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Frankfurt on the Main: Waterside of the district Hoechst as seen from the southern side of the Main
  • Joaquim, u are the one who started discussion to raise bar for FP, and to make them exceptional again, and yet u support "not very exciting" images... hmmm ? ;) - Benh (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, because I rationally (the 'head') consider this picture to deserve FP status though emotionally (the 'guts') don't feel very excited. This means, of course, that I have full control of my body and mind... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, this is exactly the difference between an FP (guts + mind) and a QI (mind). I could go over your history, and would find you sometime opposed because bells weren't ringing, but maybe the pictures then also deserved FP. I think this is the point: not being afraid to oppose when you just feel like so. - Benh (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:47:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Oil Spill reaching the Gulf of Mexico
I can easily believe it is the best picture of its kind, but it doesn't make it an FP for me. We have sat pictures of significantly better quality. Also, the same raw sat images could be better processed to form a better image, so I don't really have any second thoughts about my opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please motivate your opposition. --Eusebius (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - A neat picture, but it's not a particularly informative illustration of the oil spill itself. At the top of the Gulf, it is difficult to differentiate between what is oil and merely opaque water. There is also a deceptive large glare toward the bottom of the image, which is not part of the spill, according to this map for May 18, the day this satellite picture was taken. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:12:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • it is what it is ... though if you look closely, you'll see that there are in fact several architectural styles represented, from art deco style of the 1940s to modern designs. Not my type of vacation either, but people from all over the world do go there (and spend ridiculous sums of money). This is also the the biggest and most famous beach in the area. --ianaré (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 20:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Miami Beach, FL
  • Actually, I thought this one was more educational, as the perspective offers a broader and more detailed view of the buildings (Miami Beach is a pretty famous city, very popular with tourists - and this is the main beach). It also shows many more people, a mix of tourists and locals. Technically it is also much more challenging, due to the many movements to be expected during its realization. I do think the other is more aesthetically pleasing, which is why I nominated both. --ianaré (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I prefer that one, and like composition. I thought I was alone, but AngMoKio proved me wrong: I scrutinized the pic very closely, but spent a bit more time on right part. I think it was a bit challenging to take because of moving people. I feel the horizon is curved, but if so, I believe this improves the picture. Very nice overall ! - Benh (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I think the seaweed band caps off the composition. The only negative thing I can say is that the flag is flying the wrong way :-). --99of9 (talk) 06:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- For aesthetical reasons, I don't like the composition. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, here it goes (applies to both pictures). First of all, both pictures are more or less symmetrical, which is aesthetically boring. This is a common flaw in landscape panoramas. The coloring is also uninteresting, with extensive areas of sand and sky and no warm tones (reds, yellows). Finally the distortion is disturbing. In particular, the horizon if very curved, especially in the second picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional to Alvesgaspar, the clientel on the beach are not of the most aesthetically attractive cross-section of humanity . . . ;-) MPF (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a) I'm sure they would beg to differ. b) I'm surprised you missed out on an opportunity to support an image showing so many wild H. sapiens, in a group activity very representative of this species. --ianaré (talk) 06:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 21:38:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

European Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), Austin's Ferry, Tasmania, Australia
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2010 at 21:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eastern Kingbird
Sunlight was somewhat diffuse and the bird is not colorfull. Although I increased the color, the result still kind of plain. I like the composition though. --Cephas (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 17:44:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ceremonial start of the Iditarod dog sled race
I know. I know the mitigating circumstances, but the picture is still VERY noisy. Far too much for a Featured Picture. On the parts best in focus (which aren't so sharp btw), noise is prominent enough to hide the details of the picture, and it is not limited to the darker parts of the photograph. The picture is not exceptional enough for me to ignore that, and I have the very strong opinion that this picture should not be promoted. To quote the FP guidelines: "pictures being nominated should be of high technical quality", "[Noise] is not a desirable quality and can be grounds for opposition". --Eusebius (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still can't see what you mean. What does this "electronic noise" look like? I can't see anything "hiding the details of the picture" - MPF (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(indent reset) Open the picture at 100% and look at the top left corner (for instance). Over the background, you can see snow flakes (larger white spots), and a multitude of pixel-size coloured spots, making an orthogonal lattice (image of the photosite lattice on the sensor). Here it is really very bad, showing local patterns (coloured vertical or horizontal lines). On a better image, it could look more like the grain of a photographic film. If you look at the head of the first dog, you can see that the edge of the eyes, of the nostrils, of the teeth, the texture of the tongue... are somehow hidden by this noise. --Eusebius (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can see what you mean now, but don't think it is enough to have a serious adverse effect on the photo. Maybe some people are more sensitive to it than others? - MPF (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:58:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Poughkeepsie Railroad Bridge in New York, United States, after years of misuse and neglect, was transformed into a pedestrian walkway in 2009 and spans the Hudson River.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 17:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Troilus and Cressida
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /FPCBot (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

--Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 11:51:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An inside, high-resolution picture of Al Capone's cell as it exists today at Eastern State Penitentiary.
  • FP is not QI++, but the same standards do apply - unless there is a mitigating reason. For exemple the leopard pic, the focus is a little off, but the strong visual impact and difficulty of the shot is a mitigating reason for me. I don't see a mitigating reason here, this shot could be easily duplicated and made better. --ianaré (talk) 02:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 01:39:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Two galaxies are squaring off in Corvus and here are the latest pictures. When two galaxies collide, however, the stars that compose them usually do not. This is because galaxies are mostly empty space and, however bright, stars only take up only a small amount of that space. During the slow, hundred million year collision, however, one galaxy can rip the other apart gravitationally, and dust and gas common to both galaxies does collide. In the above clash of the titans, dark dust pillars mark massive molecular clouds are being compressed during the galactic encounter, causing the rapid birth of millions of stars, some of which are gravitationally bound together in massive star clusters.

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 04:25:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse
Could you please be more specific about low quality? The details of the very small cleaner fish are seen clearly. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find about everything unsharp. I am certain that I would be totally unable to take this picture, but I've obviously seen better underwater pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose ditto to Eusebius; the centre is sharp enough, but there is bad spherical aberration out to the four corners which spoils the pic a bit - MPF (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1

[edit]

Hawaiian cleaner wrasse

If it is another candidate I think you should open another candidate page, but it's only my opinion and I often find local FP traditions curious. --Eusebius (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that since only one picture of a given subject can be the finest, they ought not both be promoted. So if they both achieve the requirements, the one with less support is not promoted. --99of9 (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The second image is added as alternative and not as a separate nomination. Of course only one of them will be promoted. It is an usual practice with alternatives.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Fish

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 15:19:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Views of the extravehicular activity during STS 41-B
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 18:32:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bordeaux, place de la bourse with tram. In front: miroir d´eau
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 05:58:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tooth of Australopithecus africanus
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 20:55:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lynx lynx
<div style="display:none--Michael Gäbler (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC);">[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jun 2010 at 19:03:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

North American Green Frog, female.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Jun 2010 at 22:36:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
Alvesgaspar explained what I meant by "poor composition": by looking at the picture, it is not clear why so much background is part of it (and also, the animal is strangely centred). "Poor framing" or "poor composition" is not "defamatory", it is a negative (and somehow subjective) value judgment over one's work. If you don't want your work to be evaluated in a negative way (which I can totally understand), then maybe you shouldn't submit it for reviewing. --Eusebius (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if my evaluation was too harsh by no offense was meant, of course. 'Poor' is very often used here when assessing pictures, instead of 'bad'. I personally prefer that the evaluations of my images are straight and clear because I learn more from them, but people are different. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, we three are working together for the good future of FP. You participate in the discussion Careless reviews. I myself support the FP mostly with images. I think you misapprehended my sentence „Please don't write in the FPC: "poor...". This word is defamatory.” The word “poor” has different meanings in the English language. It is not only used in the meanings „not good“ and „meagre“. It is also used in the meanings „pitiful, pitiable“, „wretched“, „woefully“. Therefore the word „poor“ can be understood as a defamatory word. The adjective of the german translation “arm” is today used to offend or insult somebody with words like “armer Irrer” (= “poor foul”), “armes Schwein”, “arme Sau”. I think it would be better for the good future of FP to find another way to describe the lack of quality in images of FPC. I wrote: “Please write detailed what you mean, everybody wants to understand, what is wrong on the image.” Maybe you can find in the English language a harmless word instead of "poor..." to describe the lack of quality in an image. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please... When using a word in a sentence, it is not required that all its meanings apply at the same time, let alone that all the meanings of its possible translations in another language hold. I didn't mean that the image needed better funding, if I need to clarify. The second meaning of "poor" in the Oxford English dictionary (just after the money-related sense) is "of a low or inferior standard or quality", which is exactly what is meant here. --Eusebius (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jun 2010 at 23:07:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Psalm 23
  •  Info created by Joseph Martin Kronheim (?) - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This was scanned at 800 dpi. The original is about 6-8" wide, at full size, my monitor makes this about 6 FEET wide. This is great for reproduction of the work, but you may prefer a less extreme view for evaluating it as art. Dschwen's Javascript viewer, while not perfect (it tends to look very slightly blurred at lower zooms), will help. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info An interesting bit of ephemera, representative, though better quality than the vast majority, of things you may have seen a lot if you were raised in the American fundamentalist evangelical tradition like I was. Unlike those, this is freely licensed, and (although I'm still seeking confirmation of this, initial enquiries have been positive in the identification) by a reasonably notable creator of such materials. Also illustrative of a Victorian publishing house, the Religious Tract Society, which we have precious little else from.
  •  Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support That is wide... Very interesting, well done restoration. NativeForeigner (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question on the files page there is also a link to the original scan. I compared the original scan with the nominated version and I think that the contrast in the nomination is too high which results in lost details. And I think an important criteria of judging restorations is that details don't get lost. Correct me if I am wrong...I am for sure not an expert concerning restorations. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scans rarely come out with accurate colours. Since I own the original, I adjusted it to get as near to that as possible. I've looked at it again, and discovered a way to make it slightly more like the original: Kronheim uses a reflective bronze-colour ink, which scans differently than it looks to the eye. Once I realised that, I could selectively desaturate red in that area, leading to the currently-uploading version, which, to my eyes, looks as identical to the original as you can get. Adam Cuerden (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 23:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A Roadside Hawk (Buteo magnirostris) perched in a tree in Goiás, Brazil.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: a better version of this picture is already a FP -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 17:17:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Eagle Harbor Lighthouse in Michigan, USA

 JovianEye (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:47:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Leaf scorpionfish
  •  Info everything by Mbz1 -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Here's the story about the image. I was swimming over the coral reefs, when I suddenly noticed a strange leaf. The only thing that made me to stop and take another look was that the "leaf" was kind of out of place there. It took me about 10 minutes to realize I was looking at a fish. I've never seen such fish before, and never heard of him either. What was amazing that the fish really behaved as a dead leaf that got stacked in the corals, and is rocking back and forth by the will of the currents. The nominated image is a composite of four frames that IMO show not only the fish, but his behavior as well.
  •  Support -- Mbz1 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Always same dilemma with you Mila... I feel it's valuable, rather unique over here, and that one has to catch it. But I oppose mainly for quality reason. And the fact this is underwater is now no longer mitigating to me (it's possible to take good quality underwater pictures at little cost). - Benh (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quality is good. It is how the fish really looks. The blotches on the skin are natural, and the shape is not really sharp. Besides you really cannot judge all underwater photography the same. It is much easier to take underwater images, when diving because you could stand still. I was snorkeling in the strong currents. To take those images I should have been diving and working my legs and arms to stay under long enough to take the image. I could have uploaded a single image or the two last frames only, where the quality is better a bit, but I believed it was important to show how the shape of this amazing fish is changing. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the idea of the "main object" not to be seen good enough :) On the other hand I did get enough :), and that is why  --Mbz1 (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Jun 2010 at 16:41:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The new Opera House in Oslo.
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A paradise beach in Bretagne
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image quality is poor (unsharpness, chromatic noise, lack of detail) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 10:31:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ferenc Ilyés), hungarian Handball-Player, blocked with foul by Artur Siódmiak (Poland
With this kind of reasoning, FP nominations will continue to be dominated by endless rows of images of plants, stones, engravings, statues, and astronomical objects. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 15:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Golden Snub-nosed Monkeys
Added location and status information. Jack (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 11:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Surcouf
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Jun 2010 at 08:17:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A view in the Wörtherseestadion in Klagenfurt (Austria) with 28.000 spectators during the final of the Austrian Cup 2009–10 SC Magna Wiener Neustadt vs. SK Sturm Graz 0:1 (0:0) at 2010-05-16.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:05:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Longyin Temple of Chukou Village in Alishan National Scenic Area.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is severely overexposed (all white) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 00:04:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bottlenose Dolphin - Tursiops truncatus A dolphin surfs the wake of a research boat on the Banana River - near the Kennedy Space Center.
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Mammals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 06:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 16:07:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Landscape at Lake Balaton, Hungary.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality: colour banding (sky), artifacts, lack of detail, oversharpening and oversaturation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 00:53:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Info Galaxies, galaxies everywhere - as far as the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope can see. This view of nearly 10,000 galaxies is the deepest visible-light image of the cosmos. Called the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, this galaxy-studded view represents a "deep" core sample of the universe, cutting across billions of light-years.

The snapshot includes galaxies of various ages, sizes, shapes, and colours. The smallest, reddest galaxies, about 100, may be among the most distant known, existing when the universe was just 800 million years old. The nearest galaxies - the larger, brighter, well-defined spirals and ellipticals - thrived about 1 billion years ago, when the cosmos was 13 billion years old.

Hubble Ultra Deep Field diagram
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this version is already featured. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:56:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  •  Info Brother and sister in the street of Qala-i-Shada, Kabul, Afghanistan. An amazing picture by the same author of this other one, a serious competitor of POTY2009. Created and uploaded by Paulrudd, nominated by Alvesgaspar (talk)
  •  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:28, 31 May 2010
  •  Support lovely portrait, interesting lighting/background --ianaré (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm starting to think that this is sort of too easy, and that the hard conditions these people live in make them very photogenic. But that picture sure feels nice, and there a few from Afghanistan over here... Certainly less than panoramas and insects...:). Ack ianaré for lighting. Also friendly support since Paulrudd was my classmate in highschool ;-) - Benh (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- I think that the strongest points of this picture have nothing to do with poverty or exoticism. I'm referring especially to composition, lighting (this is a 'contre-jour') and the expression of the children -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agreed for lighting too. But I believe expressions of the children contribute to make this pic great, hence my comment. This does come from the conditions they live in; I don't mean exoticism but I meant poverty and hard conditions. Don't get me wrong though: Alexis (author's name) did large part of the job by framing and exposing it right in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 19:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • why do you think that these children live in poverty? --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I feel you ask this as if it was shocking that I think so (sorry if I'm wrong). But I answer anyways : I can only assume, yes, but have good reasons, among them : Dirty clothes, one of the kid missing a shoe, skin looking like having hard time and Afghanistan having low HDI and low per capita income. - Benh (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • No I am not shocked. I just sometimes have the feeling that people from western or "rich" countries (me included) easily think that people from other cultures are poor or even suffer. By western standards those kids might be poor and still I think that such a pic can trick you. That girls other shoe could just be around the corner because it took it off for what ever reason (I often see children that get rid of various pieces of clothing just for fun). The children's clothes might be dirty because they were playing in the dirt or the mother just gave them some old clothes because they were about to play outside. Even my mother had some older clothes for me when I went playing in the forest. Those kids look well fed and not unhappy, just interested in the photographer. Of course I might be wrong and those kids are really poor, even for Afghan standards, but I just think it is interesting how we (myself included) quickly come to the conclusion that people from far away countries and different cultures have to be poor or suffering. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I understand this point of view an partly agree with it. I never said that these children are unhappy, but that they are poor and live in hard condition, and that I'm likely right given all element we have so far. (we could as well think as disguisement or whatever but this would go very far !). some hard conditions to me that explain the skin : not spending days in air conditioned building but spending days outside under hard sun, not having shower everyday with shampoo etc. And I don't always wait to have all elements before coming to a conclusion, otherwise, I wouldn't often have opinion... would I ? :)- Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Of course I understand your point of view and the way you get to your conclusion. It was not my aim to question your vote or opinion. I just had some deeper thougts on how photos might trick us and felt the need to talk about it :-) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support per Ianaré. --Cayambe (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Very nice photo with the shadows on the ground --Schnobby (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I showed this photo to my dad, who lived in Afghanistan for some time. He says "I believe these children are Azarahs, an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Descendants of the Mongols under Ghengis Khan". --ianaré (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak  Support I am not so keen on the centred composition still a really good photo. --AngMoKio (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – I'm really uncertain whether not only the exotically working and sweet children and the surrounding field make the photo unusual. Sorry, but I don't see anything, which makes this photo technical better than other photos with sweet children. --Steindy (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per Ianaré. Although subjects are centered, the wall on the left gives some dynamism to the picture. It would be very different without the wall. --Cephas (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I would consider this an average portrait. It is attractive and they are photogenic, but I find the crop too loose and the viewpoint too high, which prevent this photo from standing above others. IMO, not a good enough portrait for FP. As a side note, I'm wondering why you quoted the author and his work. I thought this was about judging individual photos. Were you trying to justify or inflate the value of this photo just because the author had a finalist at POTY2009? Really a bad move on your part, Alvesgaspar. - Keta (talk) 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- I really don't believe the value of this photo needs to be inflated by the kind of expedient you are accusing me of using. My only purpose was to call the attention of the community to the talent of this creator (who should be persuaded to contribute to this forum). FPC reviewers are not stupid. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Don't try to turn this into something else, this is not about reviewers but about the words you used. If that was your only intention, it wasn't the best place nor the best wording, and the more I read it the more it looks like what I said, that's the impression I get at least. - Keta (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Comment - I have already explained what my intentions were and consider your insinuations inappropriate, so say the minimum. Yes, this forum is often used for raising and discussing side issues, as you should konw if you were more acquainted with it. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia" --AngMoKio (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral @Alvesgaspar it is an average portrait (but not a bad one). these kind of pictures are best shooted in black & white film. I partially agree with Keta comments.. Ggia (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not Alvesgaspar, but would like to comment on this. Why would this be best B&W ? This is subjective issue, but I personally think as B&W as (most of the time) a cheap and easy way to turn a regular picture into something that looks to "stand above others", since this unconsciously remind old times when photography was much more art and unaccessible than it is now - Benh (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor am I (!!), but I regard b&w as a relict of history which has no place in modern photography - colour is now possible, and removal of colour to make b&w is removal of data & information, and therefore unjustifiable - MPF (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry but I must object here strongly. A really good b/w picture doesn't work as a colour photo. For example this is a great work of art, but in colour it wouldn't work. Many really good portraits only really work in b/w - and I don't mean just to convert a colour pic to a greyscale pic. --AngMoKio (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just explained why I am voting neutral in that photo. And I said that I would prefer this photo shooted using b&w film (not digital)! Not converting a color photo to b&w. My pov is that b&w film, grain, analog capture works better in pictures/subjects like this one.. here. ie. I don't like much that the viewpoint too high (as Keta mentioned). BTW.. If you like the photo support it. Ggia (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did ;) but that has nothing to do with the picture itself and I was just giving my point of view as well. Again, I find it strange to rely on grain or whatever... but just my opinion. - Benh (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Agree that sometimes, B&W can be of good use, that's why I said that most of the time I feel that people use it as "art" label" rather than a way to really give another meaning to the picture. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I look to much down on people... - Benh (talk)
* Comment WOW!, this discussion about b&w is really ridiculous. Photography is not about either color or gray scales, they are elements of photography. It is foolish to state that b&w is a thing of the past, or to say that color is the only thing. While yes, a regular color photograph can be made "more interesting" by converting it to b&w, color could mask defficiencies on the photograph also. Reality is that some photographs work better in b&w and some work better in color. And get this, as much as the digital camp thinks that digital photography is better than analog, well, I have news for you, that is not necessarily true, from the potographic perspective. Digital photography, with all its good things, cannot compete with tonal graduations, dynamic range or many other valuable visual attributes of analog photography. To think that digital cameras produce better photographs is like saying that synthetic brushes create better paintings. The art resides on the eye, knowledge and experience of the photographer and not necessarily on his camera, or the painter´s brushes. A camera does not make a photographer, or creates a good photograph. Digital imagery, from cameras to computers, have only produced more people taking and manipulating pictures, and not necessarily better photographers. One thing is for sure, the mix of technology and photography has produced a lot of people who think that they are photographers... so far from the truth. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 15 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 20:28:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) on a bird show on the castle Augustusburg, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 11:05:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Maffei 1 and 2
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 12:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Jun 2010 at 22:10:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SunflowerThe sunflower (Helianthus annuus) is an annual plant in the family Asteraceae and native to the Americas, with a large flowering head (inflorescence).
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 23:59:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

** Please sign your vote. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:25:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Heart and Soul nebulae are seen in this infrared mosaic from NASA's Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE. Also visible near the bottom of this image are two galaxies, Maffei 1 and Maffei 2. Maffei 1 is the bluish elliptical object and Maffei 2 is the spiral galaxy.
 Comment Please see the additional information (above the license box) for the colour representation Originalwana (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 19:24:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 00:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center

Alt 1

[edit]

Space Shuttle Atlantis landing at Kennedy Space Center

Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt (head)
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Jun 2010 at 21:07:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Przewalski's colt running
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Hofkirche in Dresden by night
Multilingual distractions by Dschwen, Jebulon, and others

 Comment

    • You voted and explained why. I voted and explained why. Full point. I don't care with your "bad guy" game, like others I understand that it's only a game and a "posture", and I'm absolutely not afraid, just only bored a bit with this "soap opera". Oh yes, I know its easier (and maybe more funny) than to be kind. I don't want to continue this "discussion". Furthermore, your comment ...art...?! is unacceptable. But:
      • Enough foreground. To me, trees and light add.
      • I like the original angle and composition. I disagree with the general opinion about "non day-light" pictures, because it sounds "fundamentalist" to me (yes I have read the guidelines, I disagree with this special point)
      • In my opinion, nobody (even you) can say that another shot would still be a fairly ordinary shot. I don't know the English words for "procès d'intention", but it's exactly what you do. It IS contemptuous, and I have here an answer to a question asked somewhere else about patronizing (a formal answer in QIC page is now useless, thank you). I think the choice of the photographer is a sufficient reason to do it at night, even you may (and have the right to) dislike it.--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really sorry, but you have to support here what I "basically say" (so do I with you). If not, leave.
      • According to the (ancient and new) rules, I have no to explain why I support, but I do.
      • Without giving reasons at all. The reason was and is: I like this picture. It's enough.
      • J'adore me péter par écrit en Anglais avec quelqu'un, je trouve ça marrant !
      • Be happy, summer is coming soon ! (in the northern hemisphere of course). Drink fresh, make love, life is beautiful, in Dresden by night too !!--Jebulon (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, péter is a very fitting term, I must say. Anyhow, don't get all worked up if someone calls you up on calling other peoples opinions non relevant. --Dschwen (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        •  CommentNobody is playing bad guy here. We are just giving our own opinions to the nominations. The aim of FPC is on the one hand to promote very good pictures, but in my opinion the most important aim of FPC is that people improve their photo skills - and no one learns anything when you just "play nice guy" and always tell people how great their pictures are. (If you have the time you should have a look on the FPC on the German wikipedia) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- I’m with Dschwen on this one, FPC is an open forum and all opinions (and votes) are considered equally relevant here. As for the flatulent comment (se péter en Anglais), it has two main components: (i) it is a vulgarity, considered by many (I included) as bad manners but occasionally used by some when short of logical arguments and moderately tolerated here; (ii) it is an attempt of using this forum to 'make a point' (the so-called POV, in Wikipedia’s jargon) and considered by many users as a serious fault . I don’t give a s* (sorry) damn for this peccadillo though. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  CommentPatronizing n°2 ? Please don't give me lessons about french slang. Here, "se péter" is not flatulent, but means " to have a (hard) quarrel with somebody ". Not to be confused with "il se la pète" which means "he is patronizing a lot". "Péter la gueule" is litteraly "to break the face", and generally, "péter" is "to break". But OK, it's slang and not very elegant. And no, FPC is not an open forum : it's impossible to have a divergent opinion without to be harshly humiliated. --Jebulon (talk) 10:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- Let me start with the minor issue. Because I'm no expert in French slang, I went to the 'Larousse de Poche' where I found 'Pet' = Gaz qui sort du fondement avec bruit; 'Péter = faire un pet, se briser (fam.). The same meaning can be found by other users in other dictionaries, as Dschwen did. Now for the serious issue. Nobody here is trying to humiliate nobody and the object of all opinions are the pictures, not the creators or the nominators. Yes, the evaluations are often direct and harsh, though their tone have somehow softened in the last times. Most users understand and accept the criticisms and find them to be a valuable way of improving on their work (that is clearly my case). Very few, who don't accept the evaluations, consider the reviewers not competent enough to asses their pictures or the guidelines to be flawed, react negatively, sometimes with violent personal attacks. Fortunately they are a very small minority. There are no VIP or leaders here. The influence of each user's opinions is usually a function of the quality and consistence of his/her work here (as a reviewer, a creator, an organizer or a general contributor) and is not dictated (obviously) by his will, the loudness of his voice or the length of his comments. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  CommentTraduttore, traditore. Or convertitori, sovertitori...--Jebulon (talk) 15:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it's a multilingual project. So you either are at the mercy of "google translate", or the foreign language skills of the people who read your comments, or your own proficiency in a foreign language should you choose to use it. Ich haette auch nix dagegen hier in meiner Muttersprache zu diskutieren, aber es bringt einfach nix rumzulamentieren darueber, dass Englisch hier der de facto standard ist. Alle varienten, die ich oben aufgefuehrt habe haben ihr Fuer und Wider. So und jetzt noch ein schlecht zu uebersetzendes Wort: Popelnase! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Entschuldigung, ich verstehe nicht was "de facto" bedeutet...--Jebulon (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 15:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 22:00:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

the chemical element and metal "Niobium"
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 06:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks and Minerals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 19:44:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

English: River Thames and the London Eye on a cloudy day, London, England.
  •  Oppose Nice shot, however the light is questionable. There are hundreds of images of the Thames at this point on commons, some probably with a better light and composition (there is a little too much river and a little too much land, although I won't argue with it being centred and have never understood why this is detrimental to a photograph).89.243.246.89 11:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 02:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 23:20:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night lapse of the 401. Even at 9:30pm, the route is still very busy.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 06:06:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 19:05:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Clarendon Building, Oxford

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 20:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cumulonimbus capillatus incus floating over Swifts Creek, Victoria in Australia.
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 21:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the city at noon with Alter Bruecke (Old Bridge), Cathedral and skyline as seen from Ignatz-Bubis-Bruecke (Ignatz Bubis Bridge)
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 08:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Jun 2010 at 18:13:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Joan of Arc's Death at the Stake
  • With all due respect, there is a difference between good faith and closing both eyes. Take a look at that guy's voting record. It is quite striking, especially in light of the careless review section on the FPC talk page. --Dschwen (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all due respect, Dschwen, we decided not to make Alvesgaspar's guidelines a rule. Also, he's obviously an inexperienced user who has not read that page. Unless you want to close FPC to non-experienced users, we are bound to get a few votes that disagree with the hivemind's rules once in a while. Instead of assuming bad faith, educate him. He's obviously not a malicious user, and if you think he is, you take FPC too seriously. --Aqwis (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dude, a) chill! b) read again what people wrote. c) realize that nowhere neither Alvesgaspar nor me said that LAR is a malicious user, d) easy on terms like hivemind please. --Dschwen (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Those few votes defying the hive mind’s rules could indeed represent an enrichment to our forum if they had some constructive purpose behind and were explained to us all (in Spanish, if necessary). Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case with this particular user, who never produced any kind of explanation for his (apparently contestant) votes. A quick look at his talk pages and edit story strongly confirms this is not a common user, in the sense that he never established any kind of dialogue with others. Assuming good faith is a golden rule, I agree. But I also endorse Daniel’s opinion that we shouldn’t keep our eyes closed. All regulars here will confirm that I have always defended that this forum should be inclusive and that a newbie’s vote has exactly the same value and importance as a vet’s. But I’m not naïve either and consider that any attempt to use FPC to make some obscure point should be stopped. Yes, it is possible that I’m being unfair and that this user is just a child, or someone too shy to communicate. Please go ahead and put a message in Spanish in his talk page (I don't speak Spanish). I’ll be glad to retract and apologize if it is proven that I’m wrong. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alvesgaspar accused him of being a borderline troll. A troll is a malicious user. I do agree that he should probably explain his votes; however, it's better to put a message on his talk page before accusing him of being a "borderline troll". --Aqwis (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aqwis -- Please be more precise in what you say. I didn't accuse him of being a "borderline troll". I said that his vote was dangerously close to a trolling action (the FPX template was deleted, BTW) and asked him to explain. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 11:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Jun 2010 at 13:50:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Two Arab dragomen enjoying a meal. Picture taken approx. 1889 A.D. and reveals the traditions related to cuisine and clothing at late 19th century in the Levant.
  • Although it's a 120-yo photo, its quality surpass some of your 2MP pictures that you yourself have uploaded using recent technologies. Maybe nothing may seem extraordinary to you, but it should be noted that it's rather rare to find historical photos from the 19th century about cuisine traditions in the Levant.--Banzoo (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Photography, and a photograph, can be a social document of great value. Photographs, with time, become windows into the past, bringing into today events, depictions of people or places that can be rich documents of knowledge. Whether we recognize their value or not does not diminish their value, but rather, points more to our lack of sensitivity or lack of knowledge. This picture, from the photographic perspective alone, and considering the time it was taken, tells us about a competent photographer that while the subjects seemed too posed, took care to record important cultural elements into account and preserved them for us, with very good photographic technique and equipment available at that time. Photography has changed with time and technology, but there are core elements within the media that remain stable, such as photography as a recorder of reality, conditions, etc., and in this case, this photograph is a frozen moment from the past. Even in its time, considering that most people were unable to withness different ethnic groups, this picture surely served as the television of their time, allowing people to see people from far off places, etc. If I analize this photograph from a perspective that does not take into account history and the notion of photography as a social document, well, some people may consider it bad. In my personal point of view, this picture is featurable because a) It is a good photograph from its time, b) good composition; c)good photographic technique; d) good darkroom technique; and most important, e) a valuable historical document. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral for now. It looks like parts are overexposed (ie right man's hand), If it's from the import process then it should be fixed first. --ianaré (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose – ditto to Alvesgaspar. And bad crop at the top right, with part of that whatever-it-is the man is looking at, cut off. - MPF (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 14:22:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Nicrophorus vespilloides
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Picture of a "Purple-striped Jelly" (Chrysaora Colorata) taken at Montery Bay Aquarium, Monterey, California, USA.
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject is not complete, tentacles have been cropped. There is also too much noise (ISO 1600 !) and much of the animal is OOF. --ianaré (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 10:36:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Russian military, accompanied by a policeman twists bulbs in the signal lights to the landing strip airfield Smolensk-North. Several hours after the crash of Tu-154 Kaczynski
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: quality and composition problems as outlined above --ianaré (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Jun 2010 at 18:04:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Foggy winter day at the Eibsee
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /Juliancolton | Talk 02:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Blackbird female
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:16:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Curculio nucum
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Arthropods

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 03:25:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spider web at sunrise
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 18:05:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Caustic in nature
What is the problem with the quality? Not only caustic, but the barracuda are depicted quite well. Besides underwater image, shallow water, shiny camera in my hand, and barracauda are metigating factors. Please trust me on that.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know better than that. Or you should by now, anyway. It is not enough for a picture to have good quality or encyclopaedic value to become FP. It must be extraordinary in some way. And the present one is not. Featured pictures are the best Commons has to offer. 'Quite well' is not good enough and the camera, or the shooting conditions, are not supposed to be mitigating factors. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not of a barracuda, the image is of w:Caustic (optics) (the very reflections you complain about) The barracuda just adds to the exitement.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know if this pic is or is not a FP (according to opinions of few VIP here), but wait a moment, Mbz1, and somebody will say "oaoaoh, yes, but, indeed, the "caustic" is well shown, but the barracuda is disturbing..."...--Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ha-ha-ha. I'd say The High Fin Sperm Whale maybe missed on the scope of the nomination, and I am not even going to comment on alves review. It speaks for itself.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know what ? I came here this night (it's night now in France) to nominate another view, but after reading this review, I've given up. IMO, that's not the end, that's not the beginning of the end, but, maybe, that's the end of the beginning, when unhappy-fews (newbies) are giving up... I've decided to let them play together for the time, because every time I come here, I leave with something like a feel of disgust and anger.--Jebulon (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jebulon, honestly, I am about to give up myself, but I would ask you not to. The thing is that FPC is a great place to share one images. I'm taking pictures to share them with as many people as possible, that's what keeps me going in spite of everything, but I kind of starting to understand what Tomas meant.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the scope, but even so, I would still oppose because it is small, low quality, and it is not hard to get pictures in this scope. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In you first review you said "The quality isn't bad", now you said "low quality". The image is 2 mega pixels, and no it is not easy to get such shots in the nature with such patterns of caustics, with corals and barracuda for more wow. --Mbz1 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Juliancolton | Talk 02:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 10:55:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The great footballer Pelé dribbling past a defender
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 07:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Young caterpillar of Narrow-bordered Five-spot Burnet. Photo taken on strand of lake Žiaunė.
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 15:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

La Rocca Malatestiana di Cesena
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Juliancolton | Talk 02:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 04:57:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

"Sunlight illuminated the lingering oil slick off the Mississippi Delta on May 24, 2010. The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra satellite captured this image the same day."
  • Because the sea is not black and the oil is not white in daylight. Thus, this must be some kind of infrared (IR) image with light warm areas (the oil) and dark colder areas (the sea). This is because the quantity of IR radiation emitted by any body is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature (Stefan-Boltzmann law). This property allows IR satellite imagery to be used for mapping the temperature of the surface. Concerning the present case it is a well known fact that spilled oil is usually warmer than the water because it heats faster with the sun's radiation. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the full description from NASA. They explain how the smooth surface of the slick can lead to brighter reflections than rough sea water (at least in the sunglint area, explained further here), but they don't say whether this image is intended to approximate natural colours. It doesn't look far off to me (comparing against this "photo-like" image), although it appears very different to this image from a few days before, which is not affected by sunglint. Here is a false colour image highlighting the slick. --Avenue (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, the explanation makes sense and I was wrong. Anyway, I think that we should be more carefull in chosing and preparing images to be nominated to FPC. I'm also a bit annoyed by this continuous spamming of NASA pictures. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Satellite_images

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 05:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A high purity (99.999 %) tantalum single crystal, made by the floating zone process, some single crystalline fragments of Tantalum, as well as a high purity (99,99 % = 4N) 1 cm3 tantalum cube for comparison.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Jun 2010 at 19:53:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of Beirut dating back to the 19th century
Stitched only, without cleaning
  • I understand your concerns. But I wouldn't go as far as calling it 'creating content', it's considered as some type of interpolation (the same as stitching, cleaning dirt and removing stains). The slope was suggested by the stitching procedure which is based on complex mathematical procedure, and by simply comparing the edges of the photographs. Concerning the file, I do not believe, the slope is the one you believe to be above the crane, I suspect it's somewhere behind the left building. Anyway, would you support the original instead? --Banzoo (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fairly sure this is the slope, check the shape of the adjacent mountains, they fit perfectly. And please do not argue with complex mathematical procedures. I know how stitching works. That clone job has nothing to do with that. It was just guesswork. --Dschwen (talk) 13:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that the heal function is considered as well as a type of guesswork. It's a type of interpolation, there is no single solution. However, this guess was based on the slopes of the stitched work. You are welcome to provide another solution. Also, I would like to have your opinion on the un-retouched, only stitched work. Thanks! --Banzoo (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the level of manipulation that has taken place. While I do not oppose filling in the tear with a suitable background tone, in modern restoration practices (paintings, monuments etc), the "interventions" must be apparent to the naked eye. If you have added a strip where the photo is torn, then a slight difference in texture or tonality ought to be left specifically to inform the viewer that this part is a reconstruction.
It is incomprehensible to me that a black and white version should be preferred and put up for assessment, in preference to the sepia colour of the original! Please take it away, and put up the much more attractive sepia version.
Re Black and White versions. My opinion is that black and white versions are often useful accessories. A much smaller version of the B&W, one which does not jam your browser when you try to load it, is always a useful thing to have, for articles where pics are presented as thumbnails, and a viewer might want to quickly check out the picture in a larger size without any trouble. If that larger size goes beyond the edges of the screen, its a nuisance for rapid viewing.
Amandajm (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I knew Commons would not encourage restoration I wouldn't spend much time and effort trying to partially restore and cleaning dirt and stains from this gargantuan panorama (100+ MPixels). But I beg to differ; a quick look at the featured pictures under the History category reveals that restoration was part of a large group of pictures. For instance, you may notice the difference between this original and the restored one. Note that the restored one always link to the original, so that users can be aware of the restoration process.--Banzoo (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The restoration of this image is well done, it doesn't add to nor remove any detail from the original image, (for example there is no mountain that weren't in the original one). Honestly I prefer looking at the restored one than the old one. Restoration is always good, the picture is historical and not political, so it should bring the viewer as close as possible to the environment at that time. Otherwise why the hell would go to the louvre museum to see Monalisa (which was darkened by restorartion) and other paintings. SuperAriel 4:59pm 13 June 2010 (EDT)
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 05:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Victory Monument at Bronzeville in Chicago, USA
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jafeluv (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:24:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Jupiter seen by Voyager 1 probe with blue filter. One image was taken every Jupiter day (approximately 10 hours). These pictures were taken from 01/06 to 02/03, 1979 ; and Voyager 1 flew from 58 million to 31 million kilometers from Jupiter during that time. The small, round, dark spots appearing in some frames are the shadows cast by the moons passing between Jupiter and the Sun, while the small, white flashes around the planet, are the moons themselves.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 16:42:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall gateway by night (Taipei, Taiwan).
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 00:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Jun 2010 at 22:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Green turtle
It is different. She swims towards me. none of the three images that are FP now have the same view. They all were taken from the side. This view is rather rare. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC). It is also showing underneeth, as no other image does.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my encounters with sea turtles, I have seen their undersides a few times, though usually on my way up (ie decompression stop). Then again, one generally looks at the sea floor. In any case, the image is good and not identical to other FPs, this is why I did not oppose. Aesthetically, I find the others to be better (notably this one), this is why I didn't support. If it was a different species ... --ianaré (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image you refer to is only 2 mega pixels. No matter how many green turtle images are featured, there never will be as many as the images of same bees, dragonflies and so on, but anyway...--Mbz1 (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on a thief! Fixed.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed--Mbz1 (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment could you please add more info about the picture ? When was the picture taken (you probably wrote it somewhere, but I can't find it in the |date= field of the information template) ? Where ? Would it be possible to use Commons:Geotagging or how far from the coast ? or how shallow is the water ? The link to w:Kona is a disambiguation page. The picture should be inserted in a location category. Any idea whether this is a baby turtle or a mom or a dad ? I can't find a dictionary or a glossary explaining what "manual cloning" means en:Cloning (disambiguation) has no photography related link. Where has the camera EXIF gone ? Or was that an argentic photo ? Teofilo (talk) 11:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added some of the info you requested including Commons:Geotagging. I do not know the sex of the turtle, but they was not a baby. EXIF data was gone in the process of cloning. Original image is lost, that's why I cannot add the info. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OK if I add "English: Green turtle, Chelonia mydas in Keauhou bay, w:Kona District, Hawaii" in the description ? This is because your geotagging provides me with [this map. But only you can tell if the geotagging was so precise that the location is exactly that bay rather than some other nearby area. Anyway, my vote is  Support. Teofilo (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Reptiles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 05:28:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Join, or Die
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 07:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral.
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 08:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 08:46:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vauxhall Gardens
You are right. I've actually been meaning to move it for some time, but it's used enough places that it's going to be slightly disruptive. Long story short, that was the filename on my computer; the 03193u is the Library of Congress file name, which makes it a little easier for me to find the right page again when it comes time to link the image. Unfortunately, when I sent my work to Durova, she uploaded without changing the name, and there was no easy way to move files until fairly recently. It's moved now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort to change for a better name. I still disagree with your keeping of "Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al." within the file name. I think File names should not be more complicated than "<artist name> - <artwork title>". For example, I find the dates too noisy in File:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg but I am glad that it is not named [[:File:Leonardo da Vinci - The Last Supper - Jesus, Peter, John et al.jpg]]. Anyway your effort is probably worth that I change my "oppose" into "neutral". Teofilo (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Edit CN: changed colours and contrast

Municipal Stadium of Paulínia
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:55:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Revelation 22:17 (KJV)
Well it looks beautiful. I am no expert on this kind of litterature or printing process, so in case my vote might have any value, it is  Support. For my curiosity, is that really taken from a book with a page number ? I would have thought this kind of picture would be selled as a single poster so that people can hang it on the wall or if it is very small (I forgot to ask you to write down the actual size) use it as a bookmark in a prayer book. Teofilo (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a collected volume of a weekly magazine. It wouldn't surprise me if the original publication had people cut it out. As for size - I scanned it at 800dpi, so, including the small border I included as the sides are not perfectly straight, it's about 6.5" x 8.5", or 16cm x 22.5 cm. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Non-photographic_media

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 22:35:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 02:45:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moraine Lake, Alberta
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 12 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 05:16:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A massive dust storm cloud (haboob) is close to enveloping a military camp as it rolls over Al Asad, Iraq, just before nightfall on April 27, 2005.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:15:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: this version is already a featured picture -- G.A.S (talk · contributions) 04:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 07:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Plume from Space Shuttle Atlantis
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Flying Red Kite
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 23:57:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Khaju Bridge in Isfahan
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:36:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Red-eyed Tree Frog (Agalychnis callidryas), photographed near Playa Jaco in Costa Rica
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 06:09:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dotted Stem Bolete Boletus erythropus
Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jafeluv (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Jun 2010 at 13:59:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 10:35:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Great court of Baalbek temple complex (Lebanon)
Confirmed results:
Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Panoramas

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:23:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Crew members refuel an A V-22 Osprey before a night mission in central Iraq
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 01:35:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Ampulex compressa, commonly called Emerald Cockroach Wasp. Pictured in Dar es salaam, Tanzania.
Sorry, did'nt read carefully enough... --mathias K 11:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 21:02:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dolomite and magnesite - Azcárate Quarry, Eugui, Esteribar, Navarre, Spain - (10.2x6.7cm)
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Rocks_and_Minerals

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 18:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Suzuka 300km endurance race - Qualifying
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 05:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 23:50:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fontana de Trevi
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image quality is very poor -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jun 2010 at 20:17:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Exuvia of an Emperor dragonfly, photo taken at ponds near Vrhnika, Slovenia
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 20:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Photograph of the Near-threatened Chestnut-banded Plover from Botswana
Firstly, I humbly withdraw the nom from FP. A very hasty nom on my part, perhaps. Another time maybe....Thanks Teofilo for the comments. I have made all the cat changes. Regarding EXIF I am not sure what happened. I'll try and figure out a way of uploading the EXIF data from my computer, if that is possible with the date. Thanks again! Prashanthns (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 15:26:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The church of Wirdum 2010
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 23:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:20:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Alternative

[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

* Oppose for now. Image has watermark in lower left corner! --JovianEye (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 15:15:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Greetsieler Zwillingsmühlen
 Comment There are three dust spots in the sky, two at the upper right and one other at the left of the red hub. I'm willing to support once they are removed. --Cayambe (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always those three... Thanks for this information. When I'm back at home in the evening, I will correct them --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info I've uploaded a new version without dust spots. Please check if I removed all. If you find someones please mark me them with the Image Annotator. Thanks --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 13:41:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

= English: The Kanitz-Kyaw tomb in Hainewalde. Deutsch: Die Kanitz-Kyawsche Gruft auf dem Friedhof in Hainewalde
A jpeg image with 8 bit per channel cannot be a HDR picture. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 12 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Jun 2010 at 08:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Supermarine Spitfire XVI at Duxford, September 2006.
CA = chromatic aberration, which mostly shows as violet and green fringes. --Cayambe (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects/Vehicles

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 17:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chinese paifang (archway) at Mangga Dua Square, in Jakarta's Mangga Dua district
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 21:35:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Chicago skyline by night
  •  Info at approx. 100 megapixels, large range of light intensities and color temperatures, long exposure times, the technically most difficult panoramic shot I've taken so far. It shows a few buildings displaying messages to congratulate the Stanley Cup win of the Chicago Hockey team Blackhawks. Created, uploaded, and nominated by Dschwen (talk)
  •  Support --Dschwen (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Fantastic work, wow! But I'd like to see less water and more sky. Do you have some of the latter left to add? -- H005 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Even at low resolution, stitchlines are kind of obvious in the water. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support good quality - I don't see stitching problems. Ggia (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment the stitching on the water is ok though you can easily find if you look and there are few points it occurs, I highlighted two but hey its water which moves considering the time need to compose each shot its not an issue as they dont disrupt any reflection. I would like to see the right edge cropped as that last frame is totally out of focus Gnangarra 11:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment these are minor stitching problems. the most important part is the urban landscape, not the water where in general the water in the photo can be blurry etc. Ggia (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Will re-nominate when I had time to fix, which will be in three weeks earliest. --Dschwen (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* SupportMZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 21:57:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The bow of a wooden shipwreck
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 01:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 01:38:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

(From left) An A-10 Thunderbolt II, F-86 Sabre, P-38 Lightning and P-51 Mustang fly in a heritage flight formation during an air show at Langley Air Force Base, Va., on May 21. The formation displayed four generations of Air Force fighters.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 04:31:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dolphin Frescoe in Knossos
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Sea Nettle (Chrysaora quinquecirrha) Jellyfish in captivity in the Monterey Bay Aquarium
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Jun 2010 at 18:56:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Walheim power plant, Germany
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 02:38:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Naval Air Station Oceana, Va. (Sept. 25, 2004) - Kent Shockley and his jet truck “ShockWave,” race Gene Soucy’s “Showcat” biplane at the 2004 "In Pursuit of Liberty," Naval Air Station Oceana Air Show. ShockWave is powered by three afterburning jet engines that can produce 36,000 horsepower. The air show, held Sept. 24-26, showcased civilian and military aircraft from the Nation's armed forces, which provided numerous flight demonstrations and static displays. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 2nd Class Daniel J. McLain (RELEASED)

Edit

[edit]

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 21:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Portrait of Jennette McCurdy

 I withdraw my nomination

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Jun 2010 at 14:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Waterlily House, Kew
Confirmed results:
Result: 14 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:13:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The Rocca Malatestiana in Cesena
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:56:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old barracks on the Palon mountain, near the Grappa mountains
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality (noise, lack of detail, colouring) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 01:30:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A ripe dandelion ready to disperse it's seeds.
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 really, really blurry. 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.

--MAURILBERT (discuter) 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 01:49:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Noisy, not sharp, dull light and/or underexposed. --ianaré (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 09:44:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fans of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa
Looks like you're right with the cloning errors... but the white color you can see through her hair is also above her head. So looks like there is some kind of white structure there in the wall behind her... --Jeses (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. --Lošmi (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Lošmi is right, this picture has been modified and it is not stated in the description. It is unfortunate because it is a nice picture. --Cephas (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Is the name of the file important for a FP ? This pic was taken in may 2007, and I see two faces with the south-african flag, but nothing to do with the FIFA WC in 2010. Maybe are there fan of the Springboks rugby-union team, are fans of... South-Africa ? Furthermore, the little crop of the summit of the head of the left person is a pity, and was unnecessary for the compo, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Great expression and color, but the cloning errors lead me to oppose for FP. Jonathunder (talk) 03:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The picture should be inserted into a subcategory of Category:Facepainting. Category:Supporters at FIFA World Cup 2010 sounds like the picture was taken in 2010 during the world cup, but this is a picture taken in 2007. Can't we have a more precise location ? Is it in a small village or a big city ? Any information about the make-up artist ? Was the picture taken in a public place or at a photographer's studio, or in any other private place ? Was that during a public event involving many people ? How can we be sure that they are soccer fans, or only models pretending to be soccer fans ? Are they models paid for that job ? Have they been interviewed ? Are they supporters with an experience of buying a ticket to see their national team ? The informative value of this picture remains a bit fuzzy. The author information is not precise enough. Who is the person who pressed the shutter Audrey Scales or Patrick Scales ? We need a permission E-mail, as the uploader is not necessarily the author. We need a confirmation that the author and the uploader agree with each other about the decision to release the picture as a free licenced picture. Teofilo (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--MZaplotnik (my contribs) 19:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment by the author: The picture was taken in South Africa 2007. It was shot in the open against a wall and has not been modified. The people on this photo are no paid models, but true supporters of the Bafana Bafana team and proudly South Africans. The young lady on the left side later took part in the opening ceremony in soccer city Johannesburg 2010 as a Capoeira Artist and in the closing ceremony as a dancer with Shakira. Octagon (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 21:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
We are unable to write a caption for this picture in a Wikipedia article. Are these brooms still used in Mexico today, or some brooms in a museum showing how brooms were manufactured a hundred years ago ? We are unable to provide reliable information about these brooms. Teofilo (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is always better to have more than less info about a picture it is still not necessary that a picture has encyclopaedic value or that it is helpful for a wikipedia article. --AngMoKio (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 21:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Jun 2010 at 17:18:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Old Japanese train on the Zhushan Line of Alishan, Taiwan
Good points - I've added the geotag and made the image straight. I've also slightly adjusted the levels and saturation. Laurent (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really - that was just the sky color. Laurent (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Green sky? Strange! . Seriously: 7,8% of the pixels have a value of 255 for the blue channel, this a stronge indication for clipping. It's not your fault, it's a limitation of today cameras and the jpeg format. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment hardly within COM:SCOPE until someone finds out exactly which train model this is. Pictures of random old trains, unidentified old trains are hardly needed within Wikimedia projects. The picture should be kept, though, because it is highly probable that someone knowledgeable in Japanese trains will find out. But right now it is too soon to consider this picture as a featured picture Wikimedia should be proud of having. Teofilo (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's not exactly an unidentified train - I put in the caption that it's the Japanese train on the Zhushan Line of Alishan (Taiwan). There's only one on that line so it could not be more identified than that :) I agree that it would be even better if the model was indicated though. I will try to find it out. Laurent (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the category to the same cat as all the other pics (16 of them!) of this engine . . . no doubt one of the other pics will already have this info on (ooops, they're not all the same engine, just similar, but different engine numbers ;-) MPF (talk) 22:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia says "Betrieben werden die Züge mit kleinen Stangendieselloks von Mitsubishi, die eigens für diesen Betrieb hergestellt wurden und teilweise mit Cummins-Dieselmotoren von ca. 750 PS ausgerüstet sind." : de:Alishan Forest Railway which seems to mean they are custom-made locomotives made by Mitsubishi, so that the category should be Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi ?? Teofilo (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, how did you find out that it was a Japanese train ? Teofilo (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On categories, it'd make more sense to put Category:Diesel locomotives of Alishan Forest Railway into Category:Rolling stock by Mitsubishi, rather than the individual photo(s) (assuming they're all Mitsubishi-made) - MPF (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think MPF's suggestion would make sense. I knew it was a Japanese train because I went there so I guess I heard it from someone or I read it somewhere. Laurent (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done as MPF says. Teofilo (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contrast between green and red is beautiful, therefore, for artistic purposes which have nothing to do on Wikimedia websites (my apologies to the Wikimedia donators for spilling their money here), the left part is necessary to the general harmony of the picture. Teofilo (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just happen to disagree with that: I can live with the colour, but the "modern" and quite common design of the tents (I don't know the specific work in English) does not really contribute to the harmony of the image. Also, it hides part of the train and is cropped in a definitely unsightly way. My opinion, anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:49:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

200MP version of the gigapixel image of Bath, UK
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

St. Marien church ceiling in Osnabrück, Germany.
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 10:33:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Zambezi Flood Plain, Namibia
I've added that geotagging with "rough estimate" wording. Teofilo (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this could use {{Overlay}} ? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]
I have changed the geotagging for the precise one of Kasane airport: I think it is better than a rough estimate. Teofilo (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 13:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 04:44:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Comment Pieter Kuiper and Jonathunder oppose the image based on their opinion, and I have absolutely no problem with that, as it is their opinion, and they are entitled to that. Whether or not I agree with their opinion is inmaterial, and will not try to argue against it. But with your statements and the high fin sperm whale I do take issue, for you are not expressing an opinion, but issuing qualifying statements about the image. Starting with your statement that the image has no educational value, how do you substantiate it? From what criteria do you issue such statement? If you were a photographer, and if you knew about principles of design as they apply to photography, you would then recognize the elements that I mentioned, such as color, rythm and texture, which is what this image illustrates, hence its educational value. What happens here is that if you do not know about graphic elements, you cannot recognize them when you come accross them. Hence your statements about the image not having an educational value. As to me working in automatic and not manual, well, that too is inmaterial for you do not know how I make a desicion about working in manual or automatic. What I will tell you is that I make my desicions based on the zone system. Read about it. As to the nice camera, well, what does that have to do with your oppose? So my request to you and to the sperm whale is to prove that this image has no educational value, since you so authoritatively stated so. I think the participants of FPC deserve the courtesy of an explanation of your judgement. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 CommentAny robot could take this picture. the quality of this picture is not related to work ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment ... and any robot could oppose it too... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Jun 2010 at 15:04:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

a Mononychus punctumalbum
I thought it was confusing. Where is the head of this bug? I cannot see it. I do not see a flower - I first thought that the bud was some stage of the insect. I am sorry for not being an entomologist. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added notes to indicate the head and snout - MPF (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And now you are also leaving messsages on my talk page... please, you nominated, you invite comments, I commented. If you do not like it, do not nominate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize. I dont see anything bad if I leave you a message on your talkpage if i cant understand your oppose. But OK, I will never ever do so. Promise! But I still dont understand your oppose when you don't see where the bug starts and the flower stops. Thats the point of macrophotography, to show the viewer a world he did`nt recognise allone. But OK. --mathias K 14:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Very good. Thanks for the edit. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  InfoI did an a crop of the image and tried to get a better composition. I think that is the biggest problem of the image. Amada44 (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Darius Baužys talk 05:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info I've uploaded a tighter croped version to show more of the flower and the weevil. But I dont want to crop more cause I still want to show the blossom with the holes from the snout. I dont rotate the image cause a closed Irisblossom mostly stands upright. But thanks a lot for the try! So, please purge cache and have a look again. Thanks, bg mathias K 08:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- This is a weird little critter! I think the composition would improve a lot if the bottom half of the image were cropped. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, maybe, but than you only can see one tiny hole and not three. And the Irisflower is a strong part of the biotope from this weevil for feeding AND reproduction. Because the eggs where also put in this flower through nearly the same holes. And thats the reason why I want to show so much flower with the holes. bg mathias K 09:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Looks confusing to me to. Neither I can clearly see an insect, and neither the composition works for me. Sorry. --Lošmi (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 12:45:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Boer goat with two kids

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 05:58:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Jun 2010 at 12:09:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cemetery in Łaziska Górne (Ober Lazisk), Upper Silesia - grave candles
We need both kinds of pictures. We need the kind of pictures providing details on how one candle looks like, and pictures showing the global visual effect of theses candles, when they are actually used. If people traditionally use many candles together, we need a picture showing many candles together. Teofilo (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the issue is that there are two large black areas in the two corners of the picture. Also, although the topic of the picture are the candles, it's not possible to see any one of them in full. They are all either hidden behind other candles or cut at the bottom of the picture. Laurent (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 21:04:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Vai (Eastern Crete, Greece): the beach
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 00:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Apollo 17 astronauts Dr. H. Jack Schmitt and Gene Cernan took this image of the Moon's Taurus-Littrow valley. The view shows the lunar roving vehicle near the rim of Shorty crater. In the distance are the mountain-like massifs that define the Taurus-Littrow valley. This region marks the last time - December 1972 - that humans walked and drove on the Moon's surface.

 Support ( Support),

It looks like the photo is made of three photos pieced together, and this white line could be the intersection of two of the photos. Laurent (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody fix it? Rastrojo (DES) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that the fringes could have been desaturated in order to avoid those unatural purple areas as it's a very easy post-processing operation. For the stitching, unfortunatelly... Sting (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This site seems to have the full set of Apollo 17 images but unfortunately they resized them all to a low resolution :( They have some highres panoramas as well but not the one we're interested in. nasa.org and nasaimage.org don't seem to have the full set of pictures either. Laurent (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 20 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:55:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Brown Bear bathing

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 14:11:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lighthouse, and tide pools with wildlife
It is of course matter of taste, but IMO remove an octopus and get a boring lighthouse, remove lighthouse, and get a boring octopus. Besides there is not only octopus there, but also w:sea anemones, and hermit crabs. I agree format is different, but it is practically not noticeable in the full resolution.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is of course matter of taste" . . . hope I don't have to taste the dead octopus ;-)) [Sorry, couldn't resist!!] MPF (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you really, and I mean really, would not like to taste the dead octopus, you'd better support the image . BTW was there something wrong with my English? Should I have used a different word?--Mbz1 (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, the English is fine, it's just my warped sense of humour ;-) MPF (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it is not per MPF. It is an usual revenge of a "spoiled child" - kuiper. I knew about this oppose was coming after I removed kuiper's message from my talk page. kuiper, it is about time you'd grow up.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "subjects of interest" are not only the lighthouse, the octopus, sea anemones, and hermit crabs, but also the reefs, the very same reefs that were the reason of quite a few shipwrecks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 13 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 15:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 21:04:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Panorama of the moon taken during mission Apollo 17 (Station 1 East)
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Space exploration

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Jun 2010 at 18:31:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Pink Grapefruit
Confirmed results:
Result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Food and drink

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 15:06:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Mule on the Grappa mountains
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 02:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 06:34:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tourmaline ring
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 16:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Jul 2010 at 07:57:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the reasons stated above --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Jul 2010 at 02:35:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Dendropsophus microcephalus, male, calling.
  •  Comment Most of his photostream are taken in situ, and those that aren't are usually in a light-box with a white background, but I'm not sure. I will ask, but his last facebook status update was "Ready to venture into the Darien. lets hope we get some good frogs." so I doubt we'll get a timely reply :). --99of9 (talk) 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Jujutacular T · C 13:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Amphibians

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 22:52:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

An F-22 Raptor, an F-117 Nighthawk, an F-4 Phantom and an F-15 Eagle fly over Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., Oct. 27, 2007, during the Holloman Air and Space Expo. The expo showcased Air Force capabilities and the 49th Fighter Wing.
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 05:17:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Far better IMO. I remove my opposition, but I don't support because I find the left part strangely unsharp, even near to the focus plane. --Eusebius (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /--Cayambe (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 18:44:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tornado near Abingdon, IL

Alt

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 18:44:17 (UTC)

Tornado near Abingdon, IL
Confirmed results:
Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Jujutacular T · C 03:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

I've made much effort to shot this image. It's a peppermint from close distance. I have used macro mode to improve the picture quality.

*Strong Support , I haven't see nicer image! Urgentos (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you :) Aleksa Lukic (talk) 15:58, 26 June 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: the subject is not in focus 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.

A long way from featurable, even with sockpuppet support! --99of9 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 12:35:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

A burrowing owl on the lookout
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 15:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Ich habe schon gewartet. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lag jetzt aber nur an der Aufmerksamkeit. Du musst zugeben, dass das Bild im unteren Bereich wirklich absäuft und oben überbelichtet wirkt. Das Kontrastverhältnis scheint mir nicht zu stimmen. Es wirkt so als würde man geblendet in die Sonne schauen. Zudem vermisse ich schmerzlich etwas mehr Detail, da das Motiv dieses an sich zu bieten hätte. Wäre mal ein Fall für dezentes HDR und Stitching. --Niabot (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly there is no tripod allowed, therefore no HDR and no stitching. So I tried to take most out of the RAW File and the contrast may seem artificial. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Interiors

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Jul 2010 at 03:12:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Noeud carré sur un foulard scout. Ce noeud est un symbole su scoutisme, en France ainsi qu'en Suisse. (Petites retouches pour enlever des poussières).
Confirmed results:
Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Jun 2010 at 20:18:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Stilt houses in Unteruhldingen
hehe...yeah...unfortunatelly those tourists were to slow for a decent panning shot ;-) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places/Architecture

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Jun 2010 at 08:58:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Semperoper in Dresden by night
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Jun 2010 at 12:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
 Comment I do not believe the vignetting is unwanted - it could easily have been removed. It rather creates a tunnel effect, which supports the impression of speed and movement. -- H005 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. To me it looks like the player (e.g. the expression on his face, his struggle to reach the ball) is the main subject of the image. A player should always keep his eye on the ball but the photographer isn't on the team. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 16 support, 9 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsch: Dortmunder U, das neue Museum für moderne Kunst in den Gebäuden der ehemaligen Union-Brauerei English: "Dortmunder U", new museum of modern art in Dortmund, former Union brewery

Confirmed results:
Result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 20:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 06:11:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor
  •  Comment I find MPF's and Yann's reason for oppose unreasonable! This image was not taken by the US Air Force and therefore IMO is not military propaganda. It was taken by Rob Shenk at an Air Show. --JovianEye (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mainly the frequency with which candidates broadly similar to this one appear as FPC - there are already more than plenty of them. Plus a semi-joke reference to some of the comments here - MPF (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Jul 2010 at 14:39:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it's extremly blurred --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Jun 2010 at 14:54:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Burrowing Owl
Confirmed results:
Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Birds

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Jul 2010 at 13:20:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
Confirmed results:
Result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 08:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bathers in Asnières.

Alternate version

[edit]

Bathers at Asnières, Georges Seurat, 1884.

Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jun 2010 at 09:48:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION
  • I don't know if you're ironic, but I lose nothing in explaining (I find the reasons you raised unfair): It's because of long exposure (exif says 25sec) and you can obtain this sort of results by using ND filters and/or eventually polarizers (which bring additional 2 stops loss). Lighting from early morning probably helps as well. - Benh (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment What is the idea of the long exposure? --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment To make a potentially good pic look awful - MPF (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 09:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]