Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2013
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 17:59:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Manuel F. Guerrero, U.S. Marine Corps - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - hellishly good. --A.Savin 23:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Brilliant --Uberprutser (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Not perfectly sharp and probably tilted, but... excellent image anyway. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Minor quality issues, but the conditions under which the photo was taken and the huge WOW factor can excuse those. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Smokin'! Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ximeg (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Info I tried to rename the file to correct the typo in the filename, but something went wrong (I got a message "Ordering CommonsDelinker to replace all usage" and then it got stuck). I hope that nothing is broken. Sorry for that. --Ximeg (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added a
{{rename}}
to the file to request a rename --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I added a
- Info I tried to rename the file to correct the typo in the filename, but something went wrong (I got a message "Ordering CommonsDelinker to replace all usage" and then it got stuck). I hope that nothing is broken. Sorry for that. --Ximeg (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kasir (talk) 13:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Peter23 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support HubiB (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 18:02:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice, detailed view. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 08:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Original and iteresting place, nice perspective and good quality, Poco a poco (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice perspective and colors. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support like the perspective --Cj.samson (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Bravo, The Photographer! A nice depiction of an unusual place! Not perfect (noise, lack of detail) but good enough for making justice to the subject. Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank Alvesgaspar, I do not do everything, Poco a poco was the one who corrected the perspective --The Photographer (talk) 22:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral interesting perspective, however looks very "artificial" HubiB (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Caparica January 2013-1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 14:47:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Winter sea on the beach of Costa da Caparica, Portugal. Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Telemaque MySon (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This is definitely a QI, but I don't see this as FP. Sorry. Just to much of this road in the image and as it is dominating that much it is ruining the wow factor for me. It would had been better when there would be bigger focus to the sea. Maybe a crop would also help here. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I would recommend a crop on the left for two reasons: 1) the pole is a bit distracting at that position; either leave more space to the left (not possible in post) or remove it completely; 2) currently, the road is too centered. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment i really like the right part of the image with the sky and the sea! but i also think a crop will improve the images.--ArildV (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Info -- Here is an alternative version with a crop on the left and bottom, trying to address the issues raised above. Please feel free to add different vesions!-- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support ArildV (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) even better after the new crop --ArildV (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is better now. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yes indeed.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Many things are very good in this picture.--Jebulon (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 06:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The mood of an upcoming storm is captured nearly perfectly. I would have supported without any doubt in case of a more special motif, but just an empty beach promenade like here, I find way too ordinary... The image resolution is really wow indeed, but someone who supports just because of that should have a look in full view: not really sharp, parts of the sky look pixelated. All in all: not special enough to me for an FP, sorry. --A.Savin 23:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Defense.gov photo essay 080227-F-6655M-315 (crop).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 14:04:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Jerry Morrison (U.S. Air Force) - uploaded by Slick-o-bot - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Slick (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, a bit too noisy & I don't like the side view. --A.Savin 23:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
File:HMS Severn.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 22:02:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by LA Gregg Macready - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) - nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose nice composition and mood, but JPEG artefacts. Tomer T (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Insufficient quality, sorry. --A.Savin 21:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Imam Reza shrine.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:23:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by User:Mohebin14 - uploaded by User:Mohebin14 - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 10:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Muhammad (talk) 01:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Jacky Lizard Kioloa 1.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 03:06:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by 99of9 -- 99of9 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support as nom. I was so happy when this guy sunbaked on a flower for me... and let me get close enough to use the macro lens! Llez's colourful green one reminded me of this. -- 99of9 (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good attempt; but the flowers on background is distracting to me. JKadavoor Jee 08:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Great view of the animal! However, background does not fit HubiB (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 14:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Katarina kyrka (church) and cemetery in Södermalm, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Godot13 (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cj.samson (talk) 07:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 08:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral It lacks the wow because most of the church is hidden behind the trees. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It is a building with tree in front and a shadowy situation on snow arranged. Sorry.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Telemaque MySon. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the comments. In summer, the trees are much more disturbing (thanks to the leaves) and the church is surrounded by centuries-old trees (the first trees were planted at the cemetery in the 1710s), and there is no better angle. I think it's very relevant to show both the church and the cemetery in a single image, and a good illustration of the separate articles on the cemetery in Norwegian and Swedish Wikipedia. Snow is a part of life in Stockholm, sometimes we have snow from November to March. Personally, I like the beautiful winter light and colors here.--ArildV (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Due to foreground shadow, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - hmm, actually the shadow isn't that evil to me because it harmonizes with the dark nordic sky what makes the overall contrast still OK. However, let's be honest, it's "just" a good-quality photo of a building. For an FP, one may (and should!!) demand some more - here we have a nice winter scene, but a rather ordinary one; some of your other winter photos (like this one) have much more of special, as you probably will agree. Let's keep COM:FP a place for that special pictures. --A.Savin 22:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Luis Holden Defence Images Photo 10.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 23:19:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by LA (Phot) Luis Holden - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) - nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose JPEG artefacts and a dust spot on the left. Tomer T (talk) 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see the artefacts, and might be able to get a better version off the MoD. Could you point out The dust using the note tool please? I can't see it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I marked it. I'm not sure if it's a dust spot or a JPEG artefact. Tomer T (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Could it be just a darker patch of ocean? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I marked it. I'm not sure if it's a dust spot or a JPEG artefact. Tomer T (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I see the artefacts, and might be able to get a better version off the MoD. Could you point out The dust using the note tool please? I can't see it! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is something weird going on with that ocean. I looks like it was over saturated and then saved with a high compression jpg setting.
- Support But I still like it a lot. --Uberprutser (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose due to strong artifacts in the ocean. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral No way at the moment for the ocean. But amazing shot.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:17:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Misty (Flickr) - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kasir (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Crop is too tight on her head. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Agree with Hearts--Kürbis (✔) 19:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject's expression is amazing, unfortunately, the composition is not --The Photographer (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support For the shadow even if incomplete - it's a snapshot --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support For the shadow. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Compo, and attitude IMO are not featurable.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with others, too tight crop, unfavourable expression, cut shadow. The moment the ball is impacted would be IMO a much better choice Poco a poco (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Composition in order, i've seen tighter crops on acclaimed images and i just love the action. Not all the world sits still for you to use long exposures. Well done. Kleuske (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Peter23 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Poco a poco. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Mt Penobscot summit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 07:03:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Guide post at the summit of Mt Penobscot, Acadia N.P., Maine - created/uploaded/nominated by Sbork (talk) 07:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Beautiful scene, but low image quality (mainly heavy jpeg artifacts). --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not great quality at full res, but it could be reduced up to 50% and still satisfy FP criteria. Sbork (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Currently, quality problems are visible in the 1,280-preview. It might be possible to get decent quality with downscaling and additional highpass-filtering and sharpening, and a closer look at the banding problems in the sky. Although the dark areas on the ground and some plants will stay very fuzzy. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I tried, that's all I can get out of this image: --Julian H. (talk/files) 13:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's not great quality at full res, but it could be reduced up to 50% and still satisfy FP criteria. Sbork (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose we can't feature strong artifacts. If you really want to try again with a smaller resolution, go for it, but I suspect that Julian is right - it needs a total reprocess.--99of9 (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
File:New Clairvaux, Sacred Stones.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 19:57:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Wow! But let's wait for the explanation, and possible correction, of the issues in the notes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
CommentAren't the colors bit over-saturated? Kruusamägi (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)- Oppose To get some attention to my previous question. I consider image severely over-saturated and think this is a problem that needs to be fixed. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good bye CA, Well done --The Photographer (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --ArildV (talk) 07:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Dramatic. The excavator and other objects in the background does not really cause a distraction. --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Poco a poco (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Avenue (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Aleks G (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral tending to oppose. Very nice indeed, but some areas are overexposed, I find the field in background a bit oversaturated, and yes, the excavator and the hut are disturbing a little (could easily be removed). By the way, only for my own culture, it is "US-FoP" OK ?--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 12:11:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jaqen -- Jaqen (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaqen (talk) 12:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Very nice lighting and composition, but the face should be sharper. The bottom part of the image is much sharper. Is it possible to have a higher resolution version? This one is rather small, and I think that's "one point less" for the image. Is it a studio shot? (in the museum). --Kadellar (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I couldn't bring my telephoto lens in the museum so I had to take it with a mid range zoom: in order to "use" the curtain as a black background I had to stay far and then crop, so this is the higher resolution available. --Jaqen (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Sangaste mõisa peahoone1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 17:12:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 23:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Great angle, love it --Uberprutser (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 12:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ximeg (talk) 09:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Peter23 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pile-on Support Can't say anything else that hasn't already been said. Daniel Case (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- great subject, even greater photograph. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
File:USS Cassin Young in Dry Dock.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 06:43:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Striking photograph of an historic landmark (the dry dock) - created/uploaded/nominated by Sbork (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Info Noisy, but reasonably hi-res so could probably be reduced a bit to counter Sbork (talk) 07:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Great, love it. But a bit to much saturation for my taste, especially the blue sky. --Uberprutser (talk) 11:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Benreis (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral At the moment image quality is insufficient, but the shot is really amazing.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Some saturation and quality issues but the image itself is super. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Uca leptodactyla in Margarita Island.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Jan 2013 at 20:39:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Hey boy, don't come closer! --Schnobby (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice and useful, but to me it's lacking detail a bit. The resolution is barely above 2 MP. For a subject that doesn't "run away" I may demand some more, sorry. --A.Savin 11:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not like to explain, however, the subject is extremely small, about 5 inches, my 70-300 in macro could not capture more details. --The Photographer (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Why not? This shot by you File:Fiddler crab 4.jpg has more resolution, though it's lacking sharpness and the lighting I find better in the FPC version. --A.Savin 13:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- That version is seen significantly more blurred. An image is bigger is not necessarily having more details --The Photographer (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I do not like to explain, however, the subject is extremely small, about 5 inches, my 70-300 in macro could not capture more details. --The Photographer (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I partially agree with A.Savin, but I think overall it's good enough. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 19:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Papaver April 2010-13 crop.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Jan 2013 at 08:11:17 (UTC)
-
Capsule of a Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum)
-
Bud of Opium Poppy (Papaver somniferum)
-
Opium Poppy flower showing a bud and a fruit in the background
- Info created by Alvesgaspar - uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kasir (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Godot13 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Good set, but same bud are featured early here File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The picture in which George Chernilevsky brought up is Original and also FP in commons. I made up my mind to put forward three photos separately. It is momentous to note that Opium Poppy flower is transformed in new set. For more details please link to [1]---Alborzagros (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; but there is not a need to update our FPs according to en:wiki. Further note that they moved the FP to the gallery and may de-list soon. The name Opium Poppy is used for Papaver somniferum but it is not very important. Not a fan of too many sets otherwise there is a strong link between the pictures like dorsal and ventral side of an insect. So Oppose. JKadavoor Jee 08:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Peter23 (talk) 14:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Image:Sguathi Vederne.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 14:27:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tn4196 - uploaded by Tn4196 - nominated by Tn4196 -- Tn4196 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tn4196 (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Request can you add please a geotag? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Here, geotag is ready. --Tn4196 (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Overexposed tree (left and right) and part of the rock, bluish tint on the rock and tilted (see water line). Nice place indeed. --Cayambe (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I think you pushed the brightness/fill light levels too much --Uberprutser (talk) 01:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per others Kruusamägi (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Grohman peak eastern face 2013.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 08:53:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by moroder - uploaded by moroder - nominated by moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 08:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Missing sharpness (especially at the top part) with regard to the optimal shooting conditions. Cannot figure out the reason, your 24-70 / 2.8 should not be that bad. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose composition for me a mountain picture like many others HubiB (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Power County Wind Farm 002.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 12:01:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info uploaded by Bomazi - nominated by Bomazi -- Bomazi (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Bomazi (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support: High quality, good composition. I would probably crop a little bit from the top and brighten a little bit, but that's just my opinion. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support All good, but as per Julian above I also think that slightly less sky will inprove it even more. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral low resolution compared to other FP landscapes and an absolutely unnecessary downsampling from 24MP to 2,5MP.--ArildV (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support really good, but maybe the noise in the sky can be reduced? Tomer T (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm fine with the proposed edits. I am however not competent enough to do this work myself. Bomazi (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to get the original, unedited and unscaled file as a basis for those edits? --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think so. Bomazi (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to get the original, unedited and unscaled file as a basis for those edits? --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Now this is a wind farm I like ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Spb 06-2012 University Embankment 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 13:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info The image shows the most prominent part of the University Embankment (with some historical buildings of the Spb State University) in Saint Petersburg, Russia, as seen from the St. Isaac's Cathedral, during a changeable weather. All by A.Savin --A.Savin 13:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- A.Savin 13:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose the trees are disturbing to me. Tomer T (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Nice view of the buildings but the trees are distracting! --Cj.samson (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 20:12:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Yathin sk - uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Request Lower the brightness slightly and raise the contrast slightly. It would make the photograph flawless. - Scottthezombie (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Definitely helps the image
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but here I shehe a very bad light --Böhringer (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure I understand why the light is bad. The angle? Brightness? Could you please elaborate? Thanks. :)
- Support Yathin sk (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Most of the subject is in its own shadow --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I actually think that's what makes this image beautiful. Nossob (talk) 06:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor lighting. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I still think the image has great lighting and is of superb quality, especially for an animal that is primarily nocturnal. Too bad not many share my point of view. :) Nossob (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Nossob (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment Please withdraw your withdraw and accept the comments ! It is too early, this picture has good chances to pass !--Jebulon (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Aerial view - Hochblauen1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 20:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- This picture shows an aerial view of the summit of Hochblauen/ Black Forest (1164 m) and communication tower. In the background the Upper Rhine Plain is visible.
- Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 20:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Average centered composition, not really featurable IMO.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- I question if this aerial view is really banal and average. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Average, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, color, sharpness HubiB (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
File:C-17 test sortie.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 03:01:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by U.S. Air Force - uploaded and nominated by Marcus Qwertyus -- Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Accompanying story. This is the lede image for the en.wp C-17 article and one of my favorite contributions to Commons. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support - --heb [T C E] 11:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Pesten Überblick.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 17:20:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info The image shows Peesten a borough of Kasendorf in northern Part of Bavaria. On right side is the old castle, on left side you see a Tilia with a frame work, which is used once a year for dancing in the tree. created by Benreis - uploaded by Benreis - nominated by Benreis -- Benreis (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Benreis (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The scene needs perspective correction. The bottom crop cuts through an object. There is some chromatic abberration around the base platform of the foreground object. --99of9 (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose PEr 99of9 plus the actual composition seems to be missing something on the right. But please try perspective correction first.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Weird cropping. Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose inconvenient cropping in the front an on the right HubiB (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2013 at 17:09:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by "Le Petit Journal" - uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support From Bibliothèque nationale de France, just one century ago, the front page of the weekly illustrated supplement of "Le Petit Journal", january 26, 1913, celebrating the election of the new french President. One can see on the file page the correction I've made from the original, very damaged. It is not a "restoration" of an old nice quality print, please remember it is only a sample of a cheap newspaper... It has historical value because of the centenary, and because Poincaré would be the President of France during the "Great War". High resolution upload.-- Jebulon (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. I think the date for first publication is 26 January 1913 as stated here; not 1923 as in file description. JKadavoor Jee 06:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- My mistake, thank you. Corrected now. --Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well done and high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yes high EV indeed.--Telemaque MySon (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support good work! Kruusamägi (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 04:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by William Blake - uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow. 1795, really ? Looks far more "modern". Nice and interesting discovery for me.--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 14:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Cj.samson (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Österreichischer Filmpreis 2013 B Ulrich Seidl 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 06:33:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Tsui (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tsui (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Would probably be better if the black sliver on the right were cropped. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. I left it there intentionally, to give the image a kind of frame. --Tsui (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose I can live with it. Weak Support. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. I left it there intentionally, to give the image a kind of frame. --Tsui (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support - weak for the same reason, that King points out above as I personally like an alternative cropping without the black sliver better, but this is still a good shot. --heb [T C E] 11:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry no, the background isn't good enough for a featured portrait, though the expression & the technical quality are flawless to me. --A.Savin 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Skyline de Chicago desde el centro, Illinois, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-20, DD 14.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 12:52:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Chicago Skyline, Illinois, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 12:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Of course it is great, but it is tilted (building leaning left on the left and right on the right) and there might be some distortion. Ademas, some correction of exposure, on the building on the left is needed IMO .--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Improved through addressing your comments and other issues, thanks, Poco a poco (talk) 17:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Vincennes - Chateau 02.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2013 at 13:45:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Selbymay - uploaded by Selbymay - nominated by Blaue Max -- Blaue Max (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Blaue Max (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I see some jpeg artefacts...--Telemaque MySon (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Benreis (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like it --Llorenzi (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well, thanks to Blaue Max for this nomination. Although it's not the top quality, I still like it :) --Selbymay (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 20:57:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Fir0002 - uploaded by Fir0002 - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose That is too small and under the 2 Mpx limit. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the size is to small (less then 2MP) + not acceptable license (GFDL 1.2 only). Please see the "Formal things" - Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Blackpool Tower Ballroom revisited (7636143384).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 04:25:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Michael Beckwith - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- for sure Penyulap ☏ 11:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp with strong geometric distortion. I don't think it'll make the cut. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 15:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Stunning place, but the perspective distortion is disturbing, more like looking down a barrel than a big hall. As per Commons:Image_guidelines, Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Perspective distortion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
File:Graxaim.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 10:43:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by DZanella - uploaded by DZanella - nominated by DZanella -- Dzanella (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Dzanella (talk) 10:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Main object unsharp, composition is quite flat, strange colours for me. — Draceane diskuse 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition, color, sharpness HubiB (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 22:43:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info View of Los Gigantes (The Giants) from Puerto de Santiago, Tenerife, Spain. All by me Poco a poco (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Neutral needs a crop; the unused space at the left can probably be cropped to the great benefit of the rest of the image.Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)- Cropped Poco a poco (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful --The Photographer (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Some clipping on the white houses, and I feel the WB could be a little warmer. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done Clipping fixed and temperature increased by 400°K, looks better, thanks Poco a poco (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Straightforward picture and theme, suggesting that it was a routine shot. Maybe so, but the composition and image quality are very good and some apparently minor details make the difference. For example, the plant in the foreground and the spatial perspective in the left side. This picture illustrates something which I've been seeking for longtime: making FP worth images out of banal nature subjects. Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback! I am happy that you like the results and you found what you had been looking for a long time :) Nevertheless as author I can tell you that this view was quite impressive to me, and I have travelled a lot! Poco a poco (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support great work! Kruusamägi (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I know the place: very impressive in reality, but difficult to catch in a good image. Nice composition. Good balance between the harsh light on the foreground and the hazy background. Some minor noise in parts of the sea. -- MJJR (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2013 at 09:38:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Leiju - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good quality and definately wow. --NJR_ZA (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Benreis (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support wow.--ArildV (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support also wow. --Moonik (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 18:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support and added here. JKadavoor Jee 06:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Cool! Poco a poco (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gidip (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support I believe I can touch the sky... --A.Savin 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I feel almost like the young boy saying that the king is nude, but I don't think that this picture is special, I sincerely think it's boring. You all pardon me. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support And that offsets that ... Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Nice perspective, just that the string of lights is slightly annoying. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Impressive. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
File:SanBernardinoMountains8000feetsign.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 05:11:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by, uploaded by, and nominated by Scottthezombie -- Scottthezombie (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Scottthezombie (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't feel this is on par with the rest of our featured pictures. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special and crop far to tight. The sign within its environment will be far more impressive as these examples show--NJR_ZA (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above --Stas1995 (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad crop, not very interesting object, strange colour of the background. — Draceane diskuse 21:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Reasons stated above. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Iguazu Décembre 2007 - Panorama 8.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 07:09:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Martin St-Amant (S23678) - uploaded by Martin St-Amant (S23678) - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 07:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Not bad, but I don't think the composition does justice to this beautiful place. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 13:33:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Jan Miense Molenaer - uploaded by JarektUploadBot - nominated by Slick -- Slick (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Slick (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The girl is a bit green, she must be sick or shreks family. --Uberprutser (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot going on in this image... No bird in the birdcage (a sexual allusion), the girl is wearing part of a curass and is using a (spanish?) helmet as a drum, a bible under a broken winejug. Also a rommelpot is being used. Allusions to the Eighty Years' War? The date seems to match. Kleuske (talk) 18:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice scene with lots of wow but technically not good enough imho for FP --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 14:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 14:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: Underexposed or simply dark;backlit. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)- Done Fixed --The Photographer (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- The underexposure is fully fixed and the problem with backlight is at least a lot less problematic than before. The editing has created some noise issues, but nothing too bad. I won't oppose, but I still think the lighting conditions are just not optimal for showing the cacti, and the corrections unavoidably create a slightly artificial appearance of the photo, therefore: Neutral. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Fixed --The Photographer (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info The illumination is natural, there is a high image range, to thereby be able to have an image without overexposure or subexposures. I disagree, however, I respect your point of view, thank you very much for your comment, always help to improve the standard. --The Photographer (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, levels forced to turn the image lighter make the scene unreal, haloes around the clouds, cactus on first term hides highest mountains on the background, colours way too saturated --Juan Lacruz (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I like the scene in general, but I feel the framing is a little too high. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose The lighting was not the best for the shot, and the usage of the flash (see EXIF) gives and artificial effect (brigther areas there were you'd would expect rather darkness). There is also some noise on the cactus in the foreground and the sharpness of the vegetation behind the cactus is not convincing (probably due to agressive denoising, since the first version was better on this). Furthermore, I agree with Juan in both comments, the cactus hide the highest summit of the range of mountains in the background, which is disturbing and affects the compositon, and the green channel is oversaturated. I think that the idea overall is good but the result is not a FP to me, sorry. Poco a poco (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Per Poco and Juan, nice review, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 09:16:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor angle of view (a side view may far better), bad lights, disturbing OOF leaf in front. JKadavoor Jee 10:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest to look more precisely: a) From a compositional viewpoint a front view is much better than a side view. There is one clear diagonal line going through the photo. I spent a whole day at the area around yellow Lady's-Slipper and believe be a side view is VERY boring from a photographic viewpoint. b) a central characteric of this flower is shown much better in a moderate front view: The stamen over the "slipper" has the function to attract insects that fall into the "slipper" and pollinate the flower during living the shoe. Isn't it striking that all photos on EN-WP or this botanic descriptions are front-views? c) Light: For me it is a nice backlit situation which brings out the texture of the flower very well. I respect your assesment but I think it was a bit hastily. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The angle of view is good. The leafs in front can be cropped out. The problem is the light. You should have used a flash+disperser. Gidip (talk) 11:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose harsh light --Vamps (talk) 11:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination due to missing support. I like the photo (esepcially the light) very much, but obviously I am the only one :) --Tuxyso (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Archeological Museum of Macedonia (by Pudelek).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 16:49:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the dark foreground, the crane (though it can be retouched), and the barrel distortion. --A.Savin 23:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This building deserves a better picture --Uberprutser (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Needs perspective correction --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad perspective and the crane in the background — Draceane diskuse 13:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Draceane --Wladyslaw (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support the designer never intended this building to be square. I like the addition of a bulge between framing curves, like a smile. Penyulap ☏ 15:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I just uploaded an new version with perspective correction. I hope Pudelek likes this version. Ggia (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think that old version was better... i reverted to my photo... mayby version of Ggia to second voting?? --Pudelek (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the users above explained to you that this image needs perspective correction. I spend some time to correct your image. Sadly... as I see, you reverted to the previous version.. which has strong perspective distortion. Ggia (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
File:DSS Image of Eta Carinae Nebula.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2013 at 19:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ESO/Digitized Sky Survey 2, uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I prefer space to be a bit darker --Uberprutser (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Eta Carinae is in the heart of the Milky Way. That is not noise in the background. What you see are stars and luminous gas. Take a look at this movie (which might itself be worthy of being a FPC?): File:Zooming in on a new infrared view of the Carina Nebula.ogv The article w:Carina Nebula presents a number of video tours of the Carina Nebula of equal merit. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Support --Ximeg (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tonchino 16:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Morpho hecuba hecuba MHNT.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 17:17:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Citron (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good.--Jebulon (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support It is an encounter that impressed me. Watch the scale, this is a great butterfly. Thank you to Citron for his choice. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 07:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Selbymay (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 18:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:16:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Citron (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Nice illustration,
please see notes about border pixelation. Please could you add a more detailed description of how you drew this and what was your goal?, Information about brands, among others. Additionally, correct the fin cut piece. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done--Citron (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Seen enthusiasm for this nomination, I prefer to withdraw !--Citron (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination
- Support Tomer T (talk) 06:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Feb 2013 at 20:09:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Yathin sk - uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
WeakSupport. Very nice, crop is a bit tight though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)- Comment More space around it now.
- Thanks, making my support full now. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment More space around it now.
- Comment Nice Image, please, fix chromatic aberration --The Photographer (talk) 10:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I don't see any chromatic aberration in the area mentioned (right-side ear). It's the regular coloration of the springbok pelage (the white border folding into the blacks). Yathin sk (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- blue pelage?, If this were a unicorn would believe it. If you desire, I could correct the problem --The Photographer (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was just looking at the ears and not the horns. I see it now. Thanks. I'm not sure how to fix it. So, I would appreciate it if you could fix it (or point me to some instructions?) :) Yathin sk (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- This is as simple as pushing a button with lightroom. There are other free alternatives like GIMP. I'll do it tonight. ;) --The Photographer (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded another version, I'm not sure but I think so, chromatic aberration is fixed. --The Photographer (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- blue pelage?, If this were a unicorn would believe it. If you desire, I could correct the problem --The Photographer (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alborzagros (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Hermitage pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 09:09:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 09:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support One of the Spb photos that could be used for a postcard, really nice! --A.Savin 11:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 12:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry, but to me this looks like a bit over exposed snapshot with harsh lighting. --Uberprutser (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose: I guess the exposure is fine, but the trees have strange edges making the picture look like the sky was replaced or heavily edited. Also, the trees look strangely contrastless and flat. Might also all be the result of some HDRi-editing. I don't know, but it doesn't look right. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)- Replaced sky? Wow! --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Heavily edited was it, then. Anyway, a lot better now. Support. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Replaced sky? Wow! --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- weak support Good image, and I don't see the problem with leaves, but something is wrong with the spire. This can and should be fixed --Ximeg (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Stitching problem is impossible - there is one single layer in this photo. ;) --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As Uberprutser --Llorenzi (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose + over processed --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Okay, okay, you're won, I have uploaded a NEW VERSION without any software correction (except cropping the tree from left side and perspective distortion correction, of cource). Do you like it, my little lovers of untouched purity? --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support It looks better without software manipulation. — Draceane diskuse 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry, but the dark and disturbing shadow isn't featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- New corrected lighter version uploaded --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alchemist; File:Hermitage pavilion in Tsarskoe Selo 01.jpg seems far better for me. JKadavoor Jee 07:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Opening chess position from black side.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 09:24:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by MichaelMaggs - uploaded by MichaelMaggs - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, a bit dark to me, and there are some strange (sharpening?) haloes on some of the white pieces. Nice idea though, perhaps a good choice for focus stacking. --A.Savin 11:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good photo, strange artifacts. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Please see notes, chromatic aberration and Border cut --The Photographer (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- I can see the Border cut but I can't see any CA there. Where do you see those? --Julian H. (talk/files) 18:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Posterization too and CA (minimal light in tower a8) --The Photographer (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 20:20:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The green stub of leaves at the far left should be cropped. Otherwise very good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Ivar (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Cons: Unspectacular composition and monument partially blocked by tree.Fotoriety (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine✉ 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment So... will this image make it to the FP? :) Additional comments needed. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Петергоф,-верхний-сад-фонтан.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 18:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Aleks G (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Good image. --Ximeg (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry no, the composition looks random, and I don't like the "frozen" water jets. --A.Savin 12:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 14:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Strongly disagree with A. Savin. But maybe use a mask to selectively brighten the left part of the fountain, if possible. Gidip (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done--Aleks G (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment But now the image is tilted! Gidip (talk) 10:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done--Aleks G (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Grazia Maria Pinto - Trento 2013.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 23:39:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Jaqen -- Jaqen (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Jaqen (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret; great smile but the DOF is poor, giving us blurred hair and chin lines. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Stunning model, but as already stated, the DoF is to shallow. --NJR_ZA (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Sharpness is OK (focus on the eyes), expression and composition is nice. IMHO the problem is not DoF in general but that the out of focus areas (especially the hairs) look somehow strange / overprocessed. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Wim b (talk)22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good portrait but I can't see the value of this picture. --Tonchino 16:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Morvich.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2013 at 22:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kirua - uploaded by Kirua - nominated by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kirua (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Really dramatic and great color, but crop on right side is waaaaaay too tight. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support per Daniel Case. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Daniel. Also, the car spoils it to me. --A.Savin 12:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per others. --Vamps (talk) 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Miha (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per A.Savin. The car is catching attention too much, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your comment. I cropped the picture. Hope it's better now.
File:African Spoonbill-001.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 05:21:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Leo za1 - uploaded by Leo za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support A bit small, but wonderful! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per King of Hearts.--Cayambe (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support FA for me. — Draceane diskuse 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 07:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Rather little details for the smallish size. what happened to the rest of the pixels? B.p. 14:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per B.p. Furthermore I think the current 2mp minimum bar is not high enough nowadays, due to the increasing of the resolutions of most of cameras...--Jebulon (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Axis axis (Nagarhole, 2010).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 23:25:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Yathin sk - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jamain (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Brilliant scene, but the image has a lot of noise — Preceding unsigned comment added by NJR ZA (talk • contribs)
- Support magic. Tomer T (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Original idea photo. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful. Please NR though. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice moment but not the best picture quality and improvable crop on he sidesPoco a poco (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice moment --The Photographer (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Miha (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great capture - Godot13 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support excellent lighting / white balance ;-) Ggia (talk) 11:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Better high resolution picture of File:2010-kabini-chital.jpg; so replaced in relevant en:wiki pages. JKadavoor Jee 15:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Florence - Apothéose de Cosme Ier de Médicis.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 08:41:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Eusebius - uploaded by Eusebius - nominated by Eusebius -- Eusebius (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- The color balance seems too yellow. Yann (talk) 08:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Gyps fulvus 3.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 19:37:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Juan Lacruz - uploaded by Juan Lacruz - nominated by Juan Lacruz -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Juan Lacruz (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The
mountbushes on the bottom is annoying --The Photographer (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) - Comment There's no mount on the bottom, the bird is surrounded by out of focus bushes...--Juan Lacruz (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support HubiB (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per The Photographer. Tomer T (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Disturbing foreground. -- Joydeep Talk 18:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- weak support Ok bokeh, even though I do not like those white spots. The bird is sharp and good lighting enough. –Makele-90 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice capture, bushes add to the mood. --Selbymay (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Dust spot has been removed. Bokeh white spots come from snow patches in the background..--Juan Lacruz (talk) 18:56, 01 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Penyulap ☏ 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
OpposeNeutral per The Photographer.Also no information: Exif? which zoo? Why the unrelated 'other versions'? B.p. 14:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)Other issues resolved. Thanks for that. B.p. 17:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)- Comment EXIF metadata restored, it was lost somehow. This is a free wild bird near La Cañada, Ávila, Spain. I've also removed the unrelated other versions introduced by user Kirill Borisenko, which doesn't have a personal page in commons.--Juan Lacruz (talk) 17:10, 02 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tonchino 16:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Lighting isn't sufficient and quite distracting bushes, but I like this vulture a lot. — Draceane diskuse 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose underexposed IMHO, disturbing bushes. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:La Digue (Seychelles) coastal scenery.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2013 at 20:41:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Harald Hoyer - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oversaturated I think so --The Photographer (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support The saturation is on the limit, could even be less. -- -donald- (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversaturated blue. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support You should think about the saturation, nonetheless a very beautiful and artistic image. I like the transparency of the water and the texture of the rocks. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oversaturated --Vamps (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose oversaturated --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Image:Bruegge View from Rozenhoedkaai.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:27:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Arcalino - uploaded by Arcalino - nominated by Arcalino -- Arcalino (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice mood on a characteristic location -- MJJR (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment chromatic aberration imho. See notes --Rjcastillo (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Concerns over such minor CA in this type of Blue Hour shot seems out of place. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice view and colors Poco a poco (talk) 11:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it HDR? --Leyo 14:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment to Leyo: it is not a HDR, just a "normal" blue hour image (approx. 1/2 h after sunset, ISO 200, f=11, shutter 13 seconds, tripod) -- Arcalino (talk) , 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC).
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I definitely do love this city ! --Jebulon (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Peter23 (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture. — Draceane diskuse 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition and colours. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --663h (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 02:55:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 19:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I know, it's an old image... but nevertheless: lacking sharpness, too many spots & printing artifacts. --A.Savin 20:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Considering its significance, I think that can be overlooked. Photographs of Ethiopian royalty or any African royalty of this period with anything close to this quality are very rare and under-represented on Commons. — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 10:32:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by owji (Artist) - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment PD-Art template without parameter --The Photographer (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- DoneAlborzagros (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 10:30:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Unknown - uploaded by Alborzagros - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Question I cant find any information on the museum's website about the CC-licens only a short statement All pictures from the David Collection that are reproduced must be accompanied by the caption and the name of the photographer.? The photographer's name is also missing, maybe Pernille Klemp?--ArildV (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Info I gave it a new license which seems to be correct like this photo in David Collection [2]. Alborzagros (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the problem here, unfortunately, is that its not a two-dimensional public domain work (it is not painting for example, but it is an object). I hope I'm wrong, it's high-quality photo of a valuable and interesting items.--ArildV (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support HubiB (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The license is wrong I'm afraid, per ArildV.--Jebulon (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- DoneAlborzagros (talk) 09:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 11:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very nice, but much oversharpned (I will change to support if you re-process). --Tuxyso (talk) 09:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support If the license is suitable.--Jebulon (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Buzz Aldrin - Campus Party 2013.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 12:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Marcio De Assis - uploaded by Marcio De Assis - nominated by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's realistic with a great personality in focus. -- Jonas AGX (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Suboptimal lighting and framing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurry a litle bit, not very good position of the main object. — Draceane diskuse 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per other. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose For reasons stated by the playing-with-a-full-deck editor above me. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:12:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Corner of the fort of Saint Philip and the Peninsula of Troia in the background, Setubal, Portugal. All by me. Poco a poco (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 10:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Oversaturated, loss of detail (look at first version), horizon not horizontal. --Vamps (talk) 10:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- New version uploaded with a fix for the bent horizon, a reduction of saturation and increaed sharpness (although the first version of the picture was not really sharper that the last one, actually denoising then was higher). Could you review the image again? Poco a poco (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: The oversaturation is still leaving artifacts in the waves close to the shore and you see strange effects in the water through the branches of the tree because some areas are oversaturated and others are not. Horizon and crop are better now. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Ok, I give up and take this nomination back, Poco a poco (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Osaka Castle 02bs3200.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 06:07:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by 663highland - uploaded by 663highland - nominated by Pine -- Pine✉ 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pine✉ 06:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Penyulap ☏ 03:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Love the juxtaposition of old and new. -- Hellbus (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Only one.--Oilstreet (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --663h (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting composition but quality issues: lacking sharpness, perspective distortion, several dust spots. --A.Savin 09:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Charron Freres Accordion.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 19:42:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by UberPrutser - uploaded by UberPrutser - nominated by UberPrutser -- Uberprutser (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Although some parts are blurry a little bit. — Draceane diskuse 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 09:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Selbymay (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 20:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 18:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info written by John the Evangelist - illustrated by Jean Bourdichon (1457-1521) uploaded, stitched, restored and by nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support From the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the beginning of the Last Gospel according to John, out of the Grandes Heures of Anne of Brittany, Queen consort of France (1477-1514). This illuminated unique book is from 1503-1508, the image is a stitching of 260 pictures, restored by me, one may find the original in the history file. Very high resolution.-- Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support High quality and interesting as well. — Draceane diskuse 19:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Draceane. --Cayambe (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support So many insects. JKadavoor Jee 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Technically very well done. This is really FP worthy! -- MJJR (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much ! The comparison (please see file page) with the original could be interesting, IMO. Erasing the letters in transparency of the following page was a challenge...--Jebulon (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beau travail. Yann (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Speicher Zillergründl 08.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 21:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support HubiB (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Lovely composition and detail is amazing --NJR_ZA (talk) 05:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose - I do not like the shadow of the photographer. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak oppose due to the method solving the stitching error --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- please correct first the stitching error (see notice) --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Done :-) danke für den Hinweis --Böhringer (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support
distracting shadow of photographer, blown glacier/snow, harsh lightingNot a big fan of too much digital processing Yathin sk (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC) - Done Shadow my assistant away; Done Reworked harsh light; Done Partially brightened. --Böhringer (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great composition, beautiful landscape. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 09:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Some blown whites, which in this conditions is rather inevitable, but otherwise a very nice image with a great sharpness -- MJJR (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Arystanbek (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Starlets (Macro).jpeg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:33:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Dmitri Popov - uploaded by Dmitri Popov - nominated by Dmitri Popov -- Dmitri Popov (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitri Popov (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Imho insufficient DoF and strong noise. — Draceane diskuse 12:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, poor composition Gidip (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Церковь-Иверской-Божией-Матери.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 19:44:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Aleks G (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Quite good picture, branches on the top however seem a little disturbing for me HubiB (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Kürbis (✔) 22:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose The branches in the top as well as the tree in the forground are annoying. — Draceane diskuse 12:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)- weak Support After some corrections. — Draceane diskuse 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The upper branches need to be cloned out. The shadows should be lightened, and the remaining perspective distortion should be corrected. --A.Savin 20:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done--Aleks G (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good now. --A.Savin 22:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 14:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 22:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support but I can't find any information about this church. Church of Our Lady of Iberia, Zhukovsky? JKadavoor Jee 15:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right. Just added it to the Russian article. --A.Savin 15:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Image:Top of Atmosphere.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2013 at 20:44:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by International Space Station crew Expedition 13 - uploaded by SirGrant - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tonchino 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support But can someone please take out that one bright pixel sitting in the dark part of the moon. Thought it was a monitor artifact at first, but it moved when I scrolled. Vote unchanged. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment seems something real to me --93.144.74.51 13:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Arystanbek (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 20:01:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Bartosz Durka - uploaded by USERNAME - nominated by USERNAME -- Bartosz Durka (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Bartosz Durka (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image has a watermark, has no description, is not properly categorized, is not identified and is OOF. B.p. 22:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Bati girl.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 23:20:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC). Author – Paulo Philippidis
- Support -- — አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, it isn't spectacular picture for me. Moreover, flash is bad for this composition. — Draceane diskuse 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 07:48:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info The Peacock Pansy (Junonia almana) is a species of nymphalid butterfly found in South Asia. Created / uploaded / nominated by Joydeep Talk 07:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 07:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 11:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose For me slightly too bright / washed out. A nice photo but neither composition nor sharpness or colors evokes "FP wow", sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful; I'm a bit confused by seeing the variation in colours and marks with my pictures (1, 2). Is it due to aging or is this the true dry season form? JKadavoor Jee 09:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your two pictures are taken on June and December. A big time gap but colours and marks are almost the same. I think it is due to aging. Why I always get the old ones? :( Joydeep Talk 17:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Same as Tuxyso. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cj.samson (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Policía Militar en Maracaibo.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 23:40:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Background is very busy and distracting. No wow --NJR_ZA (talk) 09:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Schloss Forstegg Salez 2 edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 11:42:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Schloss Forstegg Salez c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 11:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 05:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak oppose Impressive sharpness, nice photo. I do not really like the cutted background, I get the impression that something is missing because the moutains with its rising lines are clearly identifiable as those. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice quality indeed but the composition isn't appealing. --Selbymay (talk) 13:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I find the composition to be too "squished" vertically. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Crazy sharp, but I'm also bothered by the tightly cropped mountains. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose very nice, but too tight. --Vamps (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I can't see any issue except the "cut" light pole in front. Like the rocky mountain behind. JKadavoor Jee 12:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
File:T.C. Steele - Sunrise - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 12:03:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by T.C. Steele - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Palosirkka (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Palosirkka (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Hellbus (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 08:55:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Winslow Homer - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Palosirkka -- Palosirkka (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Palosirkka (talk) 08:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Plantago ovata 1.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 12:54:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gidip (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This rock on the foreground is really annoying. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Liceum building in Tsarskoe Selo 02.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 20:07:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Imperial Liceum building with Lyceum church in Tsarskoe Selo, Saint Petersburg.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 14:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2013 at 21:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Sémhur (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Corrections made to the picture since the beginning of the procedure: cropped at right to avoid lens flare and chormatic aberration; decreased a little an underexposed shaded part behind the lake; eliminated a stiching error in the lake. - Support -- Sémhur (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Spectacular view. The only problem is the lens flare at the top right. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with KoH, FP to me for the good quality and interesting view, but only if that flare is removed Poco a poco (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I have cropped the picture at rigth to avoid lens flare and chormatic aberration, and decreased a little an underexposed shaded part behind the lake. Sémhur (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Agree with KoH, FP to me for the good quality and interesting view, but only if that flare is removed Poco a poco (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Very good and didactic. I think I've recently seen the documentary on french tv...--Jebulon (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Jeb. JKadavoor Jee 15:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Really interesting. — Draceane diskuse 18:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 18:18:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Issues with framing and composition.Geni (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info No, this is ultra wide have like it or not !
- Oppose For me neither composition and motive nor quality (sharpness) is sufficient for FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 18:17:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Bourgeois.A - uploaded by Bourgeois.A - nominated by Bourgeois.A -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough "Wow" (composition, especially motive) --Tuxyso (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Bourgeois.A (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 14:31:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Igor Jeremić, uploaded by CrniBombarder!!! - nominated by Miha (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Miha (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has significantly less than 2 million pixels. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 23:36:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Two remarks: 1) I think the composition is too centered. 2) Did you use a polarizing filter? The sky's color changes from light to dark blue, and I'm guessing it's caused by a polarizer since the focal length is 17mm (more likely to happen to wide-angle) and the exposure settings are 1/80s at f/8 (about 1-2 stops slower than ordinary daylight). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Would cropping off the left two boats help? I did consider it but the Isle is centred in the middle of Lamlash bay so an off-centre position might have less EV. I can't remember about the polariser as this was last summer but I'm aware of the problem it can cause and agree this might be the reason. I could see if some Lightroom adjustment can balance the sky better. -- Colin (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've cropped the left and adjusted the sky. -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Better, but I still think the sky is an unnatural blue. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've desaturated the sky. Thanks for the feedback. However it is clear that this pic isn't wowing anybody.
- I withdraw my nomination -- Colin (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 12:15:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Arcalino (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)- uploaded byArcalino (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)- nominated by Arcalino (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)-- Arcalino (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination No good idea this picture for FP- User:Arcalino (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 11:44:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by kallerna —kallerna™ 11:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —kallerna™ 11:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose too harsh lighting. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per kaʁstn. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose harsh lighting --The Photographer (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination —kallerna™ 17:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Peacock Island Sep12 img 07.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 19:55:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info This image shows an important feature of the Peacock Island ensemble (UNESCO World Heritage) in Berlin, Germany. All by --A.Savin 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 19:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose That is a good image, but no wow from me. Object is just sitting to tightly in the photo. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Thatched-roof villa in the Maldive Islands.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:20:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Godot13 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment in very nice photo color and composition, but why did they cut off the left and right, the houses? --Böhringer (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry no, the overall quality doesn't fully convince - could've been sharper, some clouds seem overblown, some CA. --A.Savin 20:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As Böhringer, I don't like the crops... --Llorenzi (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Agree with the concerns above (especially the crorp), but still FP worth to me Poco a poco (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Some red CA to be corrected. I've improved the categorization, which was very poor...--Jebulon (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done I think I corrected the red CA... - Godot13 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for cleaning up the categorization - Godot13 (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, thank you. It is better now. --Jebulon (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Godot13 (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:ArT of opEN doors project Funchal 03.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 09:04:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment slightly unsharpness and a bit noise imho. --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Reiner Haseloff (Martin Rulsch) 09.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 12:58:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by DerHexer - uploaded by DerHexer - nominated by DerHexer. —DerHexer (Talk) 12:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good initiative, important politican, technically perfect portrayal, deserves FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per Tuxyso--Steinsplitter (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice portrait, technically good, perfect for the Wikipedia, just no wow, sorry... --Eusebius (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Technically good portrait. The reflections in the eyeball could be removed and the highlights at the glossy forehead could be reduced. I'm not convinced by his pose (especially the slanting shoulder), the visible bits of his right ear and the rather prominent first button of his shirt. No wow. And before we start discussing what a wow-factor in portrait photography should look like (again), have a look into Commons:Featured pictures/People. Portrait photography remains one of the toughest genres, especially here on FPC. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the pictures in the category may be wow but are no portraits. Regarding the minor issues, we have to keep in mind that this is a person who can only spend a few seconds for photographers (which is my wow). You can hardly prepare them nor change anything during the shooting. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- We aim for evaluating the image on FPC, not the effort/hardship for its making. I don't think the time frame matters at all in this case - it is a self-made limitation and could easily be circumvented by asking the politician for a private photo session or extend the time per photo ratio in the project. The project's current mass processing is unlikely to encourage perfectionism or an eye for detail. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know what you do; and I evaluate lots of FP's in this category as worse than this one which is why I nominated it. Surely, you can disagree, I neither mind nor care because evaluation is unobjective, related to the people who participate in this evaluation, their personal mood, understanding of FP, etc. pp. (which you can perfectly see here in different opinions on this very photo). But, imo, looking at all circumstances how a photo was taken can at least improve your understanding of it, isn't it? Besides, I strongly doubt the easiness—a Minister-President will not take more than 5 minutes for such photography (which he did for us). Plus, we can discuss whether photos have to be perfect to be featureable (what all Wikipedia articles are not) or if they should just copy the reality (why in fact should I have removed the button or cut off his ear to make a, in your opinion, perfect photo?). But that would take us too far away. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you do care, hence your reply in the first place. Our guidelines state "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." Furthermore "Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text [...]" Some issues as expressed above (highlights at the forehead and eyeball reflections) could be easily edited, complying with our guidelines. Don't get me wrong: You shouldn't "remove" the button or "cut off" his ear. I didn't propose photoshopping them away and even if you would chose this option you could do so by adding {{Retouched picture}}. A more sophisticated pose could have prevented these issues and within thoughtful consideration and preparation lies the quality I consider decisive for a Featured Picture. I don't think that this has to be an either-or-discussion: a perfect (insert your definition here) photo is capable of displaying reality. It's always refreshing to see this kind of debate sprouting its shoots from opposing votes such as mine, for in the end it remains a subjective verdict. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ofc, I reduced the highlights and reflections. If you think that it's not enough, do not hesitate to improve my picture. I would be very grateful. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you do care, hence your reply in the first place. Our guidelines state "Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable, provided it is limited, well-done, and not intended to deceive." Furthermore "Extensive manipulations must be clearly described in the image text [...]" Some issues as expressed above (highlights at the forehead and eyeball reflections) could be easily edited, complying with our guidelines. Don't get me wrong: You shouldn't "remove" the button or "cut off" his ear. I didn't propose photoshopping them away and even if you would chose this option you could do so by adding {{Retouched picture}}. A more sophisticated pose could have prevented these issues and within thoughtful consideration and preparation lies the quality I consider decisive for a Featured Picture. I don't think that this has to be an either-or-discussion: a perfect (insert your definition here) photo is capable of displaying reality. It's always refreshing to see this kind of debate sprouting its shoots from opposing votes such as mine, for in the end it remains a subjective verdict. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know what you do; and I evaluate lots of FP's in this category as worse than this one which is why I nominated it. Surely, you can disagree, I neither mind nor care because evaluation is unobjective, related to the people who participate in this evaluation, their personal mood, understanding of FP, etc. pp. (which you can perfectly see here in different opinions on this very photo). But, imo, looking at all circumstances how a photo was taken can at least improve your understanding of it, isn't it? Besides, I strongly doubt the easiness—a Minister-President will not take more than 5 minutes for such photography (which he did for us). Plus, we can discuss whether photos have to be perfect to be featureable (what all Wikipedia articles are not) or if they should just copy the reality (why in fact should I have removed the button or cut off his ear to make a, in your opinion, perfect photo?). But that would take us too far away. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- We aim for evaluating the image on FPC, not the effort/hardship for its making. I don't think the time frame matters at all in this case - it is a self-made limitation and could easily be circumvented by asking the politician for a private photo session or extend the time per photo ratio in the project. The project's current mass processing is unlikely to encourage perfectionism or an eye for detail. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support For me this is a fine portrait with good pose and composition. When I evaluate "wow" factor in cases where it's not clear-cut, I ask myself, "Does this image make me want to read more about the subject?" And here I'd say, yes it does. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent studio portrait. Nothing better to expect in this genre. If this one is not FP, then we also should delist this or this one (just to name a few). --A.Savin 20:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with you. A lot of other portrayals on FP are much worse than this one. Espcecially (sorry Peter Weis) the one of Angela Merkel. Nearly everything is wrong there (light, level of details, composition, expression, massive NR). The photo here shows a State Premier of a German state, perfectly photographed. And I also agree with DerHexer: A State Premier (Ministerpräsident) has for sure not many time for comprehensive preparitions. "Asking the politician for a private photo session" is not an option in this case :) --Tuxyso (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per other. Eine Softbox links und rechts mit richtig eingemessenem Licht, ergibt zweifelsohne ein perfekt belichtetes, scharfes Bild, aber leider kein Exzellentes. In dieser Situation muss sich der Fotograf nur um das Motiv/Person kümmern und dann dürfen solche Sachen wie oben erwähnt nicht passieren. Man bürstet auch die Schuppen von der Jacke wenn sie da sind, den bei dieser Auflösung sieht man nun alles. Der Herr Haseloff wäre ihnen für diese Aufmerksamkeit dankbar gewesen. Was mich auch noch stört, ist die unterschiedlich Darstellung der beiden Schultern, entweder beide angeschnitten oder beide komplett sichtbar. Bei weniger schräger Schulterstellung, ergibt sich auch kein so heftiger Größenunterschied der Schultern. Leider ist mein Englisch so schlecht, dass ich meinen Kommentar in Deutsch schreiben muss um Missverständnisse zu verhindern. Ich denke du hast nun viele Tipps bekommen und das nächste Mal klappt alles besser. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Die Schuppen hatte ich eigentlich weggestempelt. Aus irgendwelchen Gründen waren sie nach Abspeichern wieder da. Kann ich natürlich noch weiter entfernen. Tatsächlich ist das ein Ausschnitt aus einem Foto, in dem beide Schultern vollständig aufgenommen sind (ähnlich wie hier); tatsächlich gefällt mir das aber so besser. Grüße, —DerHexer (Talk) 10:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per A.Savin and Tuxyso. I just find very funny that, during aaaaall these very serious technical discussions, nobody notices the dust spot at right (annotated). Sorry to be so "basic".--Jebulon (talk) 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Damn, I thought that I have removed all of them in all pictures. Thanks for your bright eyes! I removed the scarf too. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 13:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support High quality picture and per A.Savin / Tuxyso indeed better than some other FP. Regards, Vogone (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Vyborg 06-2012 Castle 06.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 11:30:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by --A.Savin 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 11:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good quality, well done --The Photographer (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Chloroplast division.svg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 00:00:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Diagram of chloroplast division, with cited sources. Editable text is off-page. All by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Penyulap ☏ 03:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — High EV. However,
- The transparent background can be a problem on many of the non-English Wikipedias. On many of the non-English Wikipedias, containers such as thumbnails have a grayish background which show through your image and give it a dull appearance. For example, here is a link to your image in a thumbnail container on my sandbox on the German Wikipedia. The same applies to most of your other SVG images, many of which are very beautiful and high EV.
- There are a number of shaded rectangles that don't match the text in steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 which should be altered or removed.
- The image is not smartphone friendly. I don't have the statistics ready to cite, but a very large fraction of Wikipedia usage is via smartphone. It's OK on a standard tablet, but hard to read on a mini-tablet. In the future, try to remember the diversity of devices on which people will access your images.
- Going along the same lines, this is not a low-vision-friendly image, especially the light green lettering in the middle.
- Despite all of these reservations, I'm still giving my support, since I know that you will do your best to fix the issues, if not necessarily here, but certainly in your future productions!
- When I first started to illustrate for wikipedia, I put white backgrounds on everything, for the same exact reasons you mentioned. However, I read several guidelines that recommended that we use transparent backgrounds (and several complaints against another illustrator for using opaque backgrounds), so now I use transparent backgrounds for almost everything, reserving opaque ones for pictures that need fake alpha masking, as the mediawiki renderer doesn't support true SVG alpha masks, and space images, which take a black background. If it's that important, I could upload an opaque version, though I would rather not as I am trying to reduce "version proliferation" which makes it very difficult to issue updates and improvements. 1 language × 2 opacities = 2 versions isn't too bad, but think 2 opacities × (3 languages + 1 numbered) × 2 editable/ineditable versions × 2 titled/untitled = 32 versions to create, upload, interlink, and update.
- I own a smartphone, and I know all too well how frustrating web browsing can be on one. However, for this picture, the only way this would work is breaking open the circle and laying it in a linear sequence (ruining the "cycle" element). I am sorry, but it is hard enough to convert something three-dimensional to two-dimensions, going down to one dimension is simply too restrictive.
- That's a stylistic thing ;)
- The green text in the light font is simply a footnote, and I might even remove it—I'm not completely sure what the source meant about chloroplast DNA replication.
- Anyway, thanks for your support—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in reading the guidelines that you mention. Guidelines can be changed, although I know, from personal experience, that the MOS is maintained by a bunch of language lawyers who can be exceedingly intolerant of opposing points of view. By any chance can you point me to the proper subsection, chapter, verse of the vast, sprawling Manual of Style? Thanks!
- I understand, which is why I wasn't asking you to attempt the impossible. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, thanks for your support—Kelvinsong (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- After some searching, I finally managed to find it in Help:SVG, under the FAQ section. I also found that example of someone opposing an illustration for an opaque background, though it's on a FPC from 2007. I suppose that Help:SVG guideline should be taken with a grain of salt—it also says you shouldn't use Gaussian blurs because the renderer won't render them (Not true, the renderer is *very buggy* with the blur, but it renders them . . . sometimes.). Still, I think a better approach would be to be able to specify the background in the Thumbnail syntax, though you'd have to talk to the Mediawiki people to do that.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- "However, if your image really needs a specific colored background, create a rectangle the size of the image, fill it with the background color of your choice, and choose the command Object → Lower to Bottom." — That is what I regularly do for my own images, since several of them appear on the German and French Wikipedias, and the default grayish thumbnail backgrounds on those wikis really stink. For example: File:MMX with optical resonators DE.svg, File:MMX with optical resonators fr.svg. The various multiple image containers on the English Wikipedia have grayish backgrounds as well.
- I don't think that WarX was criticizing white versus transparent backgrounds. The image in question had a transparent background. I think, rather, that he meant that the image should have been cropped to have minimal margins. Another possible interpretation of his comments, maybe, is that he thought some other color than white would be preferable... who knows, mauve? Chartreuse? =)
- Being able to specify background color would be a nice feature. I'll try suggesting it. But the specific issue is that the different language wikis are apparently operating on different branches of the base code, and new features like the default white thumbnail backgrounds in the English Wikipedia haven't propagated to all of the other branches. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- After some searching, I finally managed to find it in Help:SVG, under the FAQ section. I also found that example of someone opposing an illustration for an opaque background, though it's on a FPC from 2007. I suppose that Help:SVG guideline should be taken with a grain of salt—it also says you shouldn't use Gaussian blurs because the renderer won't render them (Not true, the renderer is *very buggy* with the blur, but it renders them . . . sometimes.). Still, I think a better approach would be to be able to specify the background in the Thumbnail syntax, though you'd have to talk to the Mediawiki people to do that.—Kelvinsong (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Cyanobacterium.svg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2013 at 23:41:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Diagram of a cyanobacterium. All by by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Penyulap ☏ 03:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — High EV, and the way you handled the slime coat is really neat! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 14:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Highly valuable illustration. High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Kose kirik suvi 2012.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 17:17:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Ivar (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as author -- Ivar (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice quality and sharpening --The Photographer (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Morpho rhetenor rhetenor MHNT.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 21:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Citron (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Nice. Alborzagros (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Jebulon (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Mr. Mario (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I arrived a little late. It is always very frustrating to photograph morpho. A single image can not give the visual impression we feel. The two eyes do not see the same reflections or the same color. Should be made of stereoscopy. Is very easy to do but difficult to display. Techniques displays make great progress, we are not far from being able to make our images steroscopie on COMMONS. Thank you to Citron... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Baobab Tree-001.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 09:37:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose a bit to soft for my taste, low DOF (and visible CA on the tree). Otherwise a very nice composition. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Alchemist, can you mark where you notice the CA? It will help to improve the images. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Alchemist. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Alchemist-hp (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Alchemist, can you mark where you notice the CA? It will help to improve the images. --NJR_ZA (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Baobabs don't run ;-). An FP candidate should be crisp all over and void of CA. The blurry bushes to the left are also disturbing. Lastly, what happened to all the rest (15,862,928) of the pixels? B.p. 14:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Biopics.--Jebulon (talk) 10:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:E-2C Hawkeye and Mount Fuji.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 01:14:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by an unknown naval aviator - uploaded by Oxam Hartog - nominated by Hellbus -- Hellbus (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice angle on the aircraft, with Mount Fuji in the background adding its own "wow" factor. -- Hellbus (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice picture!!! --Llorenzi (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support for the moment Poco a poco (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Wonderful image, perfect moment, great composition. But thats too far away from being in focus to me - sadly. The noise is also quite visible but could possibly be corrected in a sharp image. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Julian H. And the author is not anonymous--Jebulon (talk) 10:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tonchino 16:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak Support Spectacular picture, but it's too blurry. — Draceane diskuse 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please, avoid using other templates than the simple "support", or "oppose" templates, and write "weak" or "strong" or other comments manually. The bot does not recognize other templates, and it may cause problems in counting votes, thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --663h (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Royal Naval College Greenwich view from the Thames.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 11:08:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info What if I try this one here? All by me -- Heuschrecke (talk) 11:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I'm a little conflicted here. On one hand, a clear blue day (maybe only a few clouds) would make for a nice reflection on the water. On the other hand, the lighting here is quite dramatic. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure, but I doubt whether a nice reflection in this wavy and uneven river could ever be captured, the scattering is very high. Compare e.g. this and this Heuschrecke (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC).
- Weak oppose: I like the light, what I don't like is the narrow crop on the sides. I just think the composition doesn't work because of that. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Slight sharpening haloes around the two domes, and some magenta pixellisation in the sky at left, but all in all, a very good picture I like. FP worthy, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Haloes and magenta tints removed - Heuschrecke (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose too harsh contrast, soft (looks like a too strong denoising), lines and curves in the sky, white balance too yellowish, too much sky and water. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Ayuntamiento, vistas panorámicas desde Toompea, Tallin, Estonia, 2012-08-05, DD 21.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:37:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice colors. A bit of clipping at both ends of the histogram near the bottom, but not distracting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose insufficient quality: general noise, posterisation and strong noise (pixelation?) around the blown lights, illuminations and the buildings in the background. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Carschten's comments but for a night shot I think that those issues are limited Poco a poco (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kirua (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Not too bad, but the tower in the middle is bothering me. It would be much better with a crop on the left and/or more space on the right to use the rule of third. Yann (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Britain Needs You at Once - WWI recruitment poster - Parliamentary Recruiting Committee Poster No. 108.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 13:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by an unknown artist for the Parliamentary Recruiting Committee - restored, uploaded, and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting. --Jebulon (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 04:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 13:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Brussels Cinquantenaire R03.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 14:12:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by MJJR - uploaded by MJJR - nominated by MJJR -- MJJR (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Selbymay (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good.--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Poco a poco - uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Athanasius Soter -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Athanasius Soter (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough wow, sorry. The tree in the middle is not optimal. Yann (talk) 07:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:TGV Artésia à Modane.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 17:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Floflo - uploaded by Floflo - nominated by Floflo -- Floflo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Floflo (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp, chromatic aberration -- Joydeep Talk 18:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I´m sorry. Unsharp, harsh lighting and CA --The Photographer (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is far from being optimal. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:The spectacular star-forming Carina Nebula imaged by the VLT Survey Telescope.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 16:01:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ESO, uploaded and nominated by Stas1995 -- Stas1995 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Spectacular image. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yathin sk (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Aleks G (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Tonchino 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Trafford park hook and chain.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 21:45:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Parrot of Doom - uploaded by Parrot of Doom - nominated by Delusion23 -- Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Del♉sion23 (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Geocoding would be nice. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jml3 (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 14:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Strange and eye catching. Very interesting composition.--Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -Godot13 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Upsidedown Rainbow.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2013 at 17:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info I think it's got some wow. Created by Mother Nature - rest by me. Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kleuske (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Burrard Bridge in Vancouver during blue hour.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:22:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kenny Louie - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Vertical perspective distortion, false over-saturated colours and oversharpened. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Catedral de tradición escocesa, Indianápolis, Estados Unidos, 2012-10-22, DD 02.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 13:27:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Scottish Rite Cathedral, Indianapolis, Indiana State, USA. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The Photographer (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cj.samson (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good composition. — Draceane diskuse 18:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and great sharpness -- MJJR (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- (weak) Oppose the tree is (nice and) not the photographer's fault, but it's disturbing to me; otherwise very good photo, but not too outstanding. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Dwarf Mongoose-001.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 13:00:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Leo_za1 - uploaded by Leo_za1 - nominated by NJR_ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks heavily resampled. Not enough details for the size. And I'm not convinced about the WB neither. B.p. 14:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Biopics, sorry. --A.Savin 15:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support much better than most of the candidates below --Miha (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Too red. JKadavoor Jee 13:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Third active nomination by NJR_ZA; all of Leo_za1. JKadavoor Jee 14:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Actually there was only one other active when I submitted this one. I submitted this after FPCBot closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:African Spoonbill-001.jpg for review, but it seems that FPCBot tag on the spoonbill was removed. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems another speedy promotion issue. :( JKadavoor Jee 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Seems like a simular situation. I have no problem if the 5 day rule is revoked by removing the bot action; it allows more time for comments and criticism on the photo and that is always valuable. It does however leave a nominator with a problem is the 5 day rule is revoked after he/she nominated an additional photo --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems another speedy promotion issue. :( JKadavoor Jee 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Actually there was only one other active when I submitted this one. I submitted this after FPCBot closed Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:African Spoonbill-001.jpg for review, but it seems that FPCBot tag on the spoonbill was removed. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:El popular Jesus Ríos (Venta de cepillados).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 02:58:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good quality (though sharpness could be better), not much of special to me, sorry... --A.Savin 09:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) 04.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 06:59:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Godot13 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I like it — it's very imposing, but I feel it would look better with a little more space at the top and bottom. —Bruce1eetalk 08:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wish I had the space to give... I've got profile shots of the elephant drinking. It suddenly (for an elephant) turned and started toward the jeep. The guide lurched away leaving me with some very angled images. This is the best crop possible to produce a level image. - Godot13 (talk) 08:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry but I don't like the crops on the top and on the bottom parts.--Llorenzi (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- H. Krisp (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support After reading your comment above. It is difficult to photograph an elephant advancing to you! (Please add File:Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) 05.jpg as an other version). JKadavoor Jee 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Are there instructions on how to add an other version? This other version is a different image (of the same subject). -Godot13 (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral I do not like centered compositions --The Photographer (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Let the poor thing breathe! Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:30:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Opposeposteration, and disturbing elements in the bottom: fence, people, bushes on the right, tight crop on the center. Tomer T (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)- Please, have some patience. Most of the issues you mention will be fixed tonight (I was just surprised by this nomination) Poco a poco (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- New version uploaded with these changes: crop, sharpness/denoising balance, hightlights reduced, saturation optimized, Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Much better. Tomer T (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- New version uploaded with these changes: crop, sharpness/denoising balance, hightlights reduced, saturation optimized, Poco a poco (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please, have some patience. Most of the issues you mention will be fixed tonight (I was just surprised by this nomination) Poco a poco (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment So will there be some votes or should I just close this down? Kruusamägi (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Tartu Toomkiriku varemed 2012.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 21:24:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Iifar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent quality. I would prefer a cropping on the left side, though. -- MJJR (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 15:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Thought and spirituality - Rakan sculptures at Otagi Nenbutsu-ji, Japan.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by freeimages.co.uk - uploaded by Peter23 - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kleuske (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Original and interesting subject, but I think that some improvements are needed. The colors look a bit washed out to me (try to increase temperature) and the first row of heads is not helping the composition at all. I propose to crop them with help of some cloning work for the head on the left. Poco a poco (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support excellent. Alborzagros (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Penyulap ☏ 14:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The idea and capture are superb, but the DoF's on the poor side; why just F/4?.. --A.Savin 15:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject; but composition is not enough. See these two pictures. JKadavoor Jee 14:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose There are overexposed areas and image is to unsharp. Heads in front should be cropped out. Photos referred by Jkadavoor are far better. Subject is interesting, thou. Kruusamägi (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 09:21:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Llez (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well done --The Photographer (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --H. Krisp (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Although fixing the background noise might help. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thanks for the hint --Llez (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good! --Tuxyso (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Godot13 (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 20:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by User:Saperaud - uploaded by User:Saperaud - nominated by User:Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig -- Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I came across this picture while editing some astronomy articles over at the English Wikipedia, and though, "Wow, that certainly is one of the most striking (pardon the pun) pictures of lightning i've ever seen". I know it looks grainy in the nomination, but at full resolution (right click the picture and select "Open in new tab"), it's amazing :). According to their image description, its already been featured at the Hebrew Wikipedia, and I agree with the Israelites. -- Cenedlaetholwr Cymreig (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is of very poor quality (e.g. noise, CA,...) and is of minimum size to boot. B.p. 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Anadara brasiliana.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 14:45:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by -- The Photographer (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:B25-mitchell-assembly.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 19:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Alfred T. Palmer - uploaded by Tysto - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tonchino 19:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Interesting work but quality is soso and it definitely needs a perspective correction Poco a poco (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment For a image made in 1942 it seems a pretty good quality. Kruusamägi (talk) 00:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's hard to believe a color photo of this quality was taken so long ago. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Selbymay (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose yellow cast --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality JPG from a high quality TIFF. Please upload a high quality JPG and re-nom. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, I would support one of the alternative versions though. The editing here is just not what's possible with the tiff. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Guerrillero Heroico signed by Alberto Korda.jpeg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 23:04:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Alberto Korda, uploaded by Brandmeister - nominated by Brandmeister -- Brandmeister (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Brandmeister (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Maybe VI, Blur and noise --The Photographer (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support The image is a) historic and b) quite (in)famous (depending on your POV). IIRC it's taken in the field and not a studio. Reasons a) and b) supercede any technical issues IMHO. The only thing that bothers me is the difference in contrast between the top and the bottom. If that's an issue with the scan, please rectify. Kleuske (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This picture is not free: Alberto Korda died in 2001, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment — The copyright for this photo had already expired in Cuba before Cuba joined the Berne Convention on February 20, 1997. So my understanding of copyright law is that the photograph should be public domain in the United States. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose There are much better versions of this photo. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Surprisingly, this is the only decent high-res photo I could find. Brandmeister (talk) 10:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose — Your attempts at restoration apparently degraded the image. Here is an alternative capture from your same source: Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment — Commons has a high-res version of the image of distinctly greater aesthetic appeal, although from a quality standpoint, this contrast-enhanced version of the image throws away detail in both the highlights and shadows. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Gamaliel (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Rocky bay gnangarra-12.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 03:24:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC) locale, the
- Support -- Gnangarra 03:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough "wow" - I feel the composition is too simple. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- knowing the subject of the photo (a bay on the Swan River) it is a good catch of an otherwise notoriously difficult process to capture the locale (which has nothing to do with 'wow' by the way), short of a helicopter shot, which would minimalise the features caught. In consideration of the location, the people and boat on the lhs, the beacon in the middle and the rock on the right give it adequate referent points. SatuSuro (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral chromatic aberration, please see the notes --The Photographer (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 14:52:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OpposeIt's an almost square object, needs definitely more space at both sides (and maybe a bit at the top). Some moiré at low floor windows. Sorry. --A.Savin 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Support To me it's much better now! --A.Savin 18:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)- Done I've corrected moiré and crop. Left, right and top is now symmetrical cropped. Support if possible (or change to neutral) --Tuxyso (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting effect of light on the glass --The Photographer (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 22:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but looks overprocessed. There is a rather strong haloing effect. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
OpposePer King of Hearts. Halos.--Jebulon (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)- Neutral Better now, if not perfect. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. ?? Yes, we can. :)--Jebulon (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question HDR is always a matter of personal taste. But can you please mark the halos? I see none. The mood / light was that dramatic (setting sun shines at the building, including the nice reflections on the glass surface). --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The blue sky is slightly lighter next to the building, particularly on the top right. Perhaps you can fix that with a couple of very gentle gradiants in Lightroom or similar. Colin (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe, but I think these are no halos (I must confess that I cannot figure out the meant areas even not in 100% view). Probably the effect is due to the use of a polarization filter --Tuxyso (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not only the "blue sky" as noticed by Colin, but the same phenomenon is visible on the cloudy sky at left too. Actually, all around the building.--Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Call me eyeless, I cannot see any problems. Please mark the areas with the note tool. @Jebulon: If you say halos all around the building you probably identified the construction for sun protection misleadingly as halo, see details on ThyssenKrupp website. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I marked the most prominent halos. They are very strong, and more visible the smaller the image is (so it's not as noticeable in 100% as it is in the thumbnail). The effect is probably around 200-300 pixels wide and consists of an approximately gaussian brightness transition of the sky (becoming brighter) approaching the building, and a brightness transition of the building (becoming darker) approaching the sky. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with HDR but would one expect a halo to be that large? Tuxyso, it is really hard to see at 100% but if you put the image in a paint editor and copy a small rectangle of sky to the far right, then paste it again and drag it leftwards you should see the transition to lighter sky. The effect is really more like a vignette -- perhaps that's what we are seeing and something easily correctable in Lightroom/etc. Colin (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- I marked the most prominent halos. They are very strong, and more visible the smaller the image is (so it's not as noticeable in 100% as it is in the thumbnail). The effect is probably around 200-300 pixels wide and consists of an approximately gaussian brightness transition of the sky (becoming brighter) approaching the building, and a brightness transition of the building (becoming darker) approaching the sky. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Call me eyeless, I cannot see any problems. Please mark the areas with the note tool. @Jebulon: If you say halos all around the building you probably identified the construction for sun protection misleadingly as halo, see details on ThyssenKrupp website. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- The blue sky is slightly lighter next to the building, particularly on the top right. Perhaps you can fix that with a couple of very gentle gradiants in Lightroom or similar. Colin (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Opposeper King and Jebulon. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)- Done I've worked on the halos (nearly invisible on my monitor). Please take a further look and change to support or neutral if possible. I cannot really explain this effect. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have understood what we meant, but now, the correction is too strong...--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done A further attempt, according to brightness values in LR it is now very balanced. What do you think? BTW: I am still not convinced that the halos were "very strong" (as stated above). We are now at a gradient filter of 0,34 EV (!!!) Probably the previous assesments were a bit "pernickety" --Tuxyso (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right now, in the current version, the difference in brightness that should be 0 is still around 10%. Originally, it was around 20% (blue sky on top, directly on top of the building, compared to the blue sky about 150 pixels higher). I think that's quite considerable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What about the other areas (right and left)? It is very difficult for me to correct something that is not visible on three different (one of them callibrated) monitors of mine. Nonetheless: I will give my best. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Julian, please be aware that the sky is not the same shade of blue all over. It is naturally lighter towards the horizon and towards the sun. I'm not saying there isn't a halo or vignette but that one can't expect the sky to be constant. BTW: can folk please avoid using the "small" tag in discussions. It has considerable accessibility problems. -- Colin (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info / Done I've again worked on the sky. Support or not... I can now only underline Colin's argument: This is not studio photography but a vivid photo with a cloudy sky. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral then. I don't expect 100% homogeneous brightness distribution, but I also don't think 10% variation within a few degrees of sky aren't natural. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info / Done I've again worked on the sky. Support or not... I can now only underline Colin's argument: This is not studio photography but a vivid photo with a cloudy sky. You cannot expect 100% homogene brightness distribution. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Right now, in the current version, the difference in brightness that should be 0 is still around 10%. Originally, it was around 20% (blue sky on top, directly on top of the building, compared to the blue sky about 150 pixels higher). I think that's quite considerable. --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- You have understood what we meant, but now, the correction is too strong...--Jebulon (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 13:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great efforts; here. JKadavoor Jee 15:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Orleans - Cathedral int 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 07:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Choir and nave of the Orléans Cathedral - Orléans, Loiret, France. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Selbymay (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition. Could be sharper, but OK for the resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sharper would have made for a better quality image, but I'm not sure it would have improved the wow factor. --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Thanks for your support & comments, I uploaded a new version, a bit sharper. --Selbymay (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Featured picture for me. — Draceane diskuse 19:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- MJJR (talk) 19:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support The new version. The previous was too unsharp....--Jebulon (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice, I like the blue, yellow, red flags series Poco a poco (talk) 21:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- (weak) Oppose the composition is obviously excellent, but the sharpness isn't IMHO... --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Thyssen-Krupp-Quartier-Essen-2013.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 13:22:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good lighting and composition -- Colin (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice ! and no halo --Jebulon (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Please remove dust spot, note added. --Ivar (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Hard to see with the dark sky, but you are right there was a dust spot. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Nice work, you were lucky with the light and sky. Just one remark: the right side needs an improvement of the vertical perspective Poco a poco (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Marginal correction (0,3 tilt and distortion) but it was there... You're right I had luck with the weather: Sun was still shining and a snow front was just arriving :) --Tuxyso (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Perfect now Poco a poco (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Marginal correction (0,3 tilt and distortion) but it was there... You're right I had luck with the weather: Sun was still shining and a snow front was just arriving :) --Tuxyso (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Exactly how I'd expect the headquarters of a major German multinational to not only look but photograph. And oh the light ... nice juxtaposition of late-day sun with the gloomy skies. Daniel Case (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Feb 2013 at 16:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Kriskros - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Ritchyblack (talk) 05:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting picture. — Draceane diskuse 19:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 14:35:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - nominated by Muhammad Mahdi Karim -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Images licensed with solely "GFDL 1.2 only" and "GFDL 1.2 and an NC-only license" are not acceptable due the restrictions placed on re-use by these licenses. --Ivar (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Arco Triunfal da Rua Augusta, Plaza del Comercio, Lisboa, Portugal, 2012-05-12, DD 02.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 18:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Triumph Arch in Rua Augusta, Lisbon, Portugal. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - I like the tram and the bus, nearly symmetric. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- You got it :) Poco a poco (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support No, Poco, you got it !--Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Really nice mood. Well done. --Selbymay (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --ArildV (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Wonderfull --Uberprutser (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 05:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 07:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry guys, for someone who knows the place, this is way overdone. That was not the best time to take the shot due to the weather and the works going on. I'm afraid that the attractiveness of the image - the colors and the nice mood - isn't really part of the subject. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I looked into the category, which is full of pictures of the subject mostly with blue skies and without works and I am not delighted. The fact that the road is blocked allowed me to make a shot free of people and "bad" wetter conditions are often not just a challenge to make good pictures but sometimes even a plus. My opinion. Poco a poco (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak Support: super weather. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Without works, it would be perfect. But i really enjoy the atmosphere. The weather is definitely a "plus" --Kirua 13:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice --The Photographer (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support super Kruusamägi (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Lasioglossum pseudosphecodimorphum female 2.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 21:03:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gidip (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- A bit too dark for my taste --Uberprutser (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral per Uberprutser --Slick (talk) 07:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Thousand feet.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 15:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Ondřej Žváček - uploaded by Ondřej Žváček - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Draceane diskuse 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject but quality is not at FP level. An important part of the picture is overexposed affecting colors and causing some CA. In addition -my taste- a more vertical perspective would actually make it more spectacular. Poco a poco (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This picture had me confused for a few seconds. (That's not a bad thing) I kept wanting to rotate is 90 degrees to the left thinking it was some kind of fence :) It is and interesting subject for sure. A more vertical shot would have been better, especially if it would show a bit more of the walkway on the bottom of the frame. --Uberprutser (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support rare and high quality. Alborzagros (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Anyway a great shot. --Llorenzi (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Poco. Overall quality is just barely at QI threshold. --A.Savin 11:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is Wow!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
The Four Evangelists in "Les Grandes Heures d'Anne de Bretagne", featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 17:27:37 (UTC)
-
Saint Matthew
-
Saint Mark
-
Saint Luke
-
Saint John
- Info created by Jean Bourdichon - uploaded, stitched, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support In my opinion, each of these pictures may be nominated as FP candidate individually. But I think it is more interesting as a set. Miniatures made between 1503 and 1508, for the Book of Hours (a book of prayers) belonging to Anne of Brittany (1477-1514), Queen consort of France. I've done some slight restoration by enhancement of colors, removing some spots, dusts and tears, add a correct black background, add a scale, and so. Please notice the very high resolution (each picture is a stitching of 247 images). In case of interest, I advice to have a look on the whole book (many other marvels to bee seen)-- Jebulon (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support : great. --JLPC (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent --The Photographer (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Wonderful set! But are you sure about the number of images in each stitch? Maybe 12, in this case? (I go often there and stitch old maps and charts; you need a lot of patience and hard work!) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Joaquim. Please open one pic on the BNF website at the highest resolution available, and count the total number of 256pxX256px squares I've had to upload and stitch together, with no possibility of mistake... It appears that a "script" exists (I've heard about PERL or "Python"), but I don't undestand what it is and how it works...--Jebulon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look for example at this case: [3]. At maximum resolution, you need to put together 12 images. But you have first to displace the navigator tool to the bottom, so you can use the whole space. Each individual image is much larger than 256x256! I use the 'print screen' key to transfer each image to the graphic application and then stitch all of them by hand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint ! I'll try this next time.--Jebulon (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look for example at this case: [3]. At maximum resolution, you need to put together 12 images. But you have first to displace the navigator tool to the bottom, so you can use the whole space. Each individual image is much larger than 256x256! I use the 'print screen' key to transfer each image to the graphic application and then stitch all of them by hand. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Joaquim. Please open one pic on the BNF website at the highest resolution available, and count the total number of 256pxX256px squares I've had to upload and stitch together, with no possibility of mistake... It appears that a "script" exists (I've heard about PERL or "Python"), but I don't undestand what it is and how it works...--Jebulon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support An excellent example of a featured set. I think adding individual images under other versions will help re-users to find them while visiting any single picture. JKadavoor Jee 13:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Thank you !--Jebulon (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Impressive Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--ArildV (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Really great! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful work. --Selbymay (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Aleks G (talk) 00:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- strong support Very good! But if every photo is a stitch of 247 single photos why do you upload "only" in 3.168 × 4.808 resolution? Commons should benefit from your great work. Furthermore details of your repro setting could be interesting for other photographers (which lens, which lightning, which software, which setting, ...) and could be (if you like) added in the description. Nonetheless: Thumbs up! --Tuxyso (talk) 11:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you Tuxyso. These pictures are uploads from the Website of the French National Library. At the highest resolution, you can only upload little squares of 256px X 256px, and stitch them manually (with GIMP), very carefully, like a puzzle (or make a "screen print", and stitch too, see Alvesgaspar comments above). This was the first part of my job (very difficult). The second part was in improving each picture (cleaning, removing dust spots, correcting dirt, enhance the colors, the contrasts etc..., again with GIMP). Please have a look on the description page of one of them (no matter which), and follow the links. Then you could make the comparison between the result and the original.--Jebulon (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info I have reset the images in the canonical order of the Gospels in the Bible: (Matthew, then Mark, Luke, and John).--Jebulon (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Valmy Battle painting.jpg, not delisted
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 12:09:59
- Info Missing information about this version of painting. See file's talk page. (Original nomination)
- Delist -- Tomer T (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Informations are not missing! See file's talk page (also that one), metadata and disc on de:WP. Just improper upload by Tomer T, only file description needs to be corrected.
- Keep per Chriusha. :) JKadavoor Jee 15:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Confirmed results: Result: 1 delist, 2 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. /George Chernilevsky talk 06:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Glenfinnan Site.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:00:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kirua - uploaded by Kirua - nominated by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kirua (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Lots of wow. Only defect I can see is a very small amount of CA on the ridges of the hills. Overall a very good and impressive image. --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stryn (talk) 09:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Oh I feel homesick now. Lovely colours. -- Colin (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose bad quality (unsharpness with lacking details, CA, pixelated lines) and underexposed; stunning landscape though. --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 12:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Stunning view. — Draceane diskuse 13:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Very nice in thumbnail but lighting is not the best and image quality is on the poor side. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Lighting and composition not convincing. JKadavoor Jee 15:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, the alternative you linked is imo over-exposed - the sky is blown and trees too light green. "If you don't like the weather in Scotland, wait five minutes...". On a cloudy day like this, if the wind is strong, the lighting in the glens can change from one minute to the next. Those two photographs are taken four minutes apart and a half-stop different exposure. The scene here, where some of the hills are getting sunlight and others in deep gloom is quite characteristic and natural. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- The two pictures are totally natural and effectively taken almost at the same time. As Colin says, weather is changing so fast there. Jkadavoor, what do you mean by linking the other picture? -- Kirua (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I wish a bit more lights if possible. I like the light in the middle of second half; but all else is a bit gloomy. Further, I wish a better AOV, giving emphasize to the memorial (?); here the picture seems more emphasize to the bright rights side. Just my opinion; the place is not familiar to me. JKadavoor Jee 04:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done I added some more light, especially on the dark parts. For the AOV, I have other pictures emphasized to the memorial. I want this one to show all the site, including the viaduct on the right side. Thank you. -- Kirua (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, the alternative you linked is imo over-exposed - the sky is blown and trees too light green. "If you don't like the weather in Scotland, wait five minutes...". On a cloudy day like this, if the wind is strong, the lighting in the glens can change from one minute to the next. Those two photographs are taken four minutes apart and a half-stop different exposure. The scene here, where some of the hills are getting sunlight and others in deep gloom is quite characteristic and natural. -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Certainly better than other candidates on the proposal now. Yann (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Some CA, but really FP worthy in my opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak oppose For sure a nice landscape and view but I am not convinced of the quality. To archieve a higher level of details should not have been so difficult in this case. IMHO especially the right part (bridge) is underexposed and misses important details. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Slick (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:21:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info photographed by Chris Simon, rest by me. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Some noise at 100%, but good.—Kelvinsong (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose background partly overexposed, shallow depth of field. --Cayambe (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Disturbing background; it seems to be taken in a close focal length. JKadavoor Jee 15:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:TulaSite08.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Feb 2013 at 23:13:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - uploaded by AlejandroLinaresGarcia - nominated by AlejandroLinaresGarcia -- AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- AlejandroLinaresGarcia (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sharp where it needs to be. Great shot. Kleuske (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Can't be promoted without identifications. Moreover, noisy and blurry. B.p. 20:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Blurred and low quality in general --The Photographer (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Keuske Thelmadatter (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Agrigent BW 2012-10-07 12-51-18.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 14:49:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
* Support Tamba52 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC) per 5th day -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
File:AmirKabir naghashbashi.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 10:54:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Muhammad Ibrahim Naghashbashi , Photo:Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Monfie (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality reproduction, lacking sharpness and stating "GFDL" in its metadata although this image in the public domain. Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Badab-e Surt Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 22:54:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info uploaded by Marmoulak - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. A lot of "wow" factor, but IQ could be better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Nice view. Alborzagros (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support very nice. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose horrible quality! --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Really beautiful image but the quality... Kruusamägi (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I wished to say this with other words than Carschten's, but, when opening the file...--Jebulon (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very good composition and light conditions, but the quality is just not up to it - lack of fine detail and sharpness, signs of nonqualitative retouching. --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The problem here is the camera quality --The Photographer (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose nice view and composition, but bad quality. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 14:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Anyone care to explain the white blank space upper right corner? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate to do this, since it's a beautiful image, but the quality is quite poor. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support it can not be easily reproduced--Miha (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Comment Very posterize image - or lowers the contrast, which are close to the brightness of merge into one, or excessive noise reduction --Aleks G (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This have very nice view and quality.--Ταπυροι (گپ) 07:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose --Don-kun (talk) 08:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Vendedor de agua de coco II.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 19:46:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Rjcastillo -- (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Rjcastillo (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 14:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Vergleich zwischen Manga und Foto.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Feb 2013 at 22:49:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Funny Alborzagros (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support very nice. --Llorenzi (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Apart from the hair dressing and maybe the eye's color, I don't find any resemblance...--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Is that normal that the hair is under the eyebrows and eye? –Makele-90 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Why not to nominate svg version? --The Photographer (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Jml3 (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Photo is good, but the illustration is not of FP quality. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:40:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info uploaded by Ahura21 - nominated by Kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the images fails the size requirements. B.p. 10:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:Antarctica 6400px from Blue Marble.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 06:11:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Davepape - uploaded by Davepape - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support} Very nice. -- Yathin sk (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Nice view but some spots are too bright, Poco a poco (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Tonchino 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Mohsiin (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
File:Begegnung-01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 18:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Hans_Stieglitz - uploaded by Hans_Stieglitz - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Nossob (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very uncommon sight! -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
WeakSupport Will change to full support if geocoding is added. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is 18° 56′ 43″ S, 15° 53′ 52″ E as of Etosha National Park. JKadavoor Jee 06:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 06:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Strong support Solar Police↑↑Speak 16:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support the tension between these animals is very unique, nice shot.The filename is probably not optimal: Begegnung01=encounter01 --Tuxyso (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Citron (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Beischlagkopf Oberdörffer Apotheke, MHG, Hamburg, Deutschland IMGL1399 edit.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:10:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, edited, uploaded and nominated by Peter Weis (talk) 16:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Brown marmorated stink bug (Halyomorpha halys) - Back - USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 10:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Focus stacking image of Halyomorpha halys. Created by USGS Bee Inventory and Monitoring Laboratory (BILM) - uploaded by Jacopo Werther - nominated by Jacopo Werther -- Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as uploader and nominator. --Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The legs and antennae are not well positioned. Many errors reconstruct visible especially on the head. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
-
- Quite right Jkadavoor. Thanks for your explicative image. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 13:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Caparica January 2013-4.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Feb 2013 at 20:01:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Minimal composition of a heavy sea, in the line of this recent FP. But I prefer the mood and simplicity of the present one. Please notice the details of the waves and the Bugio lighthouse, barely visible due to the haze and spray. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice color, bird blurred and a similar image is already fp. --The Photographer (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Eye catching works; but not much EV (including the previous FP). We may feature a few occasionally, but not many. @Alves: What should we do if you capture better moments of the sea in future months? JKadavoor Jee 15:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Not so minimalist, imo. Many things to be seen here...@Jee: we should support, of course !--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think this beautiful picture can replace File:Caparica December 2011-8.jpg at Costa da Caparica. :( JKadavoor Jee 10:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good balanced pictured and good quality, but no wow to me and already similar picture promoted Poco a poco (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Catherine Palace in Tsarskoe Selo.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 19:13:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Catherine Palace and Catherine Park in Tsarskoe Selo, Saint Petersburg.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as author. -- Alex Florstein (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Perfect timing with the bird above the arc (probably not intentional). Aircraft could be edited out, but that's not important imo. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Julian. Colin (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I was there too, so I know that it's nearly the best possible composition. --A.Savin 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support A bit noisy but good. --Selbymay (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 12:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 18:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yes! --High Contrast (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Christen Eagle II N49AE EDST.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 13:56:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 13:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain as author. -- Julian H. (talk/files) 13:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --ArildV (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Perfect capture. FP. --A.Savin 22:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 11:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Pile-on Support Daniel Case (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question I guess this is a takeoff? Then you would have almost perfectly captured the moment where the pilot pushes the stick in order to lift the tail wheel off the ground before gaining speed and finally pulling her up. --El Grafo (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- almost forgot: Support of course … --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is during takeoff, and I agree with your analysis. Thank you :). --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- → description updated (Habe mir erlaubt, das Stichwort "Start" mal mit in die Bildbeschreibung zu packen, da ich das für eine sehr wertvolle Zusatzinformation halte …) --El Grafo (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this is during takeoff, and I agree with your analysis. Thank you :). --Julian H. (talk/files) 15:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- almost forgot: Support of course … --El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Defense.gov News Photo 110609-N-XD935-137 - U.S. Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Bryan Myers maneuvers around a ship s propeller looking for an inert training explosive under a Barbadian coast.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 20:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Petty Officer 1st Class Jayme Pastoric, U.S. Navy - uploaded by Slick-o-bot - nominated by Gildir -- Gildir (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral very nice and interesting image, but I miss something. Maybe it should retouched for a bit better quality/colors --Slick (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Euphorbia canariensis Tenerife 2012.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:26:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Though it looks like a cactus, this plant is not a cactus but a species of the genus Euphorbia. This is a spectacular textbook example of convergent evolution. --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Thank you Tomer for nominationg this image. --Cayambe (talk) 17:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 21:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
OpposeGreat resolution; but can't see much subject details. JKadavoor Jee 06:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Sorry, this image is not about subject detail, but about the entire plant in its natural environment (not as There in a garden). Cheers, --Cayambe (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 15:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Moonik (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:FEMA - 44359 - Oklahoma tornado destroyed home.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 08:51:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Win Henderson/FEMA - uploaded by BotMultichillT - nominated by Ks0stm -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Ks0stm (T•C•G) 08:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting subject but composition poor. The elements on the right-hand-side are distracting. I suggest a crop off the right and bottom -- see image annotation. -- Colin (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 21:28:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Lighthouse in the coast of Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Hawk-Eye (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Note: following a recommendation of The Photographer, I uploaded a new version with a different crop. Poco a poco (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice --The Photographer (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Another FP for Poco a poco...--Jebulon (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Henriksdalshamnen January 2013 01.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:41:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Building in Henriksdalshamnen, Södra Hammarbyhamnen, Stockholm. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment nice picture, but what is the EV? Tomer T (talk) 12:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Documentation of a newly built area.
- Documentation of a current trend in Europe (and part of the world), rebuilding our industrial urban places
- It is the last phase of a massive urban development project that has been ongoing for 20 years, and it is relevant to show how architecture has changed in the project over time.
- Designed by a relevant architecture firm sv:AIX_Arkitekter
- Commons is not just about documenting churches and old houses, we create a unique photo archive of contemporary life and development. Today, we are delighted when we find old pictures that show how cities looked like then.--ArildV (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, Support if you add it to an article. Tomer T (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done--ArildV (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support! -- MJJR (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice and well done ! Seems to have no volume, only a facade. Strange.--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I prefer the more human activity here. JKadavoor Jee 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- A nice photo, correct and clean. But not special enough for FP imo. You should have left some convergenge in the verticals, this way it seems that the building is larger on the top than it is on the bottom. Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Alvesgaspar that the vertical-perspective-correction has made the building look odd. Sometimes the only way to get a building looking right is just to get further away. Colin (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for your comments.
- People here asking for perfect straight lines, with less perspective correction, people will oppose and say "need perspective correction".
- As Colin points out, you can go further away. But there is a problem, the buildings in the background will become more prominent if you do it (compare here File:Henriksdalshamnen February 2012d.jpg). And it would destroy an important part of the composition, to isolate the main object from the background,
- --ArildV (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
NeutralThe level of detail is impressive and worth to be feautured. But I think the crop, especially the large area of pure blue sky and the top, is not optimal (see crop suggestion in notes). I would support a different crop. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)- Thank you for your comment and suggestion. I uploaded a new version.--ArildV (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great! --Tuxyso (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Howrah Bridge, Foggy.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 13:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info c/u/n by Dey.sandip -- Dey.sandip (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral An old bridge and fog is often a good combination. Often it will be better if a small portion of the bridge is more visible, or if there are any colors as contrast. Here it's just fog. For example, 1 or 2.--ArildV (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose—Same as ArildV said. Obviously, due to the fog, there is just too little contrast—all I can see are birds. Sorry, but it's not very useful to illustrate the bridge or birds for that matter.—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:La Rochelle - Vitrail 02.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 14:53:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Stained glass window (1880) depicting Joan of Arc in La Rochelle Cathedral - Charente-Maritime, France. created by Émile Hirsch's workshop - uploaded, nominated by -- Selbymay (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Selbymay (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kirua (talk) Excellent! 17:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Cayambe (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--JLPC (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Hawk-Eye (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Alborzagros (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011).jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 20:14:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Yathin sk - uploaded by Yathin sk
- Support great composition! Tomer T (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This landscape has something surrealistic. --A.Savin 22:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Is this really real? Thous colors... wow Kruusamägi (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Support—Bruce1eetalk 05:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)- Switched my support to Alternative below. —Bruce1eetalk 07:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow there is. Yann (talk) 10:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
SupportBig wows. JKadavoor Jee 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)OpposeArresting image for sure, but I'm not at all convinced this is reality. The dunes are a radically different colour to the rocks/scrub/scree on them. Looking at the EXIF with this tool shows significant global increases to saturation and vibrance as well as the usual levels. Hard to say what other changes were made in Photoshop to the tiff intermediate. Perhaps someone can link to pictures with a similar effect that are unprocessed to show this kind of image is reality, or Yathin sk can say what adjustments were made using a "Retouched" template on the image description page. Colin (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've struck my oppose. Yathin sk says the adjustments to the original image were to make it look like he remembered rather than to make a saturated abstract. Sometimes reality does look unreal. Colin (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment uncropped RAW-to-JPEG version uploaded. I'm not sure what else to do. :) Yathin sk (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, I prefer that uncropped "crop". The sky makes it more beautiful IMHO. JKadavoor Jee 15:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just uploaded the full resolution. I like the cropped version because it gives a sense of unending dunes (the Namib has ~100km of dunes) but the Sossusvlei area is the only place to see the red dunes (older dunes). You're welcome to play with it/upload a new version if preferred. :) Yathin sk (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you upload this full resultion untouched version as a separate file e.g. File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg and then we can offer it as an alternative for FPC. I can see that some of the oddness is in fact natural but like Jkadavoor I prefer the uncropped one and the original colours are fine too. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done
- Can you upload this full resultion untouched version as a separate file e.g. File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg and then we can offer it as an alternative for FPC. I can see that some of the oddness is in fact natural but like Jkadavoor I prefer the uncropped one and the original colours are fine too. -- Colin (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just uploaded the full resolution. I like the cropped version because it gives a sense of unending dunes (the Namib has ~100km of dunes) but the Sossusvlei area is the only place to see the red dunes (older dunes). You're welcome to play with it/upload a new version if preferred. :) Yathin sk (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- BTW, I prefer that uncropped "crop". The sky makes it more beautiful IMHO. JKadavoor Jee 15:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment uncropped RAW-to-JPEG version uploaded. I'm not sure what else to do. :) Yathin sk (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- You can upload the RAW file too --The Photographer (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Is it a mix of File:Namib Desert 1996.jpg and File:Sossusvlei sand dunes.jpg? JKadavoor Jee 13:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This photograph is the most beautiful thing I've seen here in a while --The Photographer (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This version, which is apparently overdone. Let's wait for the uncropped one and see. Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't nominate this and I prefer not voting on this but I'm still curious to learn and to answer critiques. Original version: File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg. What's overdone? I'd rather shoot conservatively with the camera and tweak colors on a more powerful computer than the camera. I used to shoot with Nikon D70/D300/D2x before moving to Canon 7D/1Ds III/1D IV so I've seen it first hand how amazing Nikon can make photographs shot in auto-saturation mode look, compared to Canons! I'm only bringing up the Nikon/Canon issue because I've also seen other Canon users needing to work harder with post-processing/colors than Nikon users. Also, my humble suggestion is that if you choose to use harsh words (like your earlier comment about whether this being photography at all), please back it up with a more detailed feedback (like @Colin did so wonderfully). -- Yathin sk 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those harsh comments never took place, maybe it is your imagination! . There are two things I don't like: the lack of detail; and the apparently unnatural colors. The first issue seems to be the result of the convection of warmed air from the heated ground, much agravated by the use of a telephoto; the second ... I don't know but I suspected that the colors had been somehow oversatured in the digital lab. That is why I withdrew my first comment and decided to wait and see. Anyway, I much prefer the uncropped version! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm high on internet addiction but thank you for sharing your thoughts. It is much appreciated. This is what, an hour or so after sunrise on a cool/cloudy day and was already so hot -- but that's what deserts look like whether it looks good on photo or not. I prefer not to use the telephoto for landscape but the spot of light on a sand dune with a live tree in front was too good to resist an opportunistic landscape composition (something I do rarely!). I only tried to show the colors that I saw and I can say that it was more similar to the cropped version than the uncropped. Cheers! -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Yathin, try not to take it too much to heart. It is such an unusual view that many of us can't compare with known reality. Thank-you for uploading the original as this confirms your FPC isn't as unreal as I thought, though I still prefer the original colours. On Commons, there is a bias towards faithfulness whereas many photographers these days are digital artists. I'm not against tweaking the image in Photoshop/Lightroom but there comes a point where it deviates enough from the original that the "retouched" template is useful to be honest about how different the final image has become. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. It is an interesting thread and I was a little shaken at first because I thought I had only done adjustments to look like what I had seen. I was actually surprised with a nomination and then having to come for its defense . Thanks for your constructive feedback though. -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Those harsh comments never took place, maybe it is your imagination! . There are two things I don't like: the lack of detail; and the apparently unnatural colors. The first issue seems to be the result of the convection of warmed air from the heated ground, much agravated by the use of a telephoto; the second ... I don't know but I suspected that the colors had been somehow oversatured in the digital lab. That is why I withdrew my first comment and decided to wait and see. Anyway, I much prefer the uncropped version! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I didn't nominate this and I prefer not voting on this but I'm still curious to learn and to answer critiques. Original version: File:Namib-Naukluft Sand Dunes (2011) original.jpg. What's overdone? I'd rather shoot conservatively with the camera and tweak colors on a more powerful computer than the camera. I used to shoot with Nikon D70/D300/D2x before moving to Canon 7D/1Ds III/1D IV so I've seen it first hand how amazing Nikon can make photographs shot in auto-saturation mode look, compared to Canons! I'm only bringing up the Nikon/Canon issue because I've also seen other Canon users needing to work harder with post-processing/colors than Nikon users. Also, my humble suggestion is that if you choose to use harsh words (like your earlier comment about whether this being photography at all), please back it up with a more detailed feedback (like @Colin did so wonderfully). -- Yathin sk 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Support — Between this image and the alternative below, it came down to a choice between composition versus naturalness of colors. Composition won, but I had a lot of flip-flopping. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Switching my support to the alternative version. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks the way I remember it too (only I got stuck in the sand just at that time of day after a 50 km rush to get to the prettiest dunes ;-(). B.p. 13:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Miha (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for this version. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Support More natural colours. Prefer this composition with sky and more ground. -- Colin (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice too. Yann (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I prefer the first version. This one has a bit too harsh contrast for me. --A.Savin 11:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Prefer this crop with the sky. Colours; I've no problem with both. I think Schnobby who had a photo of this place can give a comment about the real colours. @Yathin: Hello from your nearby place, Kerala (now at Kasaragod); you've so many wonderful contributions. JKadavoor Jee 13:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Real colors: a very difficult question. We were there in August, it was cold, there was even frost. Also it depends on the insolation, the sand in the air, time of day. In Peru we once had an incredible sight of mountains at sunset with colors really unnatural, but true. So one has to be careful, I think. I like the photo!--Schnobby (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks Ingeborg, for sharing your experience. JKadavoor Jee 13:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks @Jkadavoor. I've not thought about this until now, but it is looks that most visitors to Namib-Naukluft seem to shoot around Dune 45, Sossusvlei and Deadvlei but rarely any of the dunes along the way (which are as impressive). I couldn't find a similar image on Google, but there was one with similar lighting: [5]. It's probably because most prefer shooting with wide angle / medium telephoto, but I only had the 500mm on which I was using in the hopes of re-spotting bat-eared foxes that I just seen in the area. So, just an opportunistic landscape that caught my eye that fit into the lens I was carrying. Yathin sk (talk) 15:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Clearly this one. Not even for it being more natural, I just like the composition and the colours here, and I don't get the composition of the edited version. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Switched my support. A difficult choice! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great picture and great experience, I am jealous! :) Poco a poco (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --NJR_ZA (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Godot13 (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose To indicate preference for original. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As KoH. The original packs much more wow and mystery. B.p. 10:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 11:32:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Michal Osmenda - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- russavia (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- VolodymyrF 14:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting composition but rather poor DoF, big parts are too blurry. --A.Savin 21:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support not the better DoF, true, but still worth FP for me (after all the part that matters - the rose - is clear and sharp) Béria Lima msg 05:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- strong oppose I see no reason why this should be FP. Picture has some technial issues (sharpness, DoF, tilted horizon). I do not like the compositional idea. But my main point: I am not convinced that such an artistic interpretation "yellow rose on rail track" is appropriate for this awful place (color-black editing especially with flowers is ofter used for wedding photography). --Tuxyso (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sentimental pictures are easy to get featured neglecting all technical merits. JKadavoor Jee 13:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose selective colouring is rarely a good idea and in this case the presence of other items of the track makes it look even more contrived.Geni (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Tonchino 14:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support DingirXul (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Waere affbeeldinge Wegens het Casteel ende Stadt BATAVIA gelegen opt groot Eylant JAVA Anno 1681.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Feb 2013 at 06:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Fentener van Vlissingen - uploaded by Fentener van Vlissingen - nominated by Fentener van Vlissingen -- Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice, interesting, great EV. However, it needs an english description to understand what is shown. Not many people here can read 17th century old Dutch, I guess ! If I'm not wrong, it is a map of the city of Jakarta in Indonesia, isn't it ?--Jebulon (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Something like "Being images of the roads and castle of the city of Batavia on the great island of Java" Rmhermen (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Or "Being illustrated roads ..." Rmhermen (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Something like "Being images of the roads and castle of the city of Batavia on the great island of Java" Rmhermen (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice and historic, but it needs some more details --Tonchino 19:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Würzburg – Frankenwarte – Neuer Sendeturm.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 14:28:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Carport -- Carport (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Carport (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest to remove the aircraft --Slick (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Landeck-Zams Hbf Panorama.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 12:54:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Dmitry A. Mottl - uploaded by Dmottl - nominated by Dmottl -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 15:05:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Brilliant colors, screen layout, very nice, sharpness could be better --Böhringer (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Stunning and I am amazed at the lack of CA with all those sharp horizontal lines. What camera and lens was used here? --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, my picture is nominated. Thanks Tomer T. I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikkor 24-70 2.8. Sorry, I do not know what happened to the metadata. --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ~y (talk) 19:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice color contrast --The Photographer (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Godot13 (talk) 02:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow there is. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Composition, motive and colours are very appealing. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Visually impressive. Mono 02:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - The detail at full res is excellent. The two couples really help with scale. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 16:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well done Poco a poco (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Araucária brasileira Araucaria angustifolia.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 20:21:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Pdellani (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pdellani (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Good shot but needs noise removal and geocoding. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Geographical coordinates of the camera location added to the image description. Further noise removal is surely possible but I am afraid that more details of the darker regions of the image will get lost in the process. Pdellani (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting! --Stas1995 (talk) 08:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Moderate Support A little noise removal would help but I've certainly seen (and shot) worse. Daniel Case (talk) 06:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Great picture but the noise takes away from it. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Following your commentaries about the picture noise, I gave it another run and applied a different approach to noise removal. Small artefacts and image defects were manually corrected, while some histogram-based optimization and some fine curve-based adjustments were also performed. EXIF information with details from the original capture added. Pdellani (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Ardabil Carpet.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 06:25:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ? - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Interesting, but I would expect a bigger size to see more details. Also uneven light. Yann (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The size is enough acceptable and big (1,248 × 2,411). There are many FP in commons in which clicking and zooming are needed to assess them in details. Alborzagros (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Size and details are not good enough, but better photo is not achievable. This 10 meter long carpet, lied on the floor in museum and taking direct photo is impossible. [6] This photo is from museum official website. --Monfie (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Pine✉ 05:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Cervus elaphus Luc Viatour 4.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 17:09:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Luc Viatour - nominated by Solar Police -- Solar Police↑↑Speak 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Solar Police↑↑Speak 17:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral There's a featured image of similar behavior that I feel is much better (by the same photographer) imho. Not sure if I like the square crop or the composition with the legs cut off. -- Yathin sk (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose No FP for me, sorry --Stas1995 (talk) 10:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Daedongyeojido-full.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 11:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kim Jeong-ho, uploaded by Salamander724, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Yann (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Regards, Peter Weis (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow ! --Jebulon (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting! JKadavoor Jee 05:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Impressive! --Naturehead (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good work! -- ChongDae (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info This file is valued image candidates too. ØSalamander (Talk / Contributions) 08:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting. High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 23:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is really good and detailed map in 19th century. Magnificent piece! -- Shyoon1 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Alborzagros (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Drohnenpuppen 79b.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:21:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Waugsberg - uploaded by Waugsberg - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support and useful!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 06:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support ace Alborzagros (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good.--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Citron (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Amazing. --Jml3 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Quality is great, originality / subject is also FP to me. What bothers me is the background on the right side. It looks like a kind of wall (was it taken in a farm/laboratory?), giving to me the impression of a snapshot. It could be cropped or (better but more work) replaced with a similar background to the one on the right Poco a poco (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Previously featured as File:Drohnenpuppen 79d.jpg. Only one version of a picture can be featured at any time. | 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. |
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Amanita sp. 2010-10-31.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 21:40:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Friesenbergsee und Friesenberghaus in den Zillertal Alps c/u/n by -- Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Böhringer (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Nice composition, though with slight quality defects (blown out snow, and a bit softer than I'd like in general). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Colin (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice view but not overwhelming and the portion of the picture with underexpose is predominant, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 12:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose lacks sharpness. --Pine✉ 05:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Groynes.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 17:22:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Je-str - uploaded by Je-str - nominated by Je-str -- Je-str (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Je-str (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Unfortunately, lacks sharpness. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose—Very nice picture, but just too small for the amount of compression artifacts—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Marrus orthocanna NOAA.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 12:08:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kevin Raskoff (NOAA) - uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Like Commons:Overwriting existing files, I propose a HD, restored and cropped version of File:Marrus orthocanna.jpg.
- Support -- Citron (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Cool! Poco a poco (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Is the crop a bit unbalanced (too much space at left?) compared to File:Marrus orthocanna crop.jpg? JKadavoor Jee 13:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting --The Photographer (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Near identical version already featured. B.p. 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please read the info of this nomination--Citron (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Bp is right, both pictures are similar being this one the one with higher resolution. The other one should be then delisted Poco a poco (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Overwriting existing files says "Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture (or the equivalent on another Wikimedia project) should never be overwritten - the status applies to a particular file version, and even minor changes should be uploaded as a new file." The other one will be delisted after.--Citron (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then please start delisting procedure. B.p. 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Joke ? Who told you that this nomination will lead ? --Citron (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- No joke, without that procedure it will surely not lead. B.p. 16:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fatal error ? I take risk!--Citron (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Overwritting a low resolution (featured) picture with one with higher resolution is just common sense. I cannot believe that anybody here could have a problem with that. Ignore the rules when they don't support the project.
- And now to Commons:Overwriting existing files. First reason to accept overwritting says: "replacement with higher resolution versions of the same file". So, please, close this nomination and overwrite the current version Poco a poco (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Can we move on now? B.p. 21:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fatal error ? I take risk!--Citron (talk) 17:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- No joke, without that procedure it will surely not lead. B.p. 16:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Joke ? Who told you that this nomination will lead ? --Citron (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then please start delisting procedure. B.p. 14:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Commons:Overwriting existing files says "Files that have been awarded a special status like Commons Featured Picture (or the equivalent on another Wikimedia project) should never be overwritten - the status applies to a particular file version, and even minor changes should be uploaded as a new file." The other one will be delisted after.--Citron (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Bp is right, both pictures are similar being this one the one with higher resolution. The other one should be then delisted Poco a poco (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
But...but...But it is not me who wants it! PLEASE CHECK HERE, HERE, HERE and put you agree ! I don't know what to do...I totally agree with you Poco a poco and Biopics !--Citron (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems a complicated issue as some people involved and trying to fight for their stands. It is not advised to overwrite an EN:FP; but here the EN:FP version is already a separate file. As in case of COM:FP, I think the consensus here can be considered to overwrite the existing file. My only concern is about the uneven crop (as I expressed earlier). So Support to overwrite. JKadavoor Jee 06:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — The restoration and cropping do improve on the original FP. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - Crop is off-centre
and noise is terrible at full resolution.Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC) - Support Solar Police↑↑Speak 16:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support supperbe --Luc Viatour (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jml3 (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:35:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Magic Wizard -- Magic Wizard (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Magic Wizard (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Thank you for Magic Wizard --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Useful image --Stas1995 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alborzagros (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Strange nature...--Jebulon (talk) 12:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Parque Nacional da Serra das Confusões - 04.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 20:11:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Otávio Nogueira - uploaded by User:pdellani - nominated by User:pdellani -- Pdellani (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pdellani (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Great picture, but needs geocoding. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Fine detail. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral very nice image, but the colors are "to much" for me, it looks like a surreal HDR --Slick (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Tauroctony.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 15:23:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Well-lit statue clearly showing all the elements of this mythical scene. -- Colin (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
NeutralNice shot, but noise level could be better for a still motive. ISO 100 + tripod had done a better job. Are tripods not allowed there? --Tuxyso (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)- Tripods and any "professional" equipment are not allowed without prior permission from management and certainly not during daylight hours -- the place is absolutely mobbed. You can see from my settings (f2.8, 1/30s and iso400) that the light level is very low. This image hasn't been downsampled, so I think the noise/resolution is fine at 100% -- it improves to excellent at 66% reduction which is still a bigger photo than many nominations and many times higher than the minimum criteria of 2MP. So I think expecting ISO 100 levels of noise and sharpness isn't realistic. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Then for sure: Well done! I cannot understand such strict rules in museums. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tripods and any "professional" equipment are not allowed without prior permission from management and certainly not during daylight hours -- the place is absolutely mobbed. You can see from my settings (f2.8, 1/30s and iso400) that the light level is very low. This image hasn't been downsampled, so I think the noise/resolution is fine at 100% -- it improves to excellent at 66% reduction which is still a bigger photo than many nominations and many times higher than the minimum criteria of 2MP. So I think expecting ISO 100 levels of noise and sharpness isn't realistic. -- Colin (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It lacks the bottom part of the sculpture, and the crop is very tight at the upper border.--Jebulon (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there is nothing I can do about that now. If you have a few hundred quid spare, I'd be very happy to go back and have another go :-) -- Colin (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Times Square Ball from above.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Feb 2013 at 23:05:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Anthony Quintano on Flickr - uploaded and nominated by ViperSnake151 - tweaks by Hic et nunc ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- I tried nominating this image once before (after being suggested to by the graphics lab so we could find out what needed to be tweaked.) Since then, it has been de-noised, and the white balance has been tweaked. I still stand by my previous argument: this is a very rare shot we got here, and the fact that its also been freely licensed is also quite a rare feat too (since getting the necessary privilege to go up here might be a bit tricky if you're not a member of the press). ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Sure there's noise, but it's not like you could just set up a tripod up there. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 10:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very poor quality. Nothing to warrant mitigation. B.p. 18:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is a full frame camera. A tripod would probably not fit, even if it could, this is an ultrawide fisheye, and for a camera facing down it's inevitable that some part of the photographer and/or his gear would be visible. Would you rather be looking down at human legs or tripod legs? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- In case it wasn't clear, I'm basically saying that there's no possible way to achieve better quality. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the idea and the composition but the quality is just below the FP (and QI) threshold. I would have chosen an earlier time with more natural light, increased a bit the shutter time and reduced the f-number. There was play room to do so, and so reduce the ISO to 800, where the 5D Mark II provides a much better quality Poco a poco (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I personally do not like this fisheye look. Due to fisheye the spoiling feet of the photographer are inside the photo. The quality (noise, level of detail) is not really good, and could have been better with other camera parameters than (1/125 sec / ISO 1250 @ 15mm) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. I rotated it 180 degrees for a better vertigo effect. Should we see if the graphics lab can remove the feet? I had brought up both of these modifications there before.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as it is. This is a rare opportunity while he is assisting in setting up a robotic camera just above the 3 in "2013". So I can't understand suggestions like choosing a different time or equipment. JKadavoor Jee 07:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Turbo crassus 01.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 09:43:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Magic Wizard -- Magic Wizard (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Magic Wizard (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Support. -- Raghith 11:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nominating --Llez (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alborzagros (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 16:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 13:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Michael E. Döring - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Katernberger. The photo shows shaft 12 of UNESCO World Heritage Zeche Zollverein in Essen, Germany -- Katernberger (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Great. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I asked the photographer to provide this photo under a free license for WP-COM because I like it very much. IMHO in has a very good quality (D800 resolution, sharpness), nice composition and beautiful colors and shows an important place: UNESCO World Heritage. Compared to other photos from this place this one is outstanding and worth to become feautured. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Very nice, but I'd try is to reduce the exposure of the bright limelight on the upper left part of the structure, it spoils the symmetry Poco a poco (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean the part at the very top left? The bright spot at 1/3 from the top at the left side is imho good and represents the nightly lightning of the object very well. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose pro: High resolution. cons: Burnt highlight (as for poco), false colours (strong yellowish cast, compare to other photos in category), too tight crop,
completelyalmost black background. -- Smial (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)- You are wrong with the colors. Look at this photo File:Zollverein_Schacht_12.jpg. It was widely used on every Zollverein article and is even warmer than this one. The colors result from the nightly lightning. I know the building exactly and can say that this colors represent reality well. You are also wrong with the black background. It has a VERY dark blue tone. For me especially that dark background accentuates the nice buliding. The highlights aren't fixable in JPEG, probabably I will ask the photographer, but I think it is marginal and does not hide anything of the structure. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Tuxyso: Why do you prefer this shot among 33+ other frames available from him? JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- I spent a lot of time for the selection: I viewed the complete set in 100% full res (still have them in LR) and after in detail viewing I came to the conslusion that this one is the best, especially regarding sharpness and colors. The photographer was first very sceptic to put it under a free license (due to the possibility of commercial use), I explained the idea of Commons in detail and in the end he acknowledged for two photos. Please let us NOT discuss if another photo might be marginal better. Please be satisfied with this one, support or not. I like this photo very much. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- @Tuxyso: Why do you prefer this shot among 33+ other frames available from him? JKadavoor Jee 15:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are wrong with the colors. Look at this photo File:Zollverein_Schacht_12.jpg. It was widely used on every Zollverein article and is even warmer than this one. The colors result from the nightly lightning. I know the building exactly and can say that this colors represent reality well. You are also wrong with the black background. It has a VERY dark blue tone. For me especially that dark background accentuates the nice buliding. The highlights aren't fixable in JPEG, probabably I will ask the photographer, but I think it is marginal and does not hide anything of the structure. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Great image. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. --Katernberger (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/ File:Flickr - The U.S. Army - Apache takeoff.jpg
File:Norwegian Coast Guard (SAR) Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma (Svalbard, 2003) 03.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Feb 2013 at 23:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Admittedly, there is more noise in this image than I would like, but IMO to correct for it would blur the details (and feeling) of the image.-- Godot13 (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support great shot --ArildV (talk) 08:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Crops ruin it for me. Daniel Case (talk) 06:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Understood, but it's not cropped. Went from taking distance shots of the coastline to directly overhead. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad composition, dull colors. Yann (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose bad crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 19:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Auditorium of Tenerife work of Santiago Calatrava, coast of Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. All by me, Poco a poco (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, reminds me of the eighth passenger --The Photographer (talk) 19:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Pudelek (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Kraft (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Quite a bit of color noise in the sky and ground. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version addressing the CN issue, among others, Poco a poco (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Godot13 (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kadellar (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Eurytellina lineata.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 15:55:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by -- The Photographer (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Inconsistent and uneven lighting. (BTW, EV is irrelevant at commons, nice to have it but by no means necessary.). B.p. 22:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to disagree. For me, every media in Commons should have some educational value as a basic requirements. We label the most valuable in a scope as VI, good pictures as QI, and with big wow as FP. For pictures with no EV but big wow, I would like to go Flickr Explore. JKadavoor Jee 05:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is OK to disagree of course, but this is as it has always been here at commons. Wikipedia has always put the emphasis on EV (resulting in allowing small images there), but as you rightly state above, at Commons FP is for wow, QI for technical quality and VI for EV. Flickr a is popularity vote system for images of all sizes and of all licenses.
- These are requirements, meaning that EV is always considered a bonus, but never a conditio sine qua non. B.p. 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes; I agree with you on EV alone can't be considered as a criteria for FP as for VI/EN:FP. But I can't agree with EV is irrelevant for FP in Commons. EV should stand as a base for any educational repository. My only intention is to discourage some zero EV nominations pop up once in a while. JKadavoor Jee 06:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- EV is irrelevant [for FP I just think Biopic means] at commons is fairly a mistaken interpretation and opinion. Of course I can't agree. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 12:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jacopo, I can understand your confusion as you are not a regular at FP (15 edits at FP in the last 5 years), but this fact has been on and off discussed at least since I started in 2006. It is thus not an opinion nor an interpretation, it is just the nature of FP here on commons. We want to feature images that can be used for wow, as well on wikipedia (where EV is important) as anywhere else (where EV might be trivial). Value ≠ EV. (and yes I meant EV at FP on commons, not in general) B.p. 13:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Biopic, did you count my edits on FP? Really very good! Sorry but I'm not confused. I disagree with you! That's my opinion. Regards. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- @B.P.: Wikipedia ? which ? There are so many independent wikipedias... In the french wikipédia, there is no FP, nor any picture contest (fortunately...). But I think we all agree, actually. It depends of the point of start of the thinking.-Jebulon (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment EV should be a major criteria for evaluating FPC. I think too much importance is given to minor quality issues. Yann (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This image is full of imperfections. But it catches the eye. I see the desire to show something beautiful and useful. It is here that is wow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:MosOblast 05-2012 Taldom listed 08.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 11:38:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by A.Savin 11:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --A.Savin 11:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yum! I almost want to eat it! Daniel Case (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Much hidden, unimportant side view compared to File:MosOblast 05-2012 Taldom listed 01.jpg. JKadavoor Jee 06:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per JKadavoor Jee --Slick (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's not a side view, @Jee: see camera position, it's main facade to the square --A.Savin 08:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support It's nice composition! --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Jkadavoor. --Vamps (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose очередная скучная церковь. Ещё и наполовину закрытая деревьями. Никакого восторга и интереса фото само по себе не вызывает, не вижу никаких оснований для номинации. --Алый Король (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice building, very good quality but distracting foreground. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:NGC 2467 and Surroundings.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 16:46:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ESO, uploaded/nominated by Stas1995 --Stas1995 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Stas1995 (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 18:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tonchino 19:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 10:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Ramses Station.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 01:05:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Faris knight - uploaded by Faris knight - nominated by Faris knight -- Faris El-Gwely (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Faris El-Gwely (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Support--ولاء عبد المنعم (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe you didn't know, but you need much more edits to be allowed to vote. Sorry. B.p. 14:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Support--Fareh abdelhak (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not enough edits, sorry. B.p. 14:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Way too noisy. --Selbymay (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Selbymay + meatpuppetry. --A.Savin 11:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Selbymay Kruusamägi (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Soyuz TMA-16 approaching ISS.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 20:08:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Expedition 20 Crew, NASA - uploaded by Tonchino - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tonchino 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Amazing! Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Supportn --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yarl ✉ 16:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- strong Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 22:57:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looking up from the bottom of the double spiral staircase designed by Giuseppe Momo for the Vatican Museums. A companion to my other picture of this staircase, taken from above. -- Colin (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice but unfortunately blurred at top and left parts. --Selbymay (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the other photograph (from above) at the centre of the bottom of the staircase is some kind of sculpture/vase thing. It gets in the way of taking a symmetrically-centred photograph from below. I had to hand-hold my camera above my head -- tripods are forbidden. The low light meant a slow shutter of 1/8s. I think the small amount of blur in a couple of areas isn't distracting and only noticable when pixel-peeping at 100%. Colin (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the place and the difficulty. Sure, it's a good picture but imho the blur is still too noticeable for FP. --Selbymay (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well you're entitled to that opinion :-) In my defence may I point out the composition arrangement: the centred rooflight is absolutely aligned vertically/horizontally and the spiral that starts at the bottom-left kisses the left and top edges before heading inwards. The intricate relief detail contrasts with the gently lit curved ceilings. The man on the stairs lookup up at the skylight adds interest and gives scale. And the interior is well exposed (too easy to underexpose this shot). The closest I've seen on the internet is this (which has the sculpture/vase) or this (which has one less turn because they didn't have my fisheye). So I'd like folk to consider those attributes of this unique image against any little defects. :-) Colin (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I know the place and the difficulty. Sure, it's a good picture but imho the blur is still too noticeable for FP. --Selbymay (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- If you look at the other photograph (from above) at the centre of the bottom of the staircase is some kind of sculpture/vase thing. It gets in the way of taking a symmetrically-centred photograph from below. I had to hand-hold my camera above my head -- tripods are forbidden. The low light meant a slow shutter of 1/8s. I think the small amount of blur in a couple of areas isn't distracting and only noticable when pixel-peeping at 100%. Colin (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral nice shot, but I dislike the crop and the person in the right --Slick (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Hawk-Eye (talk) 06:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose due to blur. Otherwise I'd support. --Pine✉ 05:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Quality not the best but overall FP to me Poco a poco (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 05:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Петропавловская-крепость.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Feb 2013 at 14:10:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Aleks G - uploaded by Aleks G - nominated by Aleks G -- Aleks G (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Aleks G (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral - I'm not sure. It's a good image, but we already have similar view as FP where I find the lighting conditions more atmospheric. I think that for a further FP of Peter & Paul Fortress we need a more special shot. --A.Savin 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 09:30:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Elephant mock charge. Discharge from the temporal gland indicates musth. Raised tail and head, ears open and curled up trunk are traits of a full on charge.
- Support Yann (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak Support I'm not too fond of the composition, and it's not as sharp as it could be, but this definately has "wow". Could the information provided here (raised tail etc.) please be added to the description page? --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- As explained in the guidelines, please avoid the use of other templates than the "officials" marks "pro" and "contra", and write "weak" or "strong" manually. The bot does not recognize other templates, and it makes troubles in counting votes. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as far as I can see, it's not explicitely explained in the guidelines that it's not a good idea to use those "non-official" templates ;-) However, thanks for pointing it out – I'll keep that in mind for the future. --El Grafo (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- As explained in the guidelines, please avoid the use of other templates than the "officials" marks "pro" and "contra", and write "weak" or "strong" manually. The bot does not recognize other templates, and it makes troubles in counting votes. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Citron (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Godot13 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Maire (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 06:14:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jml3 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- A nice picture but far from the exceptional level required (imo) for the FP star. The angle is not the best as well as the light, making the black parts devoidof any detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - after the discussion in the project's talk page. Tomer T (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 14:22:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Bourgeois.A (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC) (equipment)
- Oppose It's always a good idea to put a photo first to Commons:Quality_images_candidates and after successful QI to FP. IMHO this image is neither QI nor FP, sorry. No QI: CAs, sharpness, distortion, overexposed areas, no FP: see "no QI", no interesting motive, composition or light, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: poor image quality and extreme geometric distortion -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 10:24:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Monfie (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is strangely cropped at left, quality is poor and geometric distortion excessive -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- Comment -- @Monfie: I suggest you first submit your images to QIC before coming here, as valuable technical advice can be found there. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 21:11:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by TucsonDavid - uploaded by TucsonDavid - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think that the information about the creator is not really accurate. Poco a poco (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is no name of a creator listed. If you think I'm lying please feel free to look at the source found at http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=11 Thanks. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Calm down. I repeat myself: you are not the creator. I didn't suggest that you lied, just pointed out that in this case, and according to your link, the creator should be "Lockheed Martin" or per default "anonymous", but not you. That's all. Poco a poco (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment If you notice on the page, unlike all the Air Force-authored images, it says 'courtesy photo' rather than a photographer's name. This particular photo was taken by Lockheed Martin, the manufacturers of the F-35, and given to the Air Force (for PR use, I imagine). The original is on their Flickr page, which has it listed as All Rights Reserved. As it wasn't taken by a member of the US Armed Forces, it does not qualify for Public Domain. All that aside, it's a pretty average image at best, and frankly wouldn't be FP worthy even if it was PD. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment There is no name of a creator listed. If you think I'm lying please feel free to look at the source found at http://www.af.mil/photos/mediagallery.asp?galleryID=11 Thanks. TucsonDavidU.S.A. 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is out of focus. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: It's a copyright violation, http://www.flickr.com/photos/lockheedmartin/8096974484/in/set-72157628445024825 all right reserved | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-010.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 16:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Ralf Roletschek - uploaded by Ralf Roletschek - nominated by
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Good, steady hand to create the motion blur on the train without losing anything else. Daniel Case (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. B.p. 10:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kasir (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Poor quality. Unsharp. Too dark. No wow. --A.Savin 11:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The support voters seem to have watched this image just on a mobile phone display? --A.Savin 20:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per other "contra".--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support very impressive for me. A good idea. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the idea, but in the end it does not convince me neither as a "documentary" nor as "art". --El Grafo (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:2011-06-12 15-48-27-vue-doubs.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 16:20:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by
- Support Yes. HDRI tonemapping without halos. It's possible. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Where is Citadel of Besançon in this picture? Could you mark it? Interesting view and I'm trying to find some use. JKadavoor Jee 05:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose to much sky IMHO, maybe better when cropped a bit --Slick (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I like it but the perspective distortion at both sides is too significant. Houses are just leaning out. It may be fixed. Poco a poco (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- crop too tight at the bottom --Arcalino (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:2013-02-05 14-31-52-fort-roppe.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 19:51:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Gildir (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose photo has good quality,for sure, but motive, composition and light dos not appeal to me. A narrow cellar way photographed with a wide-angle lens. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition is lacking an object of interest and the image seems bland. While technically sharp, the image seems to lack a purpose and any historical meaning is lost with the two-word title and image description. Mono 02:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- as above --Arcalino (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Cigarette smuggling with a book.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 00:49:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- High Contrast (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support very nice and a high EV IMHO --Slick (talk) 06:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry High Contrast, but most of the subject is out of focus. I don't like the background either. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- I focused on the cigarette packet because that is intended to be the main subject of the image. --High Contrast (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good photo and very interesting subject. --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 23:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry. But per Alvesgaspar (the background). + crop below is unfortunate, IMO. Excellent idea and interesting subject though.--Jebulon (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Interesting Peter23 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice object (assuming that it is real, is it?. The file description doesn't say much) and original FP. The shallow DoF doesn't bother me but the crop avoids my support Poco a poco (talk) 16:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Dead Sea from Jordan.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 10:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Faris knight - uploaded by Faris knight - nominated by Faris knight -- Faris El-Gwely (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Faris El-Gwely (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Noisy, poor composition, and lacks both geocoding and a description. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice landscape --Stas1995 (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Completely oversaturated, crop is too wide & unfortunately technical problems up close. Mono 02:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Elephant (Loxodonta Africana) 05.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 03:00:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded, nominated by Godot13 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Same elephant as before, but a more generous amount of breathing room. -- Godot13 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Much better framing. —Bruce1eetalk 05:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Elephants are my favorite mammals and I've spent a lot of time with them both in India and east/southern Africa. The one thing that is frustrating about photographing elephants is that when they are calm they don't do anything of interest for a photograph. It is certainly the case with elephants in well-protected reserves. This is a good photograph but I feel it is not special enough for a featured photograph because I don't like the stance of the animal
and the colors are not vibrant. ~y (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Understood. While there is unfortunately nothing I can do about the stance, I loaded another version of the image which is slightly brighter without, I hope, seeming artificial. Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- The colors are much better now and I also see more Kruger tones in the new version! The only time I've ever had a chance to photograph an animated African elephant was the very first herd I ever saw in the Serengeti. Since then, I've seen a lot of elephants but they've all been very well-behaved. -- ~y (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 05:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As Yathin. This centred composition has a snapshot like feel to it. Much more can be done with elephants. B.p. 07:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose We've a few better images in similar pose. JKadavoor Jee 16:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good shot but as others I expect a bit more for an FP of an elephant Poco a poco (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above Tomer T (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I was only able to locate 7 FP images of live elephants, none of them drinking, less than half engaged in any movement. Is this image FP? Not for me to decide. But where are the FP's of elephants? With respect --Godot13 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not everyone submits drinking elephants to FPC... B.p. 15:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I take every species separately; so this as an African bush elephant. I can't see much distinguishable features on this picture than the two FPs and other pictures already displayed there. My opinion may be a little biased because I'm from Kerala; I see elephants on our streets frequently. JKadavoor Jee 06:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not many elephants on the street in New York ;-) --Godot13 (talk) 06:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 00:12:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Luc Viatour (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)- uploaded by Luc Viatour (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC) - nominated by -- Luc Viatour (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Luc Viatour (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Geocoding would be nice, but a very nice photograph -- ~y (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Need geo-coding. JKadavoor Jee 09:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support One of the best cat pics I've ever seen, with or without geocoding... --A.Savin 10:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Long ago that I no longer added photo, I do not know how to geotag --Luc Viatour (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Tuxyso (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Crop at the bottom a bit too tight... what the hell, great work! Poco a poco (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 05:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Good portrait but oversharpened. Whiskers/hair have the jaggies. Colin (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak support Good composition, but artifacts through oversharpening. --Ras67 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 17:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral -- A very nice picture, comparable with this one. But I agree on the oversharpening and don't like the too tight framing. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Smial (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC) happy to see a new work after your long break
File:George Zambellas - Zamb FX110544005.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 22:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by LA(Phot) Allen - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Imo, there is a lack of contrast in the jacket/hat-area, it's all the same black. Hence, it is very hard to distinguish the black parts of the hat from the jacket, and virtually impossible to distinguish the collar, pocket or sleeve from the rest of the jacket. Also, I find the flag disturbing - in combination with all the golden parts scattered all over the uniform, that's just too much "action" for me. --El Grafo (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Compared to other FP portraits this one is very good: Nice background, good studio light, good composition, great expression. This is how a portrayal of a person should look like. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. I find the crop a little tight, but otherwise very good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Locomotive TEM2M-063 2006 G2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 07:02:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded by George Chernilevsky - nominated by -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Godot13 (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question. Where was this picture taken? —Bruce1eetalk 08:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Info added -- George Chernilevsky talk 09:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Thanks. —Bruce1eetalk 05:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose No wow for me. B.p. 09:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Like B.p.: No wow for me. Shall we finally merge QIC with FPC? ;-) --A.Savin 10:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Composition and lighting are ordinary. Mono 20:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose QI, not much more. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Nice Peter23 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The subject is nice but too static. I also miss some wow here, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose mainly because of the low wow factor, but also little quality problems (artifacts / pixelation, see cables at top). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Michael Gäbler (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - desaturate and you've got my vote --Uberprutser (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Too late... But, thanks you anyway -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Sorry George, a nice picture but not special enough for FP. I don't like the tight crop and the too busy background. Quality is just OK. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kirua (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Model of wood fall succession on deep sea floor - journal.pone.0053590.g008.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 21:51:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Sabine Lüdeling - uploaded and nominated by me. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support—I prefer an SVG with embedded bitmaps for anything with text and lines in it, but it's a good picture anyway.—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support High E.V. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 15:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose EV is rather mangled by unidentified and/or unidentifiable organisms because of poor resolution (lack of location info further inhibits identification). The core-thing to the right is not explained and thus rather disturbing. And as Kelvinsong said, SVG would be much better here. B.p. 17:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Ngc1316 hst.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 00:39:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA) - uploaded by CWitte - nominated by Mono -- Mono 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Mono 00:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Petri-Kirche-Innen-Altarbereich.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:12:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but this seems far too over-saturated.Kruusamägi (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)- Info I've uploaded a new version. Do you think it is better now? The ceiling and floor is quite orange / red in real, but I think you were right that it was over-saturated. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it is better now. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info I've uploaded a new version. Do you think it is better now? The ceiling and floor is quite orange / red in real, but I think you were right that it was over-saturated. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great colors and good quality. Definitely FP for me. -- Kirua (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry but not one of the best examples of HDR at Commons imo. Insufficient dynamic range (overexposed window with lost detailes), some noise in the roof and unfortunate cropping at the bottom.--ArildV (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose looks too overprocessed to me. Tomer T (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Can you precise your argument? As still mentioned: The floor and ceiling have a quite extrem color in real, it is not due to overprocessing. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- nice complementary contrast --Arcalino (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Poco a poco - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Btw, just uploaded a new version with some improvements Poco a poco (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question I'm not sure about the white balance, looks very green imo? Otherwise good.--ArildV (talk) 11:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed, you were right, the current version looks much better Poco a poco (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--ArildV (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Athanasius Soter (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Ryssebergen 2012b.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 12:13:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Forest in Ryssbergen (literally translated in English: the Russian hills), Sicklaön. Nacka. An old and beautiful forest very close to the center of Stockholm. The photo was taken in late May, to capture the beautiful and fresh early summer greenery and late (after eight o'clock) in the evening, to get the evening sun in the background.
- Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ArildV (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose It's very nice, but the the sky is burned out, sorry. --Vamps (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I aggree with Vamps, but for me the motive is the main problem for support - no Wow. Bruce Barnbaum is famouse for his tree / forest photography and I even do not like his photos - I prefer a clear motive and not only an alignment of rectangular forms. Technically the photo is a slightly oversatuared in the green channel. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose no wow for me and overexposed sky. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the comments. I am aware of the sky, but could not avoid (and HDR images do not work in a forest unless it is absolutely no wind). D7000 has one of the best dynamic range performance in the market, but it is still not enough. For me it was important to capture the sun and the beautiful colors, and less important for the image if small parts of the sky was overexposed.--ArildV (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Striated Heron-001.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 17:38:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Leo za1 - uploaded by Leo za1 - nominated by NJR ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- NJR_ZA (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - bird looking away, overhead light, harsh background. ~y (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Remarkably good photo. I don't think the bird looking away or the overhead light can be helped - it is a bird outdoors, after all. However, the background is a little harsh. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cephas (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. I don't have a problem with the lighting or the background. —Bruce1eetalk 08:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info I reduced background noise level. Please revert, if it's not better. --Ivar (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- CommentThank you Ivar. The photo is out of camera with no editing having been done whatsoever. --Rute Martins of Leoa's Photography 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Then what happened with the rest of the pixels? B.p. 20:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Good pose and framing but unfortunate light. B.p. 09:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alborzagros (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Good and valuable photo, high EV. But not special enough for FP. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Strix nebulosa CT.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Feb 2013 at 18:05:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by Cephas -- Cephas (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Cephas (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support Too little space below the bird -- ~y (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Level of detail and sharpness do not convince me, sorry. I personally prefer a more vivid background for a living animal. --Tuxyso (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose—Per Tuxyso, plus I'm not too fond of the composition—too much blank blue on the left half, bird is too close to the bottom right.—Kelvinsong (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Suricates, Namibia-2.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Feb 2013 at 18:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Sara&Joachim - uploaded by Молли - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Nossob (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
WeakSupport I feel this should be centered, but still very nice. Quite rare too if these are wild. -- Yathin sk (talk) 22:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)- Full support because meerkats deserve no less!
- Support They stole my eyes earlier. JKadavoor Jee 06:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment—white balance could be better—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 07:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportSupport. -- Raghith 11:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose yellow/orange cast? Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support but isn't it tilted? Poco a poco (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Väimela Alajärv 2012 08.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:10:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by Vaido Otsar - nominated by Kruusamägi -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ~y (talk) 21:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Godot13 (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak oppose For sure a very nice photo, but I think especially the left bottom part (also the right) is too unsharp for support. The texture of the water surface is also interestring for the overall statement of the photo. I am not sure if it is "normal" border unsharpness of your lens, or if the problem comes from f7.1. I am not familiar with the quality of Canon lenses. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tamba52 (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Set:Chloroplast endosymbiosis, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 15:52:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Full sequence
|
Closeup diagram of four-membraned chloroplast
containing a nucleomorph. |
Primary endosymbiosis
|
Secondary endosymbiosis
|
- Info Set of cell diagrams illustrating the endosymbiosis of chloroplasts. Source—[1]Editable text is invisible, on the bottom layer. All by Kelvinsong—Kelvinsong (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Kelvinsong (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very simple copy and paste --The Photographer (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Penyulap ☏ 21:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Sunrise-Fog-Zoutelane.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 08:27:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tuxyso - uploaded by Tuxyso - nominated by Tuxyso
Sunrise photographed from the beach near Zoutelande (Netherlands) with morning dew and fog. -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) - Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice HDR. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Tonchino 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough 'wow' to me. Tomer T (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose like Tomer. --A.Savin 17:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tomer/not really a lot of content. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What "content" do you expect? It's a very typical photo from the Netherlands, all flat land. Luck that nearby Zoutelande are the highest dunes of the Nethderlands. I think the morning mood the fog and dew is content enough :) The house at the right is of a campingground (also very typical). There are not only high mountains and impressive rocks. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Little of the information you just gave me is noted in the image description, that's a small and correctable problem. But more importantly, I don't see any dunes and the house, composition-wise, is placed in the corner of the image and quite small, so as a viewer, I assume it just happened to be there. It definitely isn't a prominent part of the image. The problem I see is that about 50% of the image is filled with vegetation that is dark and has a high contrast. I don't see anything special there. About 45% of the image is filled with a sunrise sky that is, by itself, not more special or beautiful than any other sunrise. The sun is actually already relatively high in the sky. The remaining 5% of the image are filled with a house and a horizon line that looks interesting, but about which I as a viewer have absolutely no information. That's what I mean with no "content". It's not that I don't find the photo beautiful, I just don't see why it's special enough to be named one "of the finest on Commons". That's really all. If a majority thinks it is that special, I'm perfectly fine with this becoming a FP, I personally just think it lacks what I, for the lack of a better word, called "content" (sorry, I'm not a native speaker). There may not only be "high mountains and impressive rocks", maybe nice dunes or the sea or a well-composed scene with grass and trees would do. Or this can just be a really good, but not one of the finest images. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your in detail clarification. I cannot change your "wow perception" and I agree with you that "Wow" should be definitely an important aspect for FP - much more important than marginal technical shortcomings which are ofter taken as a justification for decline. The reason for nomination was that I think the light and mood is quite special notably the high contrast between vegetation and sky (btw: the vegegation is not black, every detail every drop of water is visible). --Tuxyso (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Little of the information you just gave me is noted in the image description, that's a small and correctable problem. But more importantly, I don't see any dunes and the house, composition-wise, is placed in the corner of the image and quite small, so as a viewer, I assume it just happened to be there. It definitely isn't a prominent part of the image. The problem I see is that about 50% of the image is filled with vegetation that is dark and has a high contrast. I don't see anything special there. About 45% of the image is filled with a sunrise sky that is, by itself, not more special or beautiful than any other sunrise. The sun is actually already relatively high in the sky. The remaining 5% of the image are filled with a house and a horizon line that looks interesting, but about which I as a viewer have absolutely no information. That's what I mean with no "content". It's not that I don't find the photo beautiful, I just don't see why it's special enough to be named one "of the finest on Commons". That's really all. If a majority thinks it is that special, I'm perfectly fine with this becoming a FP, I personally just think it lacks what I, for the lack of a better word, called "content" (sorry, I'm not a native speaker). There may not only be "high mountains and impressive rocks", maybe nice dunes or the sea or a well-composed scene with grass and trees would do. Or this can just be a really good, but not one of the finest images. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What "content" do you expect? It's a very typical photo from the Netherlands, all flat land. Luck that nearby Zoutelande are the highest dunes of the Nethderlands. I think the morning mood the fog and dew is content enough :) The house at the right is of a campingground (also very typical). There are not only high mountains and impressive rocks. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kirua (talk) 10:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Upper Belvedere LCD-toneedit2 NR.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 08:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Murdockcrc - uploaded by Murdockcrc - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 08:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: Nice, but has posterization in dark areas (esp. bushes on the left). --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice, especially the mood and the colours of water + sky. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What are those black arrows? Tomer T (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Like those star-shape settings, they are surely for 2011 Christmas event. I think they're for fireworks. --Naturehead (talk) 11:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Very nice, but quality defects per Julian. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose noise reduction too visible in the sky (artifacts), unsharp building at the sides (esp. on the right) and per Julian Herzog (but the posterization is a minor problem IMHO). --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 20:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose-- See annotations -- Arcalino (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)- The question in the annotations has been answered above. They are probably firework launch sticks and their reflections in the water. --Julian H. (talk/files) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for my inattention, change to Neutral, the firework launch sticks are disturbing this very nice composition --Arcalino (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Image quality is just not good enough. Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 00:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The Moscow Kremlin from Bolotny Island. -- Godot13 (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question - it looks underexposed, too dark? --Arcalino (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photograph is underexposed and the image lacks quality: extensive noise and lack of detail -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
- I withdraw my nomination - Godot13 (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 21:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by TucsonDavid - uploaded by TucsonDavid - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 21:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I suppose this is a copyvio. No freedom of panorama of the Eifell Tower's lights. The date in the file is wrong. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is below FP size requirements -- B.p. 12:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 11:36:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created, uploaded and nominated by Bourgeois.A (talk) 11:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The composition does not convince me to vote for this one. Sorry. --Aktron (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Why ? This is just a chimney ! I don't now better composition... Bourgeois.A (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Exactly, it's just a chimney. A chimney with great composition could be PF-worthy. But from this distance, that's hardly possible because I think any good composition of this building would include the horizon/ground, and doing that would lead to heavy distortion unless you go further away. --Julian H. (talk/files) 12:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice light, but in the end "it's just a chimney", and not a special one... so, just not enough wow for an FP. --A.Savin 15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination (again) Bourgeois.A (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 10:24:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Monfie (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Many stitching errors, pincushion distortion. --Julian H. (talk/files) 14:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Seeing the thumbnail, I expected a strong "Wow". Unfortunately, I noticed strong distortion on both sides and many stitching issues (see notes) --Kirua(talk) 14:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kirua --Slick (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as above -- Arcalino (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - The issues are mainly due to the way the panorama is created. Bad software? Bad configuration of it? Which one did you use? In any case the place is stunning. If you provide the different pictures individually, maybe we can help --Kirua (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Dear Kirua. Thanks for your comment. I used "Microsoft ICE". I know it is professional and high quality, but It is the only software I know that can make 3D Perspective panoramas. Because of especial condition of this photo, It would not be nice if not perspective, plus it will suffer barrel distortion as you can see in this photo. After all, if still believe you improve it, please write in my talk to arrange to send you individual files.--Monfie (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose This needs rectilinear geometry stitching. --Aktron (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination until solve the problems! Monfie (talk) 12:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 19:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Tonchino - uploaded by Tonchino - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tonchino 19:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. --JKadavoor Jee 05:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
File:2013-02-05 13-54-49-fort-roppe.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 15:34:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment What is it? Tomer T (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- A painting made by soldiers between 1891 and 1945. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you add it to description? Tomer T (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Can you add it to description? Tomer T (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- A painting made by soldiers between 1891 and 1945. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 14:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting. Something between Lascaux and Sixtina ? :)--Jebulon (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Better with description. Yann (talk) 07:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 09:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Aegolius acadicus -Fossil, Oregon, USA -juvenile-8.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 15:26:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- InfoSource: Northern Saw-whet Owl branchers - uploaded by Snowmanradio - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow!!!!!!!!!! What a family! JKadavoor Jee 15:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 16:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Although a beautiful photo, I find the foreground yellow and white very distracting. Perhaps a different crop? --Rute Martins of Leoa's Photography (www.leoa.co.za) 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I hate doing this, but I agree with Rute Martins. If someone could edit to the distracting foreground objects to make them less prominent I'd be happy to support this. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice photo. It is not studio photography thus (natural) foreground is not distracting for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tamba52 (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Bad lighting conditions + as others. B.p. 09:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Alborzagros (talk) 08:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry - unsharp, noisy, composition doesn't do the wow, some support comments are a puzzle to me. --A.Savin 17:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral A sight at which you just have to smile :), only this yellow patch in the foreground spoils the whole impression. If the image is cropped at the bottom or the yellow thing edited out, I'm likely to to support the nomination. --Maire (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful birds, such a pity that the foreground really completely spoils it. --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'll support if you desaturate the greens a bit --Uberprutser (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 15:28:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard himself and workshop - uploaded, stitched, restored and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support A 1869 self-portrait of Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard (1802-1872), french chemist, printer and photographer, inventor of the albumen print process in photography. This chemical process was the first way and step to mass reproductions of photographs. Thanks to him, since the 1850s, each photographic print is no more an unique work of art, and can be reproduced ad libitum. In my opinion, this scientist deserves a special place in the "Hall of Fame" of "Commons". Moreover it is a very high quality picture for that time (I've restored it by cleaning the spots, tears and dirt), please enjoy the level of details at full size.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, the original file (before restoration) is available as first upload in the file page. Thx.--Jebulon (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support very careful restoration of a great photograph. --El Grafo (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. --Selbymay (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 12:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Careful restoration, useful and very valuable to illustrate articles on history of photography (even if Henry Fox Talbot and his calotype process were precursory). --Myrabella (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Very high ev for the wiki projects, good restoring job. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Feb 2013 at 21:19:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created and uploaded by The Photographer - nominated by Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info Typical local old house in San Juan Bautista, Island of Margarita, Venezuela
- Support -- Poco a poco (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral A VERY nice picture with good light, interesting documentary chararacter. But IMHO the young boy spoils the overall composition. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, agree somehow with you and I was aware of it prior to the nomination, but the fact that he looks to the center of the picture also gives to this shot some dynamic, therefore I wouldn't call it "spoiling". Croping or cloning out (hardly possible) is not an option in my opinion. Bottom line: I was fascinated by the lighting, the atmosphere, the place and composition, enough reasons for me to try it, in spite of the child :) Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- you are right with the direction of the view. I should better say: the boy directly with the chair behind him spoils the composition. The boy alone would fit. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, agree somehow with you and I was aware of it prior to the nomination, but the fact that he looks to the center of the picture also gives to this shot some dynamic, therefore I wouldn't call it "spoiling". Croping or cloning out (hardly possible) is not an option in my opinion. Bottom line: I was fascinated by the lighting, the atmosphere, the place and composition, enough reasons for me to try it, in spite of the child :) Poco a poco (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Looks like a painting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support That's what FP should be. Yann (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very nice, the boy doesn't spoil it at all, as Poco said. --Selbymay (talk) 08:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good social documentary. JKadavoor Jee 11:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per Jkadavoor. --JLPC (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The Photographer took care of the boy (and chair) Poco a poco (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support With or without boy - a really nice photo --Schnobby (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Support, definitely better without the boy. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
SupportNow strong support from me. Good work, The Photographer! --Tuxyso (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)- I prefer the version without boy, but see King's argument. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I spent almost two full days removing the boy XD --The Photographer (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry for the boy, but he hasn't totally gone, one could see him in the television and the fridge. Poltergeist hommage ? :-) -- Selbymay (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info You should not play with that. I do not believe in ghosts or any spirit, however, many people claim that a demon inhabits one of the rooms of the house.Babalawo recently tried to clean the room spiritually. In the 1930s a boy of 17 years committed suicide in that room, a shotgun blast in the stomach pit, the reason, he discovered his girlfriend with another boy kissing. This information tells me my great aunt --The Photographer (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you very much, I spent almost two full days removing the boy XD --The Photographer (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Llez (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice light and a good job with removing the boy. But so little is in focus :-(. Basically only the Xmas tree and the door frame to the right. B.p. 09:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Interesting --Stas1995 (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question What about a geotag? Did you leave it consciously for preserving privacy of the inhabitants? --Tuxyso (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- No, I just forget to add the location, thanks --The Photographer (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose — Erasing the boy reminds me too much of Stalinist-era erased photos. What was done was not the removal of a minor image imperfection. It was the obliteration of a human being deemed irrelevant or distracting, and in my opinion is beyond the limits of acceptable image manipulation. My vote would have been to support the original image. I absolutely do not support this doctored photo. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: In light of Stigmatella aurantiaca's comment, I think what should have been done here is have two different versions that people can vote on. In my opinion, anything which does not make the image uncontroversially better (e.g. fixing CA or minor NR), such as changing brightness, cropping, removing "distracting" elements, should not be reuploaded over the original in an FPC. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 11:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Oppose-- By removing the boy, you made the video game controller suddenly disappear (see the note on the modified version). The crop also could be better (too much roof IMHO). That's a pitty because I really like this picture and the atmosphere. And I disagree with Stigmatella aurantiaca concerning the acceptable limits of manipulation. What is the difference, ethically speaking, between removing someone from a picture or telling him to get out before taking it, in the case of an artistic picture? Kirua (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done video game controller fixed --The Photographer (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Great job! --Kirua (talk)22:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done video game controller fixed --The Photographer (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose That's too much editing for my taste. The problem is not the removal of the boy and the chair but the addition of the floor. --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternative (original)
[edit]- Support Original version. Do I need to strike out my Oppose on the modified version? Will this confuse the vote-counting Bot? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- I created now a section for the alternative. You (as everybody else) can vote in both versions. Poco a poco (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support With or without the boy. I've no hate to humans as many naturalists. But it is too late to present an alt, I afraid. JKadavoor Jee 06:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Either one is fine with me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --El Grafo (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Stained glass window in Osijek cathedral.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Feb 2013 at 21:27:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:VISTA’s infrared view of the Orion Nebula.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:50:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Pudelek (talk) 10:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Maire (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Though I wonder if this white ad on the left couldn't be edited out.
- As I was thinking the same, I just erased the disturbing ad and the crane. --Selbymay (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Small size but nice picture (a geotag would be welcome). --Selbymay (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Unbalanced composition, barely any detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
File:June odd-eyed-cat.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 10:48:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Keith Kissel - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral -- I don´t like the background Arcalino (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Maybe the background isn't the best but, in my opinion, for kitten Wow there is. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 14:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Alternative
[edit]- Info I like this crop better, I think it makes the composition better and the background less distracting. Tomer T (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like this too -- ~y (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Bruce1eetalk 07:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support —Kirua (talk) 09:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Fascinating...--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Support, I admit the background is distracting, changing to Neutral. --Julian H. (talk/files) 16:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)- Support -- Joydeep Talk 16:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose VERY tight crop, not-really-wow resolution, still distracting background... Am I the only one who's seeing it? --A.Savin 17:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Still very disturbing background Arcalino (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very tight crop and distracting background. A nice image, however. --Cayambe (talk) 08:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Background. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As Cayambe -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:NGC 2264 by ESO.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 14:18:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by ESO's La Silla Observatory - uploaded by Discostu - nominated by Tonchino -- Tonchino 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tonchino 14:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Shall we really feature all the telescope images we should find on the net ? We have three on display at the moment, and I think it is really too much...--Jebulon (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't want to, obviously !, sorry. --Tonchino 15:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like this theme --Stas1995 (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Really I like it so much. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:48, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose By Jebulon: No, I think not. Yes, they all look very nice, but more or less very similiar for a person who is not familiar with astrology. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you mean "astronomy" ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Astronomy for sure. I hope the NASA does not do astrology :-) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- It is ESO, not NASA. (It means that you and me paid for that picture...)--Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Astronomy for sure. I hope the NASA does not do astrology :-) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Maybe you mean "astronomy" ? --Jebulon (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2013 at 13:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Mr.Brut - uploaded by Mr.Brut - nominated by Шиманський Василь -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 13:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Strong perspective distortion, not correctible. --A.Savin 16:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed. |
File:HMS Protector in Antarctica.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 23:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by LA(Phot) Arron Hoare - uploaded by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry - nominated by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support, although the ISO is a little high, but given that the photograph was taken during an Antarctic winter, with a very low sun and reflective scenery, I'm not sure that a better shot could be taken. This photo was one of a set of six that won the Royal Navy's photographic competition in 2012. -- Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This photo was taken on March 2, when it is still more than 17 hours between sunrise and sunset (date for w:McMurdo Station 05:21-22:44, 17h 23m 12s). The picture was taken early in the morning, a picture taken at a different time on a sunny day would have been different. That said, I like the image and composition. I cant decide yet.--ArildV (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor image quality noy fully justified by the conditions, especially the blown parts. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Ouch! Oversaturated, overexposed and other problems. B.p. 18:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree, it's oversaturated, expecially the blues. Lots of color noice. But is't a great relection.
- Oppose Too much contrast, bad colors (should be warmer), overexposed while somewhere underexposed (but I guess that is the contrast issue). --Aktron (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Lisboa Ponte Vasco da Gama 20-10-2010 12-11-50.JPG, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Feb 2013 at 20:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created & uploaded by Paul Hermans - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Good composition and perspective, just wish the horizon wasn't so centered... --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Respecting the rule of thirds in this case would not have improved on the image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Stas1995 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The top left seems to be darkened by vignetting or something else. I think that could be fixed. I also don't really know how to deal with the feeling that I keep wishing the rest was on there. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I love minimalism but somehow deslike this composition, mainly because of the exaggerated empty space. Image quality is supposed to be excellent in this kind of pictures and it is not (lack of detail, sharpning artifacts). Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Addo Elephants-001.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 16:46:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Leo za1 - uploaded by Leo za - nominated by NJR ZA -- NJR_ZA (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- I have read the comments on the other elephant nominations and asked for this one to be uploaded. Interested to see how it is received. NJR_ZA (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've been following the comments here and on the discussion page and looks like there is a strong push for exceptional quality/composition/behavior for FP promotion. I think this is a particularly good shot (I love the light and the water) but the close crop, the harsh shadows and the angle could be better. Perhaps not a FP for me, but I'll watch for other comments before I decide on a vote. -- ~y (talk) 17:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback. I'll comment on it so we can possibly later use this FP discussion if the rules are to be strengthened, but please accept the comments for what they are, just comments; they are not an attempt to justify that this should be FP or an attempt to excuse shortcomings in the photo. Crop: Yes it does seem a bit tight, especially at the top. If I recall the original correctly it should be possible to recrop and if required I will ask the photographer for a new version for comparison. Shadows: Not sure how one would avoid shadows in nature photography without undue post processing of the photo. Elephants are big and make big shadows. Angle: Yes, angle is high (this specific viewpoint is high above the waterhole), that may or may not be an issue, I suspect the angle will come down to personal taste rather than a hard rule. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's always good to have a discussion :). When shooting at an animal below eye-level, the ground usually becomes the background, especially for high angles and the ground rarely makes for a nice photograph. Of course, it's a personal preference. The shadows in wildlife photography is more complex topic as it too depends on the angle of the photographer, position of the sun, time of the day/year, season and latitude! I feel that in this particular photo, the sun is making very dark shadows and different position or a later time of day could have helped in avoiding the strong shadow. EXIF says the time the photo was taken was 14:44 when the harshest shadows are made in tropics/sub-tropics. I also know from experience that herds with calves come to water around midday, so there's little to do except wait for some luck with the clouds to diffuse the light so that there's no harsh shadows. I think it is actually difficult to get a good/interesting photograph of an elephant even though they are so common (like I had commented on a previous FPC)! At first look, Angie Scott's 2002 wildlife photographer of the year photograph of elephants watching a grey heron looks ordinary but I think it is incredibly rare to see something so perfect like that (at least from personal experience in the African savanna). -- ~y (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could only track down a small version of the Angie Scott photo you mentioned; too small to see real detail, but the scene she managed to capture certainly is impressive. Problem is that is a Photo of the Year selected from a huge amount taken by professional photographers. If set the bar that high every FP then we will end up selecting only 1 FP a year. That will dry up the supply for Potd and make Poty obsolete. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I only brought up Scott's picture as an example of how rare it is to get good elephant (and ONLY elephant) shots and not as something to compare FPC. I'm sorry if my comment seemed to imply about comparison with the top professionals in the world. I know that this is a fantastic picture because I almost exclusively photograph wildlife and know the difficulties. I just feel that it could have been better had it been a different time of day and different angle. ~y (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, accepted as such. I'm on CAT, so will be off to bed soon, but will check back tomorrow for additional comments. --NJR_ZA (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Btw, I think a lot of Featured Pictures are fantastic enough to be compared with the top professionals. There are some amazing pictures here. :) ~y (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I only brought up Scott's picture as an example of how rare it is to get good elephant (and ONLY elephant) shots and not as something to compare FPC. I'm sorry if my comment seemed to imply about comparison with the top professionals in the world. I know that this is a fantastic picture because I almost exclusively photograph wildlife and know the difficulties. I just feel that it could have been better had it been a different time of day and different angle. ~y (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I could only track down a small version of the Angie Scott photo you mentioned; too small to see real detail, but the scene she managed to capture certainly is impressive. Problem is that is a Photo of the Year selected from a huge amount taken by professional photographers. If set the bar that high every FP then we will end up selecting only 1 FP a year. That will dry up the supply for Potd and make Poty obsolete. --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a alternative versions, File:Addo Elephants-001 (b).jpg.--ArildV (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I see what you did there, will allow others to comment first --NJR_ZA (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment It's always good to have a discussion :). When shooting at an animal below eye-level, the ground usually becomes the background, especially for high angles and the ground rarely makes for a nice photograph. Of course, it's a personal preference. The shadows in wildlife photography is more complex topic as it too depends on the angle of the photographer, position of the sun, time of the day/year, season and latitude! I feel that in this particular photo, the sun is making very dark shadows and different position or a later time of day could have helped in avoiding the strong shadow. EXIF says the time the photo was taken was 14:44 when the harshest shadows are made in tropics/sub-tropics. I also know from experience that herds with calves come to water around midday, so there's little to do except wait for some luck with the clouds to diffuse the light so that there's no harsh shadows. I think it is actually difficult to get a good/interesting photograph of an elephant even though they are so common (like I had commented on a previous FPC)! At first look, Angie Scott's 2002 wildlife photographer of the year photograph of elephants watching a grey heron looks ordinary but I think it is incredibly rare to see something so perfect like that (at least from personal experience in the African savanna). -- ~y (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for the feedback. I'll comment on it so we can possibly later use this FP discussion if the rules are to be strengthened, but please accept the comments for what they are, just comments; they are not an attempt to justify that this should be FP or an attempt to excuse shortcomings in the photo. Crop: Yes it does seem a bit tight, especially at the top. If I recall the original correctly it should be possible to recrop and if required I will ask the photographer for a new version for comparison. Shadows: Not sure how one would avoid shadows in nature photography without undue post processing of the photo. Elephants are big and make big shadows. Angle: Yes, angle is high (this specific viewpoint is high above the waterhole), that may or may not be an issue, I suspect the angle will come down to personal taste rather than a hard rule. --NJR_ZA (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral per Yathin; will support an edit like ArildV's if a more generous crop at bottom available. An interesting moment (behavioral).JKadavoor Jee 05:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- A very nice picture with high encyclopaedic value. But neither the angle nor the crop are the best. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Castillo San Ignacio.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2013 at 15:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by User:Rjcastillo - uploaded by Rjcastillo - nominated by Rjcastillo -- Rjcastillo (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Rjcastillo (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- weak oppose I know (and hate) those backlit situations very well from my photos. The problem is that the front of the building is in shadow thus details of the building's texture can often not brought out well, as it is the case here. Additionaly the homogeneous sky leads to a non special atmosphere. Probably a more dramatic sky had convinced be to support. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Poor lighting conditions: underexposed and lack of detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:43, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination --Rjcastillo (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 08:50:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Myrabella - uploaded by Myrabella - nominated by Myrabella -- Myrabella (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info The new bells of Notre Dame de Paris are on public display in the nave in February 2013. Here seen without a crowd of people.
- Support -- Myrabella (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very rare event(s), even unique, and pretty good picture IMO. Never seen this, and never seen the nave empty of people ! (Notre-Dame de Paris is one of the most visited monument in the world). Very good conclusion of an excellent idea of Wikimedia France ! --Jebulon (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support agree with Jebulon. Tomer T (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Sharpness problems... Really pity... --A.Savin 17:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great shot! -Godot13 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I agree with Jebulon. Thanks to Wikimedia France. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 20:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose sharpness and the bottom crop aren't excellent --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 17:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose By Carschten (composition) + level of detail in dark areas became a victim of massive noise reduction. In the case of such motives the use of HDR is recommendable. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Very nice composition but image quality is not good enough: general unsharpness and lack of detail (due to denoising?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- (or because of the haze made by incense smoke ?) Thank you for the review anyway. --Myrabella (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- although sharpness and crop aren't excellent. --Arcalino (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Albertus teolog (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wow --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Godot13 (talk) 07:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Dogon Hunter.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 09:23:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Kirua - uploaded by Kirua - nominated by Kirua -- Kirua (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kirua (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I added a useful category. What I find problematic, composition-wise, is that both his arm and the rifle are cut off, but not by much. The quality however is really good and the content probably quite useful, so I wonder if it's possible to at least improve that. --Julian H. (talk/files) 22:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Not sure if it's useful to add to categories but the four skulls in the background belong to a baboon (Papio anubis perhaps because of geography). It also be a useful addition to the Muskets category -- ~y (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. --Julian H. (talk/files) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I like nearly everything except for the chopped off musket and hand, but that is perhaps making it more interesting? Can't decide, but very captivating for sure. -- ~y (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support We need more like this. Yann (talk) 07:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support JKadavoor Jee 10:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jml3 (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I do not care that the subject is cut and glitches, this is really good --The Photographer (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Composition could have been better as per Julian and ~y above, but I think there is enough wow, value and human interest to compensate for the shortcomings. I can definitely see this as a Potd and the only way to get there is to become a FP --NJR_ZA (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Unfortunate framing, most of the face is in the shadow. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Enterprise free flight.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 00:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by NASA - uploaded by Ygrek - nominated by Mono -- Mono 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Mono 00:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:20, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose (formerly FPX) Image does not fall within the guidelines, image quality is very poor (extensive noise and lack of detail) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- There is lots of noise, but let's not forget that the image is irreplaceable - it's a photo of the Space Shuttle prototype in flight - and from 1977. I think it deserves a fair hearing with that in mind. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Miha (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:F-35A Lightning II joint strike fighter.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 22:51:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by TucsonDavid - uploaded by TucsonDavid - nominated by TucsonDavid -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- TucsonDavidU.S.A. 22:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Unfortunate lighting and too little detail. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Glasses 800 edit.png, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 04:56:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Boivie - uploaded by Boivie - nominated by Keraunoscopia -- – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very realistic reflections and bokeh simulation. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 10:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --ArildV (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Per arguments on previous nomination. B.p. 12:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- This kind of virtual reality has become a little boring. Morever the image and composition are not even beautiful, in my opinion. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose As per Alvesgaspar. A nice photo, but composition fails with the glasses on the sides cut in half. The big problem though is that I see neither wow or value in the photo. As the guidelines state: beautiful does not always mean valuable. --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not familiar with state-of-the-art 3D rendering, but the quality of the result is amazing. The problem is that the composition is VERY unorganized and misses a clear idea. --Tuxyso (talk)
- Oppose Overexposed background wall, bad crop on the sides. And for a computer generated image, I would expect higher resolution. Yann (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Marocaster coronatus MHNT.PAL.2010.2.2 (Close up).jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 11:56:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Alborzagros -- Alborzagros (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Maire (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Peter23 (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jml3 (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Neutral Nice and different but sharpness is not the best, sorry Poco a poco (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality is not convincing. Sharpness and level of detail are very weak. IMHO something went wrong during processing. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Quality issues (sharpness). Not one of the finest on Commons., Category:Fossil Asteroidea contains better examples. To satisfy my own curiosity, why the rather long exposure (1/13th) at f/20? --NJR_ZA (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Ταπυροι (گپ) 11:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose For Tuxyso and NJR ZA. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportThe effect Wow, is not in the image quality. But the subject of the image. It is also necessary to read the caption. This is not a simpe starfish fossil. This is the holotype of the species is also one of the genus. This type of photography is normally reserved only pulications scientists. It is a great pleasure to be able to convince a curarator permetre you do this type of image. Try to reach the holotype, try to make images in the condition that you will be offered. My dream is to be able to see all holotypes in our encyclopedias. Thank you Alborzagros.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, but then valued image and not featured picture. It is from a photographic standpoint no excellent photo, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose High value, but not sharp enough, I'm afraid.--Jebulon (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Hysteroconcha dione.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2013 at 13:27:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info All by myself
- Support -- The Photographer (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Current name is Hysteroconcha dione. B.p. 18:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thank Biopics --The Photographer (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome but it is still not correct. The subgenus from Pitar (Hysteroconcha) has been raised to full genus status so it has to be Hysteroconcha dione. (ref. Prof. Dr. P. Bouchet). B.p. 18:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Obvious VI but not special enough for FP. Dof could have been made much better. Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Thurston Lava Tube, Big Island.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2013 at 21:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Frank Schulenburg - uploaded by Frank Schulenburg - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Kasir (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Too yellow. Yann (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Yann (WB). --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support while yellow, it does have an interesting effect and accurately represents the conditions of the cave. for a less yellow experience, try editing it to black and white or turning the color temperature up a ways. This is really an artistic preference and could detract from the image's representation of the subject. Mono 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I think it is legitimately this yellow. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nothing extraordinay when compared with the may tunnel FP in our galleries. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Could you please post a link to "tunnel FPs" for comparision? --Tuxyso (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info -- Please see here -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question Could you please post a link to "tunnel FPs" for comparision? --Tuxyso (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose white balance. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Vase with grape harvesting scenes BM 1897.12-31.189.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Feb 2013 at 14:57:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Jastrow - uploaded by Jastrow - nominated by محک -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 14:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Ταπυροι (گپ) 14:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Alborzagros (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Kirua (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nothing extraordinay justifying the star. Image quality is just acceptable and the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Valued image & historical.--MehdiTalk 17:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alvesgaspar. Tomer T (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- comment Blown highlights although those are a pain to control on this type of object.Geni (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2013 at 09:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info High noise but beautiful composition with diver and dugong - uploaded by Julius86 - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Nossob (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree, the composition is beautiful, but the quality is very poor here. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Per The High Fin Sperm Whale. Sad about the quality. -- Nossob (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Acavus haemastoma fastuosa 01.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 14:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Magic Wizard -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as above (previous nomination) --Tuxyso (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Wikipedaic and full-shown picture, nice and beautiful. Alborzagros (talk) 06:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above. Maybe it is time to innovate. (The crop is too tight for my taste) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Being large (very commendable) and having pretty colours is not always enough. Individual images have insufficient DOF here IMO. B.p. 07:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Dear B.p., please make annotations where you think the DOF is not sufficient (Glad to hear also opinions of other voters concerning the DOF).--Llez (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nomination, the votes an the criticism. --Llez (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Leptaxis erubescens 01.JPG, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 14:54:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Magic Wizard -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Magic Wizard (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: First of all: I appreciate Llez's great and VERY useful work. Nearly all of your photographs of shells are technically perfect. But I feel unhappy to feature nearly every photo of that type: They all look beautiful but for a non-shell-researcher (and for the average WP user) they also look very similiar (except the different colors) and (only my very personal opinion) are not that interesting to feature them all. Why not select 1 or 2 of those photos with beautiful colors and outstanding sharpness instead of *-feature them? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- High quality, full-shown all-angles encyclopedic photo. Alborzagros (talk) 06:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 08:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- As above. Maybe it is time to innovate. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This type of work is meticulous, hard to do and takes a lot of time. I personally very difficult to do. Here is the effect of this picture Wow. It is fair to reward work when it is useful. We are not a fashion contest. We're here to freely disseminate knowledge.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per other supporters. Please notice some infos: first, Llez has nothing to do with this nomination, I'm even not sure he is aware of it. Second, some of his pictures of shells have already been rejected here because of lack of technical quality. Please have good arguments to reject this one, which is for me almost perfect. What means FP ? We all have different opinions about this, for me it is certainly not a beauty contest (many other websites for that). What does mean "innovate" ? Why oppose innovation (?) and this picture, which looks very modern for me ? --Jebulon (talk) 12:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Michael Gäbler (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--JLPC (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for nomination, the votes an the criticism. --Llez (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Marmot-edit1.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 08:37:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Inklein. Edit by jjron - uploaded by jjron - nominated by Maire -- Maire (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Maire (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- SupportI like the position of the Marmot! --Llorenzi (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I really like the position and the composition. However, the compression is eating some detail (whiskers) and the stones have significantly clipped whites. --Julian H. (talk/files) 10:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Great shot but per Julian. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support It's a beautiful composition and has a great feel for a yellow-bellied marmot's preferred habitat and I see the same technical problems with the photograph as others. However, I feel it has a lot of wow factor, especially the sense of altitude and terrain that is often difficult to capture in photographs. -- ~y (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support - perhaps a bit too blue --Uberprutser (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Weak Support. Despite quality defects, a very cute picture. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per others. JKadavoor Jee 13:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 11:19:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Here is an image with a big "Wow" for my taste. First, it is not a butterfly. The photograph is not too bad. But the effect Wow, is what is in the image itself. One may see here the first forms of life, 3.5 billion years ago. With a little imagination you can see here a group photograph ... fossil. Look, we all are here ! -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Kruusamägi (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom. JKadavoor Jee 05:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Happy to see my Great-great-great... (how many generations?)...great-grandparents ;-) --Llez (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --JLPC (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support — Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 07:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Adding some notes for the profane would be great. I don't see what there is to see. Yann (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- These are micro-organisms (a few microns) capable of producing limestone, the manner, coral corraliens. I add links to the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Info It is a fossil stromatolite. Stromatolites are formed over the years by mats (1-10 mm in thickness) of microorganisms (cynobacteria among others) found in shallow, mainly marine waters. The microorganisms precipitate mineral particles, which makes the mat to thicken, but only the upper part survives. Most stromatolites display characteristically layered structures. Only the layers are visible to the naked eye. --Cayambe (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. This information should be added in the description. Yann (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Great ! --Citron (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ximonic (talk) 12:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Feb 2013 at 07:28:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Émile Bertrand, restored, uploaded and nominated by Adam Cuerden -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Paris 16 (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support-- Alborzagros (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 06:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Yann (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support added in the "Cinderella" category.--Jebulon (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Cayambe (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Arcalino (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2013 at 19:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info Namaqua chameleon threat display. Shallow DOF on face give it a larger than life look - uploaded by Yathin_sk - nominated by Nossob -- Nossob (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Abstain -- Nossob (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting use of distortion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Question I don't understand how a 15mm lens at f/8 would produce such shallow depth of field. Am I missing something? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because the focusing is very close. I think you underappreciate how close you would have to be to the subject to get it to fill up even this much of the screen. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- It was at minimum focusing distance (~8") and horizontal FOV of the fisheye lens is around 160 degrees because of the sensor's 1.3x crop (will be 180 with full frame). The photograph was an attempt to capture the animal with a bit of its harsh environment. Also note that the image has been corrected for distortion. -- ~y (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support even thou small crop might help to make it even better. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 02:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Good choice of techniques to record a character display. I think you frighten her a bit to make this. :) JKadavoor Jee 06:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- All I wanted to do was to save it from being run over by vehicles, but the normally brown chameleon got defensive (rightly so) and that's when I grabbed my camera because it is interesting behavior! -- ~y (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Request This page requests expert opinions. JKadavoor Jee 08:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support great. Tomer T (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Everything on this picture is just awesome :-) --Aktron (talk) 10:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Arcalino (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Joydeep Talk 18:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very well --Rjcastillo (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Tamba52 (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Godot13 (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 09:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support It has something of a tilt-look (small world from using tilt function of T&S optics). The techincally quality (e.g. inside of the mouth and sharpness) is impressive. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Merops (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Poco a poco (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Stu Phillips (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Ivar (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support --Maire (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Chrysiridia rhipheus MHNT.jpg, featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 14:19:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Archaeodontosaurus - uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Peter23 -- Peter23 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Peter23 (talk) 14:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Nice picture: an obvious QI and, probably, VI. But there are just too many FP of the same kind and this one is not exceptional in any aspect. Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Alves and based on the new discussion on talk page; need to feature only the most exceptional ones. JKadavoor Jee 16:19, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I also noticed that this kind of images seem to have monopolized this page. Sorry but the time has come to change and innovate. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 16:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Yes, There are too many FP of the same kind. --Tonchino 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This is a stunning image, with a great wow-effect. We need featurable pictures of every species in the world. I'll support other featurable images of this species showing it in its natural habitat, also of the larva, the adult during egg-laying... though this is certainly a very long way to go. It's not the fault of the authors of this type of images, if other subjects are less well covered. Just my opinion. --Cayambe (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Nice butterflies! Having to many FP like this is not acceptable to vote oppose.Alborzagros (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Per Cayambe, strongly. --Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. Tomer T (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support I do not often come on this contest FP. But I'm still very proud to see my pictures. I've never taken a photo for this courcours. This is a study. This butterfly is considered one of the most beautiful, but it is difficult to photograph. A white background lose the edge of the lower wings and a black background comes into confrontational with dark wings. Must try a raking light. The result was not bad. But I know I can do better. I'll vote for it, because at the moment this is the best picture we have of this species. I know and especially the time I spent. Scientific photography is often thankless. We need to attract scientists from other photographers. I think the images in micosocopes or CT imaging. Do not lose sight of the goal. We need to nourish an encyclopedia. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I still believe there is no need to feature all of them; there are 723 pictures already under Category:Muséum de Toulouse collection of Lepidoptera. They all are high quality works (QI and VI); but IMHO only a few need to be featured. Further, featuring all of them will only helps to spoil the highlighting your best works in Commons effect of FP. What is the meaning in browsing Category:Featured pictures by User:Archaeodontosaurus if all of your works are FP. With respect, JKadavoor Jee 09:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support As Archaeodontosaurus. Only a photographer knows the trouble it takes to make these --Muhammad (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- We've a proverb: fishing in muddy waters. This is just a friendly mess. Don't try to make benefit from it. We were friends, are, and will be for ever. JKadavoor Jee 09:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- "Frienship" has nothing to do here, dear Jee...--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Not only a picture alone, also a time-consuming work combined with a large amount of experience can produce a "Wow-effect" --Llez (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid Tonchino's and Jacopo Werther's votes are invalid and should not count, because only based on wrong criteria, not in the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I won't oppose (the image is too pretty) though I feel the same as Alvesgaspar, but you can't invalidate those votes. Then you would have to cancel half of the support votes for many of the candidates on FPC. B.p. 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment@BP: I won't discuss this with you, because you are old enough in these pages, and therefore I think you understand very well what I mean...;)--Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems this type of works can be considered as semi-institutional; and the original concern about featuring institutional pictures are by you. JKadavoor Jee 04:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is false: the images are made by Wikipedians. The museum gives us access to its collections, but does not affect photographs. But on second thought ... I'm willing to be an institution.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Would like to take it in the spirit. Know you've enough knowledge and experience to distinguish real well-wishers from adulators. JKadavoor Jee 05:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Jee, it is hard to follow you in this marmelad mixing of concepts. I'm a member of Wikimedia France, and we try to increase contacts with Institutions in order to have the privilege in taking unusual pictures in good conditions (Château de Versailles, Musée de Cluny, Notre-Dame de Paris, Museum of Toulouse etc...). That's why we (Wikimedians) tag our picture file pages with logos or labels of these institutions. Be happy that the rule here is to "assume good faith"...As for me, EOD.--Jebulon (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Would like to take it in the spirit. Know you've enough knowledge and experience to distinguish real well-wishers from adulators. JKadavoor Jee 05:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- This is false: the images are made by Wikipedians. The museum gives us access to its collections, but does not affect photographs. But on second thought ... I'm willing to be an institution.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- It seems this type of works can be considered as semi-institutional; and the original concern about featuring institutional pictures are by you. JKadavoor Jee 04:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid Tonchino's and Jacopo Werther's votes are invalid and should not count, because only based on wrong criteria, not in the rules.--Jebulon (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Very good work. --JLPC (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Because there are lot of FP of butterflies since the beginning.--Citron (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support This butterfly is really Wow. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
File:Gologory Znak.jpg, not featured
[edit]Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2013 at 16:14:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Info created by Haidamac - uploaded by Haidamac - nominated by Шиманський Василь -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support -- Шиманський Василь (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Too much negative space. --Uberprutser (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support Gamaliel (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)