Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 15:09:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Crib Goch, Snowdonia, Wales - August 2007.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Crib Goch, Snowdonia, Wales - August 2007.jpg
Oppose -- Impressive walk and hiking path :) Picture less impresses me. Probably the lighting conditions did not help. - Benh (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 14:37:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rainbow lorikeet.jpg
Comment No, Dschwen is right, the saturation has been pumped up here. The real bird is very pretty, but the colours are not this strong. --99of9 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2010 at 00:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Oryx gazella -Etosha National Park, Namibia-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Oryx gazella -Etosha National Park, Namibia-8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2010 at 23:06:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tired 20-year-old cat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tired 20-year-old cat.jpg
Abstain (I don’t want to take part to the review process). This is my n°2 best photo (the first being that one); they have this “rating” because what interests me in photography is depicting emotions. Here, I think we can really feel how old the cat is. Ditithe penguin — 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons very different from PetarM's support: this portrait is expressive without the staged quality that mars so many photographs of cats. What's exceptional about this is that it depicts a creature in extreme old age on its own terms. Durova (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose DOF too shallow, background too busy, not enough there subject wise to make the picture interesting enough for FP, and besides cats don't like to be anthropomorphised. --Dori - Talk22:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the framing really adds to the emotion -- you can feel how the cat is coming to terms with age, and how the world around it is fading out. Or I'm reading far to much into the picture. Either way, it's quite excellent. AlexAH (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all the emotional mumbo-jumbo aside, this is a very good animal portrait. The framing is probably one of the pictures greatest strengths besides good choice of DOF and the interesting non-standard pose of the cat. --Dschwen (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to say framing is among the best, it is what makes the story. That left side in blur represents all the way this old cat passed through in her (probably not easy) life. Framing with cats poor condition is making her a martyr-like. --Mile (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The focus on the cat's head shows the signs of it's age, yes it's a very emotionally portrait, but I think we can se here a very useful for educational purpose picture, and this is the reason of my support. And it's a very beautiful pic :-) --Phyrexian (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just say no to more cat pictures on the Internet. Seriously though, I don't much like the composition/framing (too much head room). I also don't think the way the face is looking down is good. Even if it was chosen to highlight some perceived emotion, an educational photo of FP quality should get a more straightforward perspective (both figuratively and literally). Steven Walling04:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support What a great picture! It would be good if uploader will provide some context in the image description -- is it the cat of the uploader or some stray cat? if he still alive? if he is precisely 20-years old? etc. Trycatch (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I hadn't thought about this! The cat is neither mine, nor a stray cat; I only saw him once, when I was invited at some place. When I took the photo and saw this result, I showed it to the cat's owners, and asked them more information about him. They told me he was 20 at that time, maybe he is 21 now? Anyway, having seen him only once, I couldn't tell if he is still alive today. Should I add this info into the file's description? Ditithe penguin — 19:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a great picture, appreciate the framing too! I particularly love how this is far to the "cute kitten" stereotype :) --WikiKiwi (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have to trust me, but if this is a concern (like, as a way to comply with FP's identification rules), I can do my best to ask my relatives about where the cat's owners do live, and ask them official info. I am not a specialist (it is just a guess), but maybe the photo speaks for itself and if I hadn't told you he was 20, you would have guessed? Ditithe penguin — 16:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 10:26:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support how perverse – take photos while the subject urinating :-P Now real: a bit unsharp but very valued – overall nice work --kaʁstnDisk/Cat16:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add about territory marking in the image description, but it was not in the en wiki article. Excuse me ignorance, but how do you know it is a female? Snowmanradio (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding as a noun it is female, i suppose. Otherwise i dont know if its female, but You can distinguish between female and male cat knowing male has bigger head and bigger foots. --Mile (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 19:08:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago Theatre blend.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chicago Theatre blend.jpg
Info Exposure blended shot of the Chicago theater. It's location in downtown Chicago is crammed and shadowing by surrounding highrises make for difficult lighting conditions. Perspective is partially corrected, full correction looks odd given the wide angle and upward pointing camera. A lot of postprocessing wen into this to remove any ghosting from the exposure blending. All by Dschwen (talk)
SupportComment Fine resolution. I think the partial perspective correction works well. Some movement shadows behind the person walking to the left, which you could easily remove. A little chromatic aberration. Snowmanradio (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at in again and I have become a bit puzzled by the vanishing points. I think the perspective is flawed. I have changed my support vote to a comment. Awaiting amended image. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine example of a well-done exposure blend. Looks natural and realistic enough. I noticed that the blonde person walking in front of the scaffolding on the right has a ghost of her hair a few feet behind her ; that should not be difficult to touch up either. --MAURILBERT(discuter)03:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a significant difference between the angle of the buildings with the vertical at left (about 2.5º) and at right (about 5º). The result is an apparent cck tilt of the image. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the photo above photo is in your opinion "at least a QI", why should this one be FP? Yes, it's technically very good, and I like that it looks realistic althougt it is exposure blended. IMO the finest part of this photo are the lights of the theater, but it's otherwise quite dull. —kallerna™11:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I quite understand the question here. Maybe you two need to refresh your knowledge of Predicate logic. As for Kallerna: I guess trying to explain why any picture that was neither taken by you nor shows a bird's behind should be FP seems like a waste of time :-P. --Dschwen (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC). P.S.: Just to make this even clearer: I was giving a lower bound for the other picture and you somehow seem to have confused this with an upper bound, which happens to be the exact opposite. --Dschwen (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to achieve here? Haven't I made myself clear enough yet? Where are you getting this better than nonsense from? --Dschwen (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I waited that you would politely answer to my question and if you answered well, I would have supported the photo. I thought that you had reason to nominate this one and another to oppose the other one. Benh gave good reasons to his oppose there, maybe you had the same things in mind? —kallerna™20:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where are you getting that I oppose Muhammads picture? You make no sense whatsoever. And of course there is a reason I nominate my picture after seeing his. They are somewhat alike in subject/style, which made me remember this old shot I had. --Dschwen (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well you didn't oppose it, but as I said, you didn't consider it even being QI. And it's technical quality was ok to me, even if it was bit small. So I just thought that there could be something special in this photo, which I don't see. —kallerna™20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Then I guess it is a simple language problem. I said it is at least QI which means it is for sure a Quality Image, and maybe even more than that. Implying that it may be featureworthy here, but I haven't made up my mind. --Dschwen (talk) 21:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I also find this picture misses wow as well, I think it's fair to say that it is a little bit more challenging to take that the indian town hall below given the lighting conditions and the fact you have no choice but using very wide angle to catch the whole building (I'm just guessing, but wouldn't be surprised given the streets pattern of a typical american city downtown). - Benh (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lot of CA on borders and looks a bit "pale" because of the blending. I'd add a little bit more saturation to compensate. In my opinion, not enough wow to compensate for the minor technical faults overall, but I think I would support once they are fixed.. - Benh (talk) 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. I was a bit sick the last two days and currently cannot find my original files for this image (shame on me). Plus I'm kind of busy preparing for a trip to SF. So I won't be able to work on this image in the next two weeks. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2010 at 00:29:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpg
I just ZoomViewerd Zoomviewer (yeah, shameless plug ;-) ) through the whole thing. Impressive work. However, there is a bluish shade in the trees (I'll mark it with image annotations). What is that? --Dschwen (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been well over a year since I started working on it. I remember there was a lot of damage around that corner, and I THINK that was a tear in the image, which had been physically repaired, but the repair reflected some of the scanner light back. I fixed it as well as I was able, but sometimes it can be difficult to fix something completely. The things the Library of Congress prepared can be a little weird at times. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2010 at 10:22:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Pink Charm 1.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Pink Charm 1.JPG
Oppose. Flower snapshot. Pretty subject but unremarkable photo. Cluttered and cramped composition, unappealing background and cut off bottom of the flower. --Dschwen (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2010 at 12:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Impala mutualim with birds wide.jpg
Oppose I do like the picture, and the focus and everything is absolutely fine, and I am sure as well it must have been hard to find one of those together with the birds to take a photo of, but it is a little bit to boring to be featured. QI absolutely! //Tanzania (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition. The subject matter is interesting, but the grass is distracting. Also, file name needs to be corrected to avoid the misspelling. Steven Walling09:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration. It's next to impossible for you to do anything about it. But Featured means the best of the best, near-perfect quality. Even a small distraction in composition like grass breaking up the line of your subject is reason enough to oppose. Whether or not the grass is a natural part of this animal's environment is beside the point; it obscures the interesting and educational facets of the photo, and that's not acceptable for FP. Steven Walling20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2010 at 14:29:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spilberk z dalky.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spilberk z dalky.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2010 at 02:21:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Excellent work! Multilingual version is not a must for FP criteria. In this case I prefer the annotated version to the numbered version which is rather complicated to read due to the large number of annotations. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 10:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent, but it might be possible to improve it even further. Some minor points or observations suggested as constructive criticism mainly for overall consistency within the illustration: I wonder if it is worth writing "Cercus" on the right and putting a pointing line to it, and also to indicate what I to VII are perhaps by putting "Abdomen (segments I to VII)" on the right: The green at the top goes beyond the head and the blue of the abdomen stops at the end of the abdomen: I think that I would have put "Head", "Thorax", and "Abdomen" in the middle or the top of the coloured (or bracketed) bands: I might have extended the space available on the left and right for more room for the writing and added coloured (or bracketed) bands for the wing and leg (on the left): I am not sure why the existing coloured bands extend over the mid-line and why the middle band goes further to the left: The coloured band might not be needed if elongated brackets ("}"s) were used to indicate the head, thorax, and abdomen regions instead of colours. --Snowmanradio (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info- i moved "cersus" and placed some text and line for the abdominal segments. i also increased the space on the bottom for the blue "bar". I can not give the wing a colored bar becouse wings are not perse segments of the body but instead belong to the Thorax. In a sence that is why the yellow bar extends a bit more than the other two. same goes for the legs. Colored bands may not be needed to divide the segments of the body but they look good :P. plus there is already a style line on insects diagrams that started with the ant i made some years ago. it would seem it has spreaded arround and i dont see any reason not to continue with it :) as examples for it are (the butterfly,heteroptera,grasshoper,housefly, between others ( none of this are mine)) -LadyofHats (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That seems to be an improvement to me, because of enhanced consistency. I did not know about the colour bands in the other images. I would not have realized that the extended middle band was indicating that the wings are part of the thorax. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCulex pipiens is the correct way of writing the binomial name of the species. The first word is capitalised and the second word is all lower case, and both words are in italics. The capitalization in the image will need correcting. Perhaps the binomial name could be written a bit larger, and perhaps in a more central position somewhere. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info i fixed the name, but i leave it in the same place since i have my doubths about having it on the picture at all. the idea was to make a diagram of a "generic" mosquito. unfortunaly i realised there are main diferences between the diferent species that go beyond of the color or size. specially between the anopheles and the culex. that is why i placed the name of my model to be on the safe side -LadyofHats (talk)
Comment Foreleg is one word, while hind leg and mid leg are each two words, and they should probably be written "Hind leg" and "Mid leg" (the first word capitalised only - leg not capitalised as it is not a proper noun) to be in line with wiki capitalization guidelines. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info done it. i also changed colors to relate the wing and the legs to the thorax.-LadyofHats (talk)
Question What would it look like with "Abdominal segments" on one line and with "(I to VII)" underneath on the line below? If the two mid legs were exchanged left to right, then there would be more room for the writing on the right. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support If you want multilanguage then translate it!. Demanding all translations to be done by the original author is unreasonable, especially if an SVG file is provided. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The capitalization of the binomial name needs correcting as above. Put in lines for the abdomen and cercus with numbers, to be consistent with above. Put numbers at top of colour bands. Extend blue zone down a bit as above. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose How is a version with just numbers in it better than a version with english labels (or text labels in any other language)? The file is given as SVG so translations can be made. This already fulfills all requirements for internationalization. Dumbing it down to a version which can only clumsily be decypered by going back and forth between description and image makes no sense what so ever. --Dschwen (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
er.. you should read the other comments the one being nominated is the one with english text. the only reason why the numbered apears is becouse someone asked me to make the same edits as the other one :). ty for defending it tho -LadyofHats (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but wikipedia already has a line in wich it offers you to see the image up to 2000 pixels wide. increasing the actual file size would only make it heavier for the server. oposite to a bitmap image it isnt like quality would improve with a bigger file -LadyofHats (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The SVG code would not increase in length by changing the nominal size of the image; a larger default size would be a better match for the amount of detail shown; yes, the wikimedia software will create png files at any desired size, but it needs an extra click, and not everybody is aware of those 2000px links. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 08:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2010 at 09:09:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ikarus280M.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ikarus280M.JPG
Oppose Useful image for sure. However the composition is lacking. Lighting was sadly not good that day and the overhead wires (very necessary) are awkward here. --Herbytalk thyme16:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2010 at 11:22:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2010 at 09:18:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valdres - Bitihorn.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valdres - Bitihorn.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 15:24:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:95 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:95 - Machu Picchu - Juin 2009.jpg
Ok, I gotta call bullshit on this. I don't even know where to begin with. First of all Mediawiki does the downscaling for you. Secondly: Zoomviewer. Demands like this are nothing but detrimental to the project. Just thank the uploader for providing non-downsampled version of his images. --Dschwen (talk) 22:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Dschwen said, opposing because an image is of too high resolution/size/quality is bullshit. This is Featured-level work. Steven Walling04:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I like the image size, and it has wow. However, the stitch isn't quite good. There are many obvious ghosts. --Lošmi (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think this is one of hist best images, some stitching problems will have to be fixed. And I'm not too fond of the exposure problems in the sky. --Dschwen (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I saw much better photos of S23678 than this. I think there stitching problems, quality's not the best and it gives overexposed parts --kaʁstnDisk/Cat19:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My old tripod induced quite a parallax error when taking pictures in portait shape, which explains some of the ghosts (as seen on a previous nomination take in the same location). This image falls short of what should be expected quality-wise from FPs. Thanks for all your comments. --S23678 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2010 at 23:14:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpg
Support A bit over saturated, but I still find this picture "attractive". Wonder what kind of processing was applied, certainly there was some sort of tone-mapping like treatment, or Diliff played a lot with curves, because shadow areas are noisy (not the typical canon 5D trademark...) and the sky dramatically blue (and I don't believe this comes from any kind of filters). - Benh (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it almost seems like the typical Diliff trademark. I have beeen browsing through a lot of his images lately and it seems that this is his standard processing. If I understood correctly he works exclusively from RAW, and my guess is that the shadow lifting (or rather digital "fill light" which is standard in raw converters) is part of his regular work flow. The noise in the shadows can be seen in many of his pictures. --Dschwen (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which software Diliff uses, but I've recently been experimenting as well to get this kind of "pop" skies. My only successful way is to tone map from a single picture : you underexpose and overexpose from RAW to get the additional exposures. You can them feed enblend with these pictures. In the end, u get better results (IMO) and more details than if u play with curves yourself as RAW have 12bit/channel on the 5D (against 8 for normal tiff or Jpeg I think, and anyways, I can't do this in gimp, yet ?). My results looks similar to this, with noise in dark areas, and intensely blue skies with white clouds. Maybe Photoshop and whatever from Adobe, DxO... offer more possibilities... but I believe it would be just mimicking this workflow. If anyone knows ? - Benh (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is one of the photos that I've never been 100% happy with, and was on the list of photos to reprocess. From memory I did exactly what Benh has described - except I used tufuse to blend the over and underexposed images, which isn't strictly tone mapping, but it's similar. The 'pop' of the sky is due to using a polariser filter, and it was undoubtably very green (late spring), but I think it's probably worth re-processing it and uploading a new image. Give me a bit of time. As an aside, sometimes the reason for the shadow noise in my images is not tone mapping or lifting the shadows too much. As you know, blown highlights are a pain, particularly in clouds in the sky, so I will often underexpose the photo in order to preserve those highlights. In order to then bring the rest of the image back to the correct exposure, you have to dig it out of the shadows, and that typically results in the noise. I think I've just overdone it on this image. Diliff (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. This one is processed straight from Lightroom with no fusion involved. Fairly basic settings used actually. Virtually no saturation boost (+5 vibrance is all) so if you still think saturation is OTT, I politely disagree. As you can see, the left side wall is very underexposed, and the shadows are much deeper. Hope this is more to everyone's liking. Apologies for the first one being a bit crap. Dschwen, yeah, I do sometimes boost shadows (fill light) when the shadow detail is important, and as I said, I expose to minimise blown highlights, so sometimes this is necessary. Sometimes I get it wrong. Some photos require a revisit (or feedback) to notice the mistakes. :-) Diliff (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was not meaning to call this a mistake at all. I do the same thing with respect to under-exposure, and I like the results you get. I have been meaning to adjust my workflow to reproduce the lightend shadows, but often end up making my whole image dull. Guess global curves just doesn't cut it. I did experiment with enfusing multiple virtual exposure steps, but I guess I need more practice there. --Dschwen (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC) P.S.: Uhm, well for this picture did, just not the technique in general. --Dschwen (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you used a polariser filter as the effect seems even in the sky (one of the issues I often have is unevenness, which is even more pronounced when sun comes from aside, as this seems to be the case here), but this explains why the grass and trees are so green in my opinion. Any version looks good to me. I prefer bottom part from new version, but the sky from first one. - Benh (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Featured picture candidates/File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:A591 road, Lake District - June 2009.jpg
Support The colours and shadows are much better now. I support this but would prefer a small crop at the left to remove the intruding branch. --99of9 (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There can always be arguments about what the best crop for an image is. However the left side of this at least is really not at FP standard to me (although this image is much better crafted than the original). --Herbytalk thyme08:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Quality is excellent, as expected. But the almost symmetrical composition is a bit boring IMO. Many other good Dilif pics out there to assess! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I actually think it's a wonderful composition for something that's so wide. It attracts the eyes to the sides. --Calibas (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture is much better. The color and the shadows are great.
Oppose Oversaturated. The clouds are also a bit distracting.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2010 at 21:59:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment I'd like to see a slight crop to remove the partial structures on either side of the image. Also, that powerline(?) is a bit distracting at full res. –Juliancolton | Talk00:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on , featured3 Apr 2010 at 00:58:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 2 - Jan 07.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:L'Oceanografic, Valencia, Spain 2 - Jan 07.jpg
Support Might be that I don't know everything about photography, but from my perspective, it is really cool. I like the blue colour of the water and the sharp focus of the building. //Tanzania (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2010 at 02:55:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Squash bug Coreidae.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Squash bug Coreidae.jpg
Lovely composition, but at barely the minimum size the subject is rather small and it looks like there is a small amount of motion blur on the bug. --Dschwen (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2010 at 17:00:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Friedländer Tor Neubrandenburg Haupttor Stadtseite.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Friedländer Tor Neubrandenburg Haupttor Stadtseite.JPG
Info The interesting thing is: The building is tilted, not the photo. It's a Brick Gothic medieval city gate that dates back to the 14th century, keep that in mind! And the bottom is cut off intentionally, as there were construction works going on. Thanks for the response, anyway. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the picture unfortunately does not convey that the tilt is due to the building. You need some kind of reference frame to show that. --Dschwen (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for upping the alternative, Carschten. It indeed looks better, even though the original version doesn't show technical deficits but 'natural' ones. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. That would be a double oppose now. If the gate is indeed tilted then this "correction" is now misleading. The bottom crop is still unacceptable. --Dschwen (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2010 at 08:26:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Giardia life cycle en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Giardia life cycle en.svg
Comment Thankyou, that extra step completes the logical cycle. Next question - why is the background cream coloured in some of the diagram, and transparent in the rest? --99of9 (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the cream part of the diagram extends over the process that happens inside the body. and it actually should be cream over white. but someone insisted in having the background transparent when on QI evaluation -LadyofHats (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the diagram is about infestation in humans, perhaps the image description should mention Giardia intestinalis. Is all of the information referenced? - I could not find "1 in 3 infected humans get symptoms" in the sources provided. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
on the english wikipedia it is called Gardia lamblia so that is how i name it on the description. Also de the one on 3 was on the wikipedia article at the time i made the image. i tryed to find it right now but it seems to have been changed to "not all infections present symptoms". so i changed the image acording. I also uploaded a numbered version and found a german translation :P-LadyofHats (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant that some have full stops and some don't. Also, "everyone" shouldn't be capitalized, and I think it should be "not everyone exhibits symptoms". –Juliancolton | Talk14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure why there is a red square at the mouth. The intestine illustration seems somewhat detached from the rest of the diagram - I think that it could be used in a better way to show which stages of the life cycle are in the intestines. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infothe red square is there to indicate that the parasite is ingested ( and can only be aquired by ingestion) the colored intestine is there becouse everything else ( on the colored semicircle) happens in the intestine. i could increase the color to make it clearer that the stages are all POINTING to the intestine. would that help?-LadyofHats (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2010 at 23:07:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 00:40:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Green Chicago River on Saint Patricks Day 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Green Chicago River on Saint Patricks Day 2009.jpg
Oppose. I already stumbled across this image a while ago. I don't like it at all. Overdone oversexed HDR in my opinion. Image quality itself is not impressive either. --Dschwen (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this would be a hit on Flickr, but it should certainly not be a Commons FP because of the reasons mentioned by Dschwen. --Aqwis (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the two only options here are not "They don't dye so the picture looks fake" and "They dye, so the picture looks real". There is option number three: "They dye, but the picture still doesn't look the least bit real". --Dschwen (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 05:36:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:坤輿萬國全圖.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:坤輿萬國全圖.jpg
Restoration is NEVER a requirement. To insist on restoration when the original is as incredibly well-preserved as this one is... kind of ridiculous. That said, removing the bits of... what is that, masking tape? holding down the corners might be a wise decision. But can we please stop acting as if no historic media can ever pass unless someone has edited it? Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 14:46:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.pngCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png
Man nehme ein Messsystem mit einer hinreichend hohen optischen Auflösung und zahlreichen Pixeln. Dann muss man Matlab nur noch sagen, dass es die Grafik mit etwas mehr als 72 DPI ausgeben soll :-) -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 12:02:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fennec Fox @ Africa Alive, Lowestoft 2t4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fennec Fox @ Africa Alive, Lowestoft 2t4.jpg
SupportThis is the smallest sort of canine in the world. I don't think any of its pictures are FP. This looked the best one of the right size. There was a straw in front of its face so I painted it out. Original can be found File:Fennec Fox @ Africa Alive, Lowestoft 2.jpg. Please comment on the edit I made to the picture if you like. Thanks. -- ~ R.T.G12:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 19:43:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lindau Löwe-edit.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lindau Löwe-edit.jpg
Oppose Must have been a lot of work to do the fake DOF blur on this image, but the background still doesn't satisfy me. Sorry :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question For the education of my critical eye, can you explain how you know the background blur is post-processed? --99of9 (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it takes years of training and a tremendous amount of experience. And I am not sure I can teach you all that in just a simple response. But let me try anyways. Carefully look at the lower border of the image on the preview page. From there direct your critical eye downwards on the page, where it says other version... ;-P. --Dschwen (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, ok I deserved that. I did read the description, and look for a retouched tag. Since neither of these mention the edit, I Oppose on the grounds of incomplete documentation :). --99of9 (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 18:35:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore Edit1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sir Puttanna Chetty Town Hall Bangalore Edit1.jpg
Support Nice light, good composition (although I would prefer different angle) & quality. Is as good as many of our building-FP's. —kallerna™15:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For same reasons I already oppose on en fpc (lack of wow: looks really like a tourist snapshot ; size : I don't see why u gone through all the stitching process mess to end up with a 4mpix picture.) - Benh (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strange angle. Probably better front on. Is there a reason this couldn't be done? --99of9 (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2010 at 16:41:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:English Woodland and Sun.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:English Woodland and Sun.jpg
Oppose - Not the right type of image for commons. Would it do well at an art show? Yes. But commons is about technically sound images and ones that are educational. Sorry. Tiptoetytalk18:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An "art" image must be educational to some degree and to someone and it is open to (nearly) all images. Whether they are appreciated is another matter :( - mine rarely make it here because of that. --Herbytalk thyme12:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a beautiful, very atmospheric photo. Hovever, this is an encyclopedia. While artistic value is a plus for an image, technical aspects and educational value a more important for the project, IMO. And I think it should stay that way, to ensure the acceptance of wikipedia as source of information. Even if it hurts sometimes :( Nikopol (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2010 at 23:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose I don't like the background. In thumb you have to look two times at the image to see the hole bird. Sorry, it's good but imo it isn't featured --kaʁstnDisk/Cat12:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shorebird and it is photographed on a sandy beach. I guess that the bird's colouring has an element of camouflage. I do not expect camouflaged animals to stand out against the background when they are photographed in the wild in a natural setting. The image size is 3,872 × 2,592, which is at least six times the area of a minimum sized FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI definitely, but not really the "wow" needed for FP, especially relative to other avian photos. FWIW, I think the background/composition is just fine. The bird is in sharp enough focus to deal with a broken or shadowy background. Steven Walling21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, I mean it has no special quality in terms of composition or how it illuminates the subject. I do not mean I simply find the subject boring (far from it). Put another way, it's not an exceptional educational photo, merely a technically adequate one, which is why I mentioned QI. Still, even if I did just think it was boring, the social sciences have clearly demonstrated that beautiful and engaging work helps people learn faster and more thoroughly than dry work. With that in mind, boring is a useful unit of measurement for educational photography. Steven Walling04:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a biological science image, and it is not especially a social sciences image. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC
Uh...I meant that social science literature demonstrated the point, not that the point is only applicable to social science content. Steven Walling01:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A philosophical approach: a quotation by William Blake: "To see a world in a grain of sand, And a heaven in a wild flower, Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, And eternity in an hour". Snowmanradio (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone should start a discussion on the word "wow" and hopefully have it banned from us on these pages. It is a shorthand word which leaves a lot to be desired. --Herbytalk thyme08:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone that is not interested in a subject would probably have a tendency not find images of that subject interesting. I am beginning to think that a plane-brown bird or animal would never get a FP. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I absolutely agree with Snowmanradio and–Juliancolton | Talk comments about words "wow" and "boring", and with thought about plane-brown animals and getting FP (excerpt the bison above ) This is a great shot, with a good light. But maybe a little unsharp IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 01:05:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Boring composition, overused subject (southern half of North America). The file description also implies that a much higher resolution version is available. --Avenue (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 20:01:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:GKpress.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:GKpress.jpg
Comment "These photos may be used for publicity and program marketing purposes only." seems inconsistent with "allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that..." Can this be clarified? --99of9 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2010 at 10:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg
Withdraw Due to incidents on en-wiki, I feel ashamed I have ever worked on Wikipedia, and that I ever agreed to return after the first bit of harassment by en-wiki's arbitration committee. It's clear that that is never going to change, that even having been forced to admit, publicly, to major ethical lapses in their first bit of harassment only made them more upset at me. I feel the entire Wikipedia system is corrupt, because those in power have decided they are gods. I cannot continue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly should we give a crap about en-wiki incidents here? This image may still be usefull for the remaining zillion Wikimedia projects. I oppose a withdraw! ;-) --Dschwen (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to know why?
I'll tell you why. Here's what the Arbcom on en-wiki has done in just the last month or so. You can figure out the context yourself.
1. Rlevse oversights links to the offline copy of the log about Durova, which was
my main bit of evidence against Durova. This greatly escalates the
case, forcing me to take it to Arbcom, because that's the only way I
can have the log considered, since Rlevse is determined to abuse her
tools to protect Duurova. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA
1a. I mail the Oversight committee about this. I get a message saing it
was awaiting moderation, then nothing. I send it again, I'm told it's
being discussed, but they forgot to tell me. I send two or three
messages after this, asking if I'll be informed of the result. None
are ever replied to.
2. During the case, Durova is allowed to go over the word limit, but
if I do, I get a warning. I allow my text to be redacted once, because
I was so upset over the Faysall's talking about how Durova should
apologise, at which point I will immediately work with her on a
project, treating two years of her using me as a scapegoat as
something I should go back to, so the Arbcom doesn't have to bother.
OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA
2a. When I briefly go over again during the course of a major, three
horu revision fo my statement, I get some weird edit conflicts along
the way. I don't know why, so I just save over them, so I can get my
thoughts together. IT turns out some clerk was constantly reverting to
a reduced form of the FIRST EDIT I MADE, even as I was still trying
to get my words together. In the meantime, Durova's wordcount stood at
about 576, and no redaction happened to hers. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO
DUROVA
2b. I find out about this when done, and go to deal with it. I tell
the clerk it will take a short time to work on it, and point out the
problem with Durova. I complain about the uneven treatment, so he
blocks me. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA
2c. The clerk then spends 2 hours being an utter dick, holding the
block over my head, while poking me with a stick. He only unblocks if
I promise to leave his highly misleading redaction alone.
2d. Durova's statement remained over the word count during this time.
OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA
3. Durova outright lies, claiming, based on me giving permission for
her to post a specific log which backed an outrageous claim she made -
and was never able to back - that she can post any logs she wants,
because her Skype is saved as one log. She actually quotes from
e-mails. The Arbcom are unconcerned with her behaviour, or that this
new statement of hers is around 1500 words. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO
DUROVA
4. The fact that she lied about having permission, was unable to back
an accusation which she had made on ANI before, claiming she had the
log at that time, does not concern Arbcom. They decide that, despite
me having been driven off Wikipedia for 5 months by her actions, and
her not having a lick of evidence against me, that they should ignore
her behaviour. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA?
5. Durova is allowed to make constant references to the situation
which set off the case at en:Talk:The Raven, even make snide comments
about logs containing my objection to her orientation. All this
questioning was being done by other people. They are fine with this.
But, when something I made on commons - which they explicitly excluded from their judgement - having seen what she was doing
on en-wiki at en:Talk:The Raven gets put up as an FP candidate on
en-wiki, and I politely ask that it not be used, because I had had to
make do with some non-FP quality work, they block me for the maximum
duration. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA
After Durova spent two years harassing me, they have decided to show blatant and obvious favouritism to her, while poking fun of me. And this while knowing I was in a vulnerable state for various reasons, had just returned after five months away due to the harassment, and had only in the last week returned to participation. Then they pull the last stunt, and taunt me about it.
English Wikipedia's power structure is blatantly corrupt. And anything I do here supports those people over there. That's why you should care about en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, first of all what you do here supports the readers of en.wp. Why punish them? Secondly why punish the remaining Wikimedia projects too? --Dschwen (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 12:11:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Neutral - Interesting bird, but like Whale said above the composition leaves something to be desired. Also, there appear to be a few things in the background that are out of focus. Tiptoetytalk18:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is not so good to have more space behind the bird than in front. A crop on the right (without cropping the bird's shadow) would improve it. --Elekhh (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2010 at 03:37:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Falling water drops.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Falling water drops.jpg
Neutral my oppose would be suspect, because of the Whale's opposition on my picture above, and my consecutive answer. I just may say this : another photograph of a water drop falling in a bowl ? And what about the "educational and artistic value" of this ? At the end : a lot of parts unsharp, background very noisy IMHO. Then, I stay neutral----Jebulon (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not of falling water droplets, but I like many pictures in your gallery! And if you like to share experiences about shooting water droplets, just send me an email (pjt56@gmx.net). --Pjt56 (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 04:41:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Hippocampus and seahorse cropped.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hippocampus and seahorse cropped.JPG
Support -- I know it's small. But it has historical significance. Until László Seress' published this, scientists were wondering how the hippocampus came by it's name when it (on its own) looks like a silkworm and nothing like a seahorse. It has been reproduced many times and is currently in print in Andersen's "The Hippocampus Book", page 10, and Rudy's "The neurobiology of learning and memory", page 237. Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small. If you have a larger image, please upload it. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 14:30:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Osmium-crystals 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Osmium-crystals 2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 13:47:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ruthenium a half bar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ruthenium a half bar.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 12:09:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Too much contrast - sky is white and shops are black. I understand this is hard to shot well but I think FP requires that. --Aktron (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 11:19:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 06:48:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:American Bird Grasshopper.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:American Bird Grasshopper.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2010 at 21:10:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment two tips: 1) if you want sharp a picture like this, just sharp the animal and not the background 2) do not oversharp it. Now the image-editing-hints are too extrem. The crop is by the way very nice. --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2010 at 15:30:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Das meinte ich nicht, sondern ich meinte die Veränderung des Kontrast, den Dori gekennzeichnet hat. Außenrum ist alles milchig und da ist es plötzlich gestochen scharf. Was ist da passiert? --Simonizer (talk) 07:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too close to the left edge, quality is not the best, and there is a weird artifact that should be explained (will put a note showing location). --Dori - Talk02:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very good background but unfortunelately too tight crop. The pose is also very good... Hopefully you can create version 2 with more background. —kallerna™15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 00:15:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Dominostein edelherb.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Dominostein edelherb.jpg
Support Engaging composition, quality background and lighting. Image is definitely educational and of high technical/compositional quality. Steven Walling04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to clarify re: Julian's point, using a white background like that in a studio setting is a very common practice among professional photographers, and there are other FPs who have the same background. Steven Walling16:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I know, but this one just looks a bit odd to me. Almost as if the chocolates were photoshopped onto a white background (which I know they weren't). –Juliancolton | Talk17:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somebody dares to do something very different at last ! agree with Steven Walling about technical and educational qualities. ----Jebulon (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2010 at 13:44:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Now that you apparently have no more problems uploading 11 Megapixel images, what is your reason for keeping this one barely above minimum size? --Dschwen (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)**I upload high resolution of the architectural shots but macro is always difficult especially due to the cropping among other reasons. --Muhammad (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I have marked some of them, there are some more around. Some on upper-rigth side too. Probably not clean lens.--Mile (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Below the present macro FP standards. The composition is trivial, I don't like the framing and the size could and should be larger. Ah, the head of the female is out of focus. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 08:46:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sella y Saslong dinviern.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sella y Saslong dinviern.jpg
Oppose the filedesc said that the mountains are the main motive. And I think for FP they aren't sharp enough. The trees in fordeground looked also a bit too dark to me, am I right? --kaʁstnDisk/Cat11:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 21:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Different Slant on Orion (495636660).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Different Slant on Orion (495636660).jpg
QuestionHST Orion nebula image composited this is a Hubble Space Telescope image arent they PD-NASA, is it a derivative work? I'd like to see more of whats behind the images construction and as to how much it reflects the original HST image and whether its still can be considered an image of Orion or just a piece of art. Gnangarra04:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 13:07:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Faro du Portzic a Brest.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Faro du Portzic a Brest.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2010 at 21:10:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eiche.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiche.jpg
Oppose There are many images of this type and while it is not bad it doesn't have that little extra to set itself apart from other similar images. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Das Bild ist von ausgezeichneter technischer Qualität. Aber es findet bei FP keinen Anklang, weil es nur die Illustration einer Eiche für ein Lexikon ist. Das wird schon daran sichtbar, dass die Eiche in der Bildmitte steht und das Bild ausfüllt. Bei FP sucht man neben der ausgezeichneten technischen Qualität zusätzlich eine Bildidee, die begeistert. Solche Bildideen für Bäume wie Eichen findest Du bei Malern der Romantik wie Caspar David Friedrich oder Ludwig Richter. Ein Tip: versuche es mit diesem Bild bei Valued image und lass Dich nicht entmutigen. FP braucht Dich. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 20:09:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2010 at 05:32:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Comment It looks nice as thumbnail, but there are too many artifacts visible in full res — the picture looks pixelated. Looks like it's saved as a low quality jpg. --Lošmi (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The alt version. CA still there and I liked the lower crop of the old version better, but now the artifacts are gone and lighting + colors are nice. Nikopol (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A lot of low quality artifacts. Sorry, this is a really nice shot, but the quality is even insufficient for a Quality Image. I have to oppose. See also my image annotations for original and alt version. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QuestionI like composition also, but i saw in the beggining that cross, which is poor quality. May I ask which lens have You used ? I see it has big problem at 18mm...always try to avoid beggining and end of focal length since every lens is worst at borders. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had no issues with the lens, it was taken with 18-50mm lens using a circular polariser filter at 11:35am shade temperature was ~42C(107F), most of whats being called CA and artifacts is more likely the result of radiant heat. Gnangarra13:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was wondering was it too high compresion or lens, it seems combo of lens and high temperature lost some sharpness. But i guess i am gonna vote for because i like the photo. Good framing. --Mile (talk) 14:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support But knowing the location very well, the angle and the clouds do nothing for me, the tower is a feature that is lost with the clouds around it SatuSuro (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2010 at 12:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:2h Namur 13.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:2h Namur 13.jpg
Support Although the windows are burnt white, but that's inevitable, I presume. (Note: la description en anglais et en allemand est erronée; prière de bien vouloir la corriger). -- MJJR (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Aesthetically pleasing. For an architectural shot, it is not exactly symmetrical, but it is pretty darn close and any distortion (perspective or lens) is well controlled. You have to really look for any problems. -- Ram-Man21:31, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2010 at 16:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Blair castle - coat of arms.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Blair castle - coat of arms.jpg
I agree that the crop looks a bit odd. I couldn't make it tighter because of the head of the top character, and I couldn't make it wider because of the top of a gate right below current crop (I would have been too prominent with a wider crop). --Eusebius (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2010 at 21:27:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 20:07:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-16a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-16a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 08:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose Nice photo, but the rock in front of the fish is a bit distracting and the fish is not very sharp or focused on (other than the head). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2010 at 19:26:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Skyscrapers of Shinjuku 2009 January.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Skyscrapers of Shinjuku 2009 January.jpg
Neutral, not terribly wow-o-genic, a little bit soft esp. at the leftmost edge, composition somewhat nondescript, wide aspect ratio w/o being a panorama, contrast a bit on the harsh side... --MAURILBERT(discuter)19:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sky must be rather clear to see Fuji from 100km distance. What you describe as motion blur/hazy is probably the effect of being taken through a not so perfect glass. --Elekhh (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Maurilbert on sharpness, contrast and composition. I would therefore oppose it, but I´m not shure how seldom mount Fuji can be seen from the city, and how likely we are to get a better one in the near future. Nikopol (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 00:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch High Resolution.jpg
Strong support Great resolution and image quality, which permits exact analysis of the lovely details. Also, this is a very important artwork, compared to some other media we already promoted. Of course, I can´t judge how true to original the colors and gamma are, but nevertheless, I guess it would be hard to find a better reproduction on the net for free. Nikopol (talk) 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Especially the right part seems a little dark, but the problem is: How do you want to decide how much tweaking is needed? Scans on the net vary from all ranges of color and quality, and even prints aren´t always reliable. The correction would have to be made by someone with some good artbooks to compare. Nikopol (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some reflections of the (flash)lamps at the upper side, but otherwise stunning quality. As far as I can remember from viewing the original painting at the Prado, the right panel is really that dark. So please don't correct brightness or contrast... -- MJJR (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changes would affect the left two panels FAR more than the right. 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 13:44:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ER2-1290 Kareila.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ER2-1290 Kareila.jpg
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 12 Apr 2010 at 13:42:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support Another fine drawing by LadyofHats, I'd like to see the caudal hairs identified in the side view as the positioning on the body is better described in that section. Gnangarra04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think that the label "Abdomen" should be at the top and alongside the headings "Thorax" and "Head", possibly with the coloured areas reaching the same level at the top of the image. In the inset could "Caudal hairs" point to both caudal hairs, if there are two. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
did it. (not in every species are 2 caudal hairs. it seems the place and number of hairs are a main point in recognising the diferent species) -LadyofHats (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not look right with the word "Abdomen" at a lower level than the words "Head" and "Thorax". The blue could go right to the top and the word "Abdomen" centred or moved to the right with a little padding on the left to separate it from "Thorax". The "Caudal hairs" pointer on the main diagram only points to one hair, despite being in the pleural. The binomial species name could go in a much smaller white zone, or there are several other ways of getting Head, Thorax, and Abdomen on the same level with some spacing in the appropriate colour zone. Snowmanradio (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not really, there isnt any other "part" wich is visible on the side view. actually normally the larva would be cut down and twisted when placing it under the microscope as it explains [here]. -LadyofHats (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2010 at 11:45:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-21a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Estrela Março 2010-21a.jpg
Comment I do like this and understand why you feel the way you do. Pity about the green railings I guess. I will watch this one with interest :) --Herbytalk thyme12:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like vertical panos, but IMO this one is not sufficient for FP in terms of composition and lighting. The green fence in the background also does not help, sorry. Nikopol (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Something japanese, or Monet's Giverny (the little bridge). But the light is not very good. At the end, I have to Oppose because of the two green fences in the background, Sorry--Jebulon (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 13:56:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 4a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 4a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 03:18:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:BofATowerPanthersGame.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:BofATowerPanthersGame.jpg
Info Night-time view of the Bank of America tower in Downtown Charlotte, North Carolina.
Oppose per the High Fin Sperm Whale, and also the tree covers the building and, as a result, the image doesn't look very nice. Tell me if I'm mistaken. Thank you, --патриот8790 (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: reasons given by commenters above. --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 02:54:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:EuropeanEagleOwl.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:EuropeanEagleOwl.JPG
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it does not meet the 2Mpx size requirement. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 03:50:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Littleowl360head.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Littleowl360head.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it has a very busy, distracting background --99of9 (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 11:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grenoble - lion de Saint-Laurent.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grenoble - lion de Saint-Laurent.JPG
Comment Bokeh isn't really distracting and accentuates the sharpness of the main subject indeed, but there is too much background. Some cropping at the right side will improve the composition IMO. -- MJJR (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not distracting. ad contrario, I mean. And I think that the background accentuates the nice sharpness of this "beast", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 11:59:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:La deposizione nel Sepolcro.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:La deposizione nel Sepolcro.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 04:04:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Whiteflowerstafford.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Whiteflowerstafford.JPG
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 out of focus -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 23:17:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Betafite octahedron.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Betafite octahedron.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 23:15:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cassiterite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cassiterite.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 20:26:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Chapiteau Grenade.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chapiteau Grenade.JPG
596
449
2252
979
3264
2448
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wa_lā_gāliba_illā-llāh
FRANÇAIS: il n'y a pas de vainqueur, sinon Dieu
ENGLISH: There's no victor, except God
DEUTSCH: Es gibt keinen Sieger, außer Gott
ESPANOL: Solo hay un vencedor, y es Dios
Well well well... It is just what I was afraid of. 1) This picture is still a QI (not would probably make, see point 2). 2) "take a guess" is unnecessary contemptuous. 3) Your opinion about non educational value of this image could maybe be corrected with a very short study of the multi secular history of Europe, and of the history of relationship between Islam and Christianity, which seems to be today a very important matter, if you read newspapers sometimes. This history begins here, on these walls and on these columns, with such a motto that you may find everywhere in the Alhambra of Granada... (Patrimoine Mondial de l'Humanité selon l'UNESCO). Your opinion about the non artistic value of this picture is more relevant, I think. Not everybody is able to appreciate the middle-age Nasrid architectural sculpture and calligraphy. --Jebulon (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to be contemptuous. Maybe it does have some educational value, it just isn't very visually appealing. I didn't know it was a QI though, and it should be. I just don't think it has what it takes to be a FP. --TheHighFinSpermWhale21:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the subject is very fitting (i.e. definitely educational) and generally the comp is good. But the lighting bugs me, there seems to be too much shadow if the subject is the detail on the column. Steven Walling21:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I am sorry, but I do not find the composition particularly interesting. You should try nominating it for QI though. Tiptoetytalk22:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the four opinions above are now very interesting for me. I understand that I have to work harder (maybe with a better camera too...). Many thanks for having detailed your reviews. Sometimes, you champions, you have to be more explicit, your comments are too shorts, and we, the people, we need to progress with your help ! No worries with the Whale ;). Tiptoety : IT IS a QI !!! . Friendly.----Jebulon (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The German and English translations contain errors. The German should be, "Es gibt keinen Sieger, außer Gott.", and in the English, the word "excerpt" should read "except". Jayen46616:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry and Thank you. The effort was not entirely successful...Question I copy-pasted the ß. Cannot find it on my french keyboard...--Jebulon (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 15:10:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:WWI cemetery nr 225 - Brzostek. Head of Jesus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:WWI cemetery nr 225 - Brzostek. Head of Jesus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Jun 2010 at 18:40:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:03193u Vauxhall Johnson, Mary Robinson, and so on 6.jpg
693
3838
1497
792
8799
6190
James Boswell, Samuel Johnson, and Oliver Goldsmith
This allows at least some of the details to be made out. The original is extremely large, and at this size you can, for example, just make out Samuel Johnson, James Boswell, and the like, which you could not in the smaller. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a FP, IMO. Please notice that annotations are not the exactly the same here and on the file page. A visit to this file page would be very interesting because of the very well-documented explanations. High (english) historical value.--Jebulon (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral bad file name. Unless the purpose of "03193u" is convincingly explained, I find it "noisy". The true title of the artwork should be provided. In that case it seems to be Vaux-Hall with a hyphen. So the File should be called [[:File:Vaux-Hall.jpg]] or [[:File:Vaux-Hall by Thomas Rowlandson.jpg]] or [[:File:Thomas Rowlandson - Vaux-Hall.jpg]](in a similar fashion with File:George Romney - Portrait de l'artiste.jpg) . A Creator template should be used. The date information should be provided in a less ambiguous manner, mentionning that 28 June 1785 is not the date when the event took place or the date when the painting was completed but the publishing date. Category:Engravings is a crowded category and no file should be included directly into it. Instead it should be included into a more detailed "by century" or even "by decade" or "by year" category and a "by country" category. Perhaps a template adapted from {{Painting}} should be created for engravings. I not sure if one should understand that it was "drawn by" Rowlandson, as a painting was mentioned. Should we no write "painted by" instead ? Teofilo (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - ditto to Teofilo. One obvious effect of the filename's 0- prefix is to place it at the top of any category page it is in, making it more conspicuous, very sneaky . . . On the pic itself, yes, high quality and so on, but it doesn't have the 'wow' factor that makes a pic special. The subject matter I find decidedly boring. MPF (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I've actually been meaning to move it for some time, but it's used enough places that it's going to be slightly disruptive. Long story short, that was the filename on my computer; the 03193u is the Library of Congress file name, which makes it a little easier for me to find the right page again when it comes time to link the image. Unfortunately, when I sent my work to Durova, she uploaded without changing the name, and there was no easy way to move files until fairly recently. It's moved now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your effort to change for a better name. I still disagree with your keeping of "Dr. Johnson, Oliver Goldsmith, Mary Robinson, et al." within the file name. I think File names should not be more complicated than "<artist name> - <artwork title>". For example, I find the dates too noisy in File:Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) - The Last Supper (1495-1498).jpg but I am glad that it is not named [[:File:Leonardo da Vinci - The Last Supper - Jesus, Peter, John et al.jpg]]. Anyway your effort is probably worth that I change my "oppose" into "neutral". Teofilo (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 04:24:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:StaffordPetunia.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:StaffordPetunia.jpg
What I meant was, is that this picture does not really stand out. It just isn't good enough to be featured. I do like some of your other pictures though. --TheHighFinSpermWhale17:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor image quality and composition -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 23:29:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM De Dago-waterval bij Bandoeng TMnr 60016824.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM De Dago-waterval bij Bandoeng TMnr 60016824.jpg
Support The tropenmuseum has donated 35,000 images, I think we should recognise this. I've gone through around 15,000 of them, and this has to be by far the best I've come across, it is a very nice example of Crepuscular rays from around 1920 - 1932 -- 149.254.226.18923:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Following the link credited for the images source (Collectie Stichting Nationaal Museum van Wereldculturen) there is a larger copy of the image on that page (you can find a direct link to it looking at the source code) - http://collectie.tropenmuseum.nl/imageproxy.asp?server=collectie.tropenmuseum.nl&port=20980&filename=\G%20schijf\TMSMedia\images\screen\60016824.jpg (don't know how long this link will be active) this copy of the image is much larger at 1,121px × 1,500px which puts it nearly at 1.7Mpx - nearly the 2Mpx advised for a Featured Picture. I don't know the legal side of this - if the picture is entirely in the public domain then uploading this image is fine, however if just the smaller resolution image is in the public domain then this obviously can't be uploaded, which is a shame. It may be that the bot which is uploading all of these images (all 35,000 of them), is uploading them at a smaller resolution than is available - in which case it looks like the bot will need to be reprogrammed. I think I'll raise this issue at the Village Pump. -- 77.86.89.4404:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info According to the Village pump discussion, as the author died less than 70 years ago then the image is not in the public domain, so only the smaller resolution copy will be available. As the author died in 1944, the date the image will become available will be in 2014 (as the exact date is as yet unknown it would probably be advisable to wait until 2015). Would people support a renomination of the higher res image in 5 years time? -- 77.86.89.4422:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 15:05:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Bourlemont (by).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Bourlemont (by).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 19:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Jellyfish Aurelia aurita.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Jellyfish Aurelia aurita.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2010 at 19:53:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poster Papaver 2a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster Papaver 2a.jpg
Support Such a pity with the fokus problem on the left (and IMO DOF could be just a little deeper on the right side as well), but overall beautiful, thoughtful arrangement. High EV and aesthetically pleasing, just what we need. Nikopol (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By themselves, none of these photos would be a FP. As a collection this increases the value dramatically, however, I think the focus issue is unfortunate and just pushes it below the threshold for acceptance. This is not an uncommon flower, so it should be (relatively) easy to improve sometime in the future. -- Ram-Man18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2010 at 14:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sapta Chakra, 1899.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sapta Chakra, 1899.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 21:45:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Zamenis longissimus.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Zamenis longissimus.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2010 at 12:56:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 3a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 3a.jpg
Oppose Technically much better, but the left panel spoils the aesthetics for me. (At full resolution, there also seems to be a hair running across the bud, but that is not why I'm opposing it.) --Avenue (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 16:25:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rock formation at Point Lobos 04-072010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rock formation at Point Lobos 04-072010.jpg
Well, at first I was upset, when the girl run into my image, and re-shot it, when she left. So, I even do not have to crop the child, I could upload the same panorama without the girl, and without any scale of the rock. That's why I will not. That rock could be appreciated much more, if there is a scale. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The child has a snapshot-like posture, on the other hand it gives a good impression about the size of the rocks --Pjt56 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the girl. It was an accident she got into the shot. I could not ask her to pose for me, but no worries. I respect your opinion, and thank you for voting and commenting on the image.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm rude, and maybe my English is not good enough: it looks exactly like she just ran into the shot. Good as a scale, but IMO not good enough for FP. --Pjt56 (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The girl is useful as a scale, and I don't find her that distracting. The rock formation is impressive and well captured. --Avenue (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 11:51:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:EnterpriseBurningHellcat.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:EnterpriseBurningHellcat.jpg
Support historical value, featured picture on the English and Spanish language wikipedias, valued image on Commons-- Nanae (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dramatic moment, historical image; we can't expect pictures from 70 years ago to have been taken with a modern digital camera. Jayen46606:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poor quality??? Yes, maybe with a tripod this image could be have better quality. Dear anonymous, can you retry to take images like this? Maybe with different views? --Cesco77 (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jayen466. Yes, the quality is not high by today's standards, but the important details are clear enough.--Avenue (talk) 04:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 17:21:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Coat of Arms of Grand Duchy of Poznań.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand Coat of Arms of Grand Duchy of Poznań.svg
Support W O W. Even if it re-uses parts of other images, definitely it still has big degree of ~the original input. Masur (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 16:29:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:PetitPiton.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:PetitPiton.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2010 at 21:00:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Polished-Malachite2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Polished-Malachite2.jpg
Oppose Nice object, but too small, too dark in the left part, and the putty with finger marks still visible spoils it further. Recently posted images of crystals set a higher standard. --Pjt56 (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2010 at 17:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2010 at 13:18:43
Original current FP
New version, proposed replacement more informative version of the same picture
Info A better and more informative version of this image is available now, it does contain a picture of the original object and a mark-up for the measured area. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace. Mainly because the original object is now pictured, but the new z-axis tickmarks are also better. --Avenue (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2010 at 19:41:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Campanula with waterdrops.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Campanula with waterdrops.jpg
Comment I like the color, and it's certainly very pretty, but I get the feeling that little is actually in focus. Maybe I'm being paranoid? –Juliancolton | Talk01:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 15:01:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose QI for sure based on educational value, but the quality is just not there for FP in my opinion. Composition could use work (especially considering the hole above the bat isn't the focus of shot). Steven Walling00:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 15:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Bourlemont (by) (8).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Bourlemont (by) (8).jpg
Oppose Distortion. The verticals are vertical, but the horizontals are not horizontal. Compare the base of the arches where the side passageway intercepts. Both the front and back bases are tilted per Ilmari. --99of9 (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm pretty sure we don't have any policy, even unofficial, against including the author's name or username in the file name, and I've seen other prolific contributors do so regularly. Indeed, I've seen it recommended to avoid filename conflicts. Perhaps putting one's username at the beginning of the file name isn't the most convenient way to do it (though others might reasonably disagree), but that alone still doesn't seem like a very good reason to oppose. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Ilmari. Having a user-specific substring in a file name is also quite effective to look for use of own photos outside wikimedia projects as a lot of reusers do not change the file name when using a photo on their sites. Quite often this helps spotting breaches to the license (lack of attribution or mentioning of the license) or you can get positively surprised seeing your photos used in another context that what you had expected. In the specific case the username is such that the file name gets a little confusing - you expect to see some kond of hotline operator, and I would recommen to sticking to the real name as I have seen done before by the creator and append it to the file name describing the subject instead of having it as the first part of the file name. At the end of the day the main purpose of the file name is that it should be a unique identifier. --Slaunger (talk) 11:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 15:03:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Roppe (by) (18).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ComputerHotline - Fort de Roppe (by) (18).jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 15:06:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 19:51:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 19:54:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
It's not an FP on Commons, and I don't really think it should be, but its composition is better than the photo nominated here anyway. --Avenue (talk) 04:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 02:56:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Redflowerstafford.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Redflowerstafford.JPG
I'm sorry Tyw7, but there's more to good photography than just pointing your camera at a plant (or an owl) and pressing the shutter button. --Aqwis (talk) 05:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 19:24:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Forestmural.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forestmural.jpg
Oppose Nice work of art, but the photograph is far away from being excellent, because of light and quality problems. And what about copyright? Have you permission to publish this picture under a free license? --Simonizer (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info I am the artist and the photographer and have allowed the image to be used- I realised the photo quality wasn't spot on but thought the artwork qualified under: 'the high artistic merit: Works which, while not particularly well known, are none the less wonderful examples of their particular type or school of art.' (in this case murals). Clockworkplum (talk)
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of quality issues, especially poor lighting and artifacts -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 15:26:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Glebionis April 2010-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Glebionis April 2010-1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 18:51:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Point Lobos 3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Point Lobos 3.jpg
Another try is in. If it still not straight, it is just an optical illusion :) Seriously, if it still not straight, please fix it, somebody --Mbz1 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The horizon is indeed curved, but then again, the earth is round. It does not, however, detract from the overall quality. Good shot. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Earth is curved, but not to the point that it's visible at such distance. Oppose because nothing special, although looks sexy. - Benh (talk) 17:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing special??? How many landscape shots one could call "sexy" . On a more serious note. I do not think it is still curved. I checked it. IMO it looks fine. What you see as a curved horizon is just an optical illusion --Mbz1 (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "Nothing special" is rather a subjective thing... and for this reason we could debate endlessly. I believe anyone could take this (including myself, I've taken some, and even upload a few to wiki, albeit maybe not as impressive), and u've proven you could take shots not so many of us here could. As for the horizon, I can even see this on thumbnail. I've moved the horizon against the bottom border of my monitor: either my monitor or the horizon is curved. In case it's the horizon, you can fix it. I also repeat my proposition to help. If it's my monitor, I'll try to see if my warranty covers this, or have a look at the specs again (was it actually flat screen ?) - Benh (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's curved — I just checked in GIMP, and the left and right ends of the horizon are both about 12 pixels lower than the midpoint. Compared to all the other work that must've gone into creating this, restitching with a couple of horizontal rules shouldn't be too hard (although I can understand your reluctance to do it if you've done a lot of postprocessing after stitching). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2010 at 11:02:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 15:37:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Waiting for customers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Waiting for customers.jpg
Support I must respectfully disagree, this is a tasteful and artistic representation of the world's oldest profession. --ianaré (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support High technical and compositional quality, and it's obviously informative. Whether or not you like the subject it informs one about is irrelevant. Steven Walling23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2010 at 16:23:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Schloss Lichtenstein 04-2010.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Schloss Lichtenstein 04-2010.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2010 at 11:08:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spitzer's Orion.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spitzer's Orion.jpg
Oppose I see a lot of disturbing quality problems here, for example at the top of the image. We already have better images from space, this one should not be featured IMO. --Phyrexian (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:23:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ArcTriompheParis.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ArcTriompheParis.jpg
Traces?!! That is the understatement of the year. There is no "panoramic merging". This image is an utter mess, Verticals are dancing all over the place, there is no attempt whatsoever to conceal the misfits between the images. --Dschwen (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though I might've perhaps phrased it a little more diplomatically. Cimosteve: If you were to make the originals available somewhere, I or someone else in Category:Commons users able to stitch images could try to fix the stitching problems. I can't guarantee that the result still would be FP quality, but at least some of the more obvious issues should be fixable easily enough. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ilmari Karonen It's not so easy to stitch a picture like that I have 33 shots and unlikely on the arc the thriomphe in Paris it's not possible to take the shots from only one place, I will load the originals in raw format on a FTP server "over 3GB" and I tell you the url, it will take some time to upload. Thanks guys for your interest ;-) . --Cimosteve (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
33 shots isn't all that many. I completely agree that it is touch to avoid parallax effects on the AdT, it would help to take even more images and careful always shoot exactly away from the center of the arc. Not using a stitching program that plain sucks would be a plus too. --Dschwen (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very poor technical quality: lighting, sharpness, geometry, stitching -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2010 at 22:54:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Grand canyon from Bright Angel.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Grand canyon from Bright Angel.jpg
Oppose. The Grand Canyon is impressive, this picture isn't. It surprises me that it is getting any support at all. The crop is arbitraryrandom and the technical quality is just bad. Why was this even nominated?! --Dschwen (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Yes, you have to crop, but that does not mean all crops are arbitraryrandom. The composition is what separates a good shot from a bad shot (provided that the technical quality is there). Saying all crops are arbitraryrandom is like saying you should not look through the viewfinder anymore (or screen on cheapo cameras ;-) ).--Dschwen (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC) PS.: this nomination also provides more clues as to who seems to be judging thumbnails only... :-( --Dschwen (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a rethorical argument. All crops, conscious or not, are arbitrary, they depend on the criteria of the photographer (well, maybe ;o)). I will admit to the quality issues on this pic, but not on the crop. You may not like the crop, that is up to you, and I am ok with that. My compositional desicion may not work on you, but that does not mean it is bad in a universal sense. That does not mean however, that all my composition is good. It is all relative my friends... and you know it. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Actually this is not at all a rhetorical argument, but you are right to contest my original assertion that the crop is arbitraryrandom. That is just how it looked to me. If you tell me you thought about the composition and made a conscious choice than I guess it isn't arbitraryrandom (but still doesn't work for me). Again, the arguments that follow are not rhetoric at all. I firmly believe that a compositional decision by a good photographer should be distinguishable form randomly pointing the camera (or if you like: giving a camera to a monkey. Then again, if you give a million cameras to a million monkeys... => Ansel Adams ;-) ). --Dschwen (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course that a conscious decision on crop has a better chance of becoming an acceptable picture under universally agreed on photographic principles, it is still an arbitrary decision (definition by webster: 1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>). Perhaps you are referring to random composition, which is different, or monkey photography (definition by webster: a haphazard course— at random : without definite aim, direction, rule, or method <subjects chosen at random>). So if this is not a rethorical argument, then it is definitely a semantic one. Now, I invite you to really take a photographic look at the composition, and look for the intention of the composition. Evidently on the first pass it did not work for you and that could either be because a) my technique is flawed or b) you are not an observer. c) both. Think photographically. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh noes! Beaten by Webster. Yes, I was thinking of random rather than arbitrary. As for you little multiple choice quiz: I'm fairly sure that answer a) is correct. Even if it sounds arrogant: I'll just point to my photographic track-record to save myself some annoying justifications. --Dschwen (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Well, a mexican standoff... answer for me is b, and I also point out to my photographic track-record... whose´s is bigger??? I´ll show you mine if you show me yours! At least you have put the finger on the issue that I have always pointed out: the decision to support/oppose resides on a subjective criteria, the mention of your track record is just that, and your track record has to be validated by qualified outsiders. And the problem still remains: The quality of the votes is dependent on the quality of the knowledge of the voters, and the result is that a lot of quality pictures are set aside, bad picters are given a pass, and a lot of qualified photographers get discouraged in this process. I have to admit, however, that things are not as bad as in times past. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't even know what you mean with your option b). How can I not be an observer? Are you accusing me of not looking carefully enough at your image, or of being incompetent of judging it properly? In any case I would have preferred an option d) my composition simply does not look appealing to you, which would have made this conversation a bit less confrontational... --Dschwen (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy man... I didn´t think this conversation confrontational, but rethorical. By your own logic then I have to interpret your choosing option "a" as my technique flawed, and therefore stand accused of being a technically deficient photographer, and your judgement right, but you won´t accept the possibility of my technique correct and your observation flawed? Not fair, since this is really an argument over opinion, and yes, option "d" would have been desired. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 16:28:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Alligator Crâne et
Mandibule.jpg
Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Alligator Crâne et Mandibule.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 02:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 01:42:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:ISAF soldier looking for enemy positions in Kunar Province of Afghanistan.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:ISAF soldier looking for enemy positions in Kunar Province of Afghanistan.jpg
Oppose Its a good picture, no one can deny that, but the composition is unfortunate. I find my eyes drawn to the mountains in the background instead of the main subject. Plus the crop is a little tight (although this is minor in comparison). -- Ram-Man02:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the composition otherwise — putting the person to the right follows the rule of thirds and the gun with the hill accents the right lines — but the crop is just a bit too tight for FP status in my opinion. Steven Walling20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2010 at 21:36:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Rana sylvatica SC.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rana sylvatica SC.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 05:01:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sombrero Galaxy in infrared light (Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope).jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sombrero Galaxy in infrared light (Hubble Space Telescope and Spitzer Space Telescope).jpg
Oppose It doesn't look very natural, it mostly looks like a painting. Plus, it has got low quality. Tell me it I'm mistaken. Thank you very much, --патриот8790 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 00:42:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Valluvar Kottam.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Valluvar Kottam.JPG
Oppose - I do not care for the crop. On the right side of the image it appears there is some sort of stair case that is cut off. Tiptoetytalk01:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not possible to cover the entire structure in the image. Even if one shot a panorama, it would not be possible because of the thick vegetation surrounding the auditorium. Please check the aerial satellite view for a clear perspective. --JovianEye (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 12:52:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anhinga novaehollandiae extended.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anhinga novaehollandiae extended.jpg
Support I like this clean diagonal composition. The bird almost looks like it is posing, which is rare; very fortunate moment I believe. Crapload (talk) 16:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 13:34:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:California ground squirrel at Point Lobos.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:California ground squirrel at Point Lobos.jpg
Info The image is only cropped, not down-sampled. I was taken images of landscapes, and had no time to change to zoom lens--Mbz1 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a cute and interesting moment. The lighting is unfortunate; the main subject is too small and the picture overall is barely above 2 MB, so cropping it further would improve the composition, imho, but would make the picture smaller than the minimum recommended for FP. Shallower DOF would also help, imho. I am sorry, Mbz1. I wish you to continue getting wonderful captures and promotions of them to FP. Crapload (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 06:52:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Ripon Building panorama.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ripon Building panorama.jpg
Neutral Quality might be better (distortion on the sides, CA, sharpness), composition is a bit awkward (busy foreground, centered composition but not exactly). Valuable picture but not a FP in my opinion. --MAURILBERT(discuter)02:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 06:44:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill LC0035.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Windmill LC0035.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 13:49:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:La Désirade.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:La Désirade.JPG
Support The distance is about 10 km, so haze is unavoidable. I've always liked the blue/turquoise hues in that picture. Have added geodata. --Jayen46602:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It is a nice photo though not good enough for FP IMO. I don't like the centered horizon and the bluish sand (need white correction?) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 17:02:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus -Hyacinth Macaw -side of head.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus -Hyacinth Macaw -side of head.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 17:19:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info Sea grape tree in yellow. Before I get comments like 'nothing special', please understand this is a tropical species that normally has green leaves year round. This was not the result of disease or an unhealthy tree; I suspect it was caused by the abnormally cold winter we had in Florida this year.
Comment - The question is not well posited. To reach FP status isn't enough not to have problems. In this case I would say the composition is trivial. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2010 at 22:54:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flower April 2010-4.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower April 2010-4.jpg
Oppose Composition quality could be better. There are elements in the bottom corners that distract, and I don't think the perspective on the main subject is very good. Nice otherwise, but not quite FP in my opinion. Steven Walling07:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 15:30:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:San Francisco 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:San Francisco 2.jpg
Info 250 Megapixel Panorama of San Francisco from Twinpeaks. You will want to download to your computer to view full (may crash your browser).
Hm, ok, it is not an oversexed Flickr-Shot, and I did not get around to do proper exposure blending on it yet, as this was done while i was traveling. --Dschwen (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was trying to nominate this picture here when I saw that it was already done... Maybe needs some annotations for famous details (GG Bridge, Alcatraz...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't feel that "panorama" equals "FP status". The light is dull, the composition so-so, and parts of the picture are overexposed. --Aqwis (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't either, and have voted down panoramas before. But I think in this case the level of technical expertise and simply awe inspiring detail are strong mitigating factors for what are issues largely beyond the photographer's control. --ianaré (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging Support This is a hard to take image. If there's good light at the city, there's not so good light on the bridge and other wise. I believe Daniel did a great job under the circumstances to show the city, the bridge, and the bay in one panorama, but I'm missing the fog :)--Mbz1 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Nope. Big is not necessarily beautiful and the image suffers from some serious drawbacks, like the lighting and the composition. If Dschwen himself did not nominate the picture he had certainly his reasons... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One reason would be that I was traveling across the country... And this comment is actually perverting the concept of self nominations. --Dschwen (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StrongSupport OK, maybe the composition is not the finest. But unter the technical view it is one of the most amazing pics ion commons! It´s such a lot of work and no easy "click & go". BG Leviathan (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)...ging nie durch San Fransico in zerrissnen Jeans. ;-)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2010 at 21:10:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:B0000647.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:B0000647.JPG
Oppose Many sunsets are nice, but that does not mean that they need to be featured. This one is nice too, but not exceptional. I am sorry. Crapload (talk) 19:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2010 at 20:05:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fimmvorduhals second fissure 2010 04 02.JPG
Info Overview of the 2nd fissure on Fimmvörðuháls, close to Eyjafjallajökull, as the lava flows down towards the north, turning snow into steam. A simply stunning combination of ice and fire in intense glowing pink, and a major current news item. MPF (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2010 at 01:53:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Kyanite.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kyanite.jpg
Question I'm not sure if the bright / blue / grey parts are the result of very direct (flash?) lighting or the natural colour of the mineral. Do you have the opportunity to take an image with softer light (and softer shadows)? --Pjt56 (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Looking at the very bottom-right, is the image cut off, or was it cut that way? As for the lighting, is the shiny golden part actually golden in color like that, or is it more of the result of the flash? ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was cut that way. And the golden colour came partially from an incandescent light to the left, but it was golden in that area, so the colour is pretty close. --TheHighFinSpermWhale02:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do like the added scale. However, I wish that the label was a bit larger, as it cannot be seen unless the picture is fairly enlarged (and even when it is seen on the file page, it could be misread as a 2, which is what I did at first). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 01:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the cyanide part is colored by iron oxides is not of good quality. But here it is not a major problem. There is a mixture of color temperature on this photo (hot and cold on the left side of the law. Daylight left and right flash? I do not know. This same room with two flashes in the dark will be perfect.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HFSW, the problem with the lighting is that it is harsh and face on. This type of harsh front lighting flattens the subject. In contrast, softer, side lighting, gives the subject volume, texture and can differenciate the tonal range of the colors of the subject. When using side ligthing, one has to consider the ratio of illumination between the main source and the fill source, keeping it at about 3:1 ratio in order to take advantage of both, the tonal range of the subject and the dynamic range of the image. This of course is considering a "normal" subject, with tonal values in the middle range. With subjects with tonal values in the upper or lowes side of the luminosoty scale one has to adjust accordingly. Read a little about lighting and lighting situations and a briefer on zone system photography. There is plenty of material on the web. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2010 at 14:22:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de los remedios 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iglesia de los remedios 1.jpg
Question And how did you arrive at such precise judgement? I sure would like to find an instrument of such accuracy. Unless, of course that is your opinion, in which case one just must consider the source. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Laveol, sorry, that is hardly an authoritative source... written by who knows who... and remember that the emperor has no clothes on... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest Tomascastelazo to stop the improper behaviour right now. You are most welcome back as long as your behaviour remains civil, your contributions are constructive, and you accept the opinions of others and the agreed rules. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to comments on content, not contributors. To address Tomascastelazo's concern: at lower res the photo is just fine, but if an image is noisy at full resolution (like this one is) most FPC participants decline to support. You're welcome to disagree about the importance of noise in quality photography, but around Commons it's far from unusual to oppose based on noise. Steven Walling19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a nice picture, but is indeed noisy when viewed at full resolution. Also, the nominator should try to take the comments a little less personally. Jafeluv (talk) 12:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is really nonsense... noise or grain is a very relative issue. I just had this image printed on 30x20 inches at 158 dpi and there is no noise visible at that magnification printed, it looks nothing like what I see on screen. A print that size is in itself extraordinary, very few photographs find their way into that size most of the time... Now, screen resolution is only about 72 dpi, so when you look at a picture at max resolution, you are not really getting the entire story, it is limited by the monitor´s ability to reproduce the image, which is an incomplete representation. Now, as for noise. Noise is the digital version of grain. Any picture can be labeled noisy anyway, it all depends on the degree of magnification. I don´t mind criticism at all really, it is part of life, what I don´t agree with are when unfounded opinions are camouflaged as knowledgable informed observations. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:51:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Junger Siamkater.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Junger Siamkater.JPG
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 13:05:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Murotsu Port Tatsuno Hyogo01n4272.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Murotsu Port Tatsuno Hyogo01n4272.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2010 at 13:52:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pyongyang DPR Korea.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pyongyang DPR Korea.jpg
Comment Fog is a natural climatic condition which commonly affects this city; such a representation is apropos and instructive in my view.--Lawboy25 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Citing fog as a detraction is not very credible. This city is often shrouded in fog: it is another aspect of the reality of life there. Moreover, the horizon is not tilted (cf. the bridges and tower of Juche); rather, the topography is different on the left and right of the river. --Lawboy25 (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - so it's a foggy day, not every photo has to be superdetailed, you know there can be photos of foggy scenes - it's not a bad thing to make them.--Avala (talk) 12:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there can, and I wasn't arguing that it was a bad thing. It's a valuable photo, even if not quite featured quality. Jafeluv (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:27:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Tatsuno Hyogo pref01s4bs4272.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tatsuno Hyogo pref01s4bs4272.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 16:29:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:New York Water Taxi at Wall Street Pier 2009-07-19 at 11 03AM EST.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:New York Water Taxi at Wall Street Pier 2009-07-19 at 11 03AM EST.jpg
Neutral Actually, the composition is what I like about this one, unbalanced as it is (although, if we start picking nits, a slight crop on the bottom and right sides might make it even better). But still... no. It's not quite as sharp as I'd expect an FP to be, and, even though the file name suggests the subject to be the taxi, you can't actually see anything of the taxi itself except that it's yellow. I do realize that moving the camera 15–25 meters back, so that the entire taxi could be seen, would inevitably also place it outside said taxi and over the river. Still, such a picture could be taken, from another vessel, and IMO that's the kind of thing would move this from "nice, but not quite FP" to "wow, support!" for me. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the grounds that a picture that says it's supposed to depict a water taxi should actually show one as the main part of the image, not a wedge on the side. Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 09:13:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Circulatory System en.svgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Circulatory System en.svg
Info This image is already featured in the english wikipedia. there was a great discution about wich names should apear wich shouldnt. i was trying to keep it rather simple since i also created File:Venous system en.svg and File:Arterial System en.svg for a more detailed view. for the same reason i dont have a numbered version, still i uploaded a version without tags File:Circulatory System no tags.svg for anyone that wants to make a translation. also in the original file was a metion that was removed indicating that blue lines point to veins and red ones to arteries. this wasnt considered necesary since thisare "standard" colors -- LadyofHats (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see there are several language versions of the file. Is the convention on Commons just to feature the English-language one? Jafeluv (talk) 07:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that you have labelled parts of the aorta - you could label the various parts more consistently; first from the heart the "ascending aorta", then the "arch of the aorta", and then the "descending aorta". For consistency you could label the arterial anastomosis, the deep arch and the superficial arch, in the hand as you have for the foot. I have checked all the labelling - the only other thing that puzzles me is the size of the arterial anastomoses in the right wrist, but there is an anastomosis at the wrist, so I suppose that it is OK. It is curious that the image File:Arterial System en.svg does have the labelling of the wrist and hand arteries. Note capitalization for the "Descending aorta" label. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 12:15:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cétoine dorée vol.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cétoine dorée vol.jpg
But the license effects the usability of images... If you are unhappy with the composition you might as well have said that. because "dead" does not automatically imply bad composition or what ever else you don't like of that image. Amada44 (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rose chafer is dead, it is well preserved, and his death was not useless. I understand that this may pose problems of philosophy and I respect him, but it is difficult to do without a harvest entomology.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 00:02:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eristalis March 2010-1.jpg
Comment - Unsharp? The head (including the antennae), thorax and base of wing are sharp. With the available DOF (some milimeters) it is not possible to have the whole animal in focus. No, the thorax was not retouched. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is still a calm warning for you to stop the harassment. Next one will be a formal request for blocking. Now, please remove the FPX template since it does not apply to this nomination. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a warning back to stop your abusive tone. I remind you, it is against the rules to remove the FPX as nominator (something you have done already). This picture is of poor quality and does not meet the guidelines; FPX is on merit alone. Please don't take it personally. Thanks. --Lawboy25 (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain (or read the guidelines yourself): the FPX template can only be used when there are no support votes either than the nominator's. Understand now? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 12:25:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Opolska Wenecja1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opolska Wenecja1.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 00:28:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vanadium etched.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vanadium etched.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 13:22:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:An example of texture.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:An example of texture.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 20:23:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Campus de Grenoble.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Campus de Grenoble.jpg
Oppose -- Sorry, but geometry can and should be corrected for distortion. Unless the buildings at left are, like the flower-bed in the centre, not straight or vertical. I'm also not very happy with the composition, precisely because of the centered flower-bed. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I made 16 pictures for this panorama, some of them a useless. I was able to remove the blurred picture without visible effects, upload incomming ;) Kyro (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update done, no more double-guy and the blurred picture on the right :) Kyro (talk)
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 17:13:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cepaea nemoralis on moss 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cepaea nemoralis on moss 2.jpg
Support Very good composition: photo is sharp and with good focus, and uses what would normally be distracting elements as an advantage. I encourage voters to look at it in full res. Steven Walling19:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting isn't ideal and caused some overexposure on the shell. Good composition, but the animal is hidden from view. --ianaré (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2010 at 16:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Quartz Brésil.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Quartz Brésil.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 19:43:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Vattentornet, herrhagen..jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vattentornet, herrhagen..jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 13:13:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 08:41:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Flower April 2010-4a.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Flower April 2010-4a.jpg
Info I love this picture. Here is a new version where the offending parts at left were cropped. Also a very slight increase of the green light was done. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 07:58:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:The Song Monument top 2005 G1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:The Song Monument top 2005 G1.jpg
Info Monument to the Ukrainian song. Also it is known as Monument to Orange revolution. The top part of monument - the girl on orange. Now has very changed. Copper was oxidized to dark brown color --George Chernilevskytalk07:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 11:15:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
i know a lot of people enjoy having numbered versions. but i find them incomplete and desinformative. the file is an svg and can be translated, there IS a numbered version. but the original file is this one. Personally i think a diagram without text is like a picture without a subject.. in my opinion-LadyofHats (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2010 at 18:46:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Along the Brest coast.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Along the Brest coast.JPG
SO, I think that the main subject of the picture is this particular structure, and all the others things are just background, and not distracting me at all...--Llorenzi (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2010 at 06:10:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican construction workers.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mexican construction workers.jpg
Oppose It's not overly interesting to me. I'd also rather see the workers working instead of posing for a picture, as it is a bit more lifelike and natural that way. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 10:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 04:08:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cloud to cloud lightning strike nov08.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cloud to cloud lightning strike nov08.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: too small --99of9 (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2010 at 22:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Photographic exercise on color and texture.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Photographic exercise on color and texture.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2010 at 21:05:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Schwappender Wein.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schwappender Wein.jpg
Not French, civilized and sophisticated world education... But I would like to understand what's going on before supporting (unfortunately I can't understand a word of German) -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ah, now that I can read the description, I understand how this is possible. Very clever, thanks for releasing it. --99of9 (talk) 03:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really amazing composition, but in high resolution I don't like it, I think is too sharp, looking at the wine spill out of the glass I can't support it. And I'm really sorry because is a great picture. --Phyrexian (talk) 14:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful but not educational - the wine spilling makes no sense. And why the white border? The details look weird in high resolution, I agree. Sorry. Hekerui (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 12:26:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Anthemis April 2010-1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anthemis April 2010-1.jpg
Info Flower of a Yellow Chamomile: composition on yellow, green and violet. I'm amazed with the exuberance of Spring this year! Everything by Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I suppose you mean unnatural. But no, the colours were not manipulated meaning that you may have your monitor uncalibrated (or your eyes untrained). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Don't you have anything more useful to do than systematically oppose my nominatios ([2])? Apparently not, since the suggestion I made in your userpage to go out and use the camera, and observe the work of others in order to learn, was obviously declined. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMy comments are based only on merit. Unfortunately, you take many photos but the quality is not as good as you pretend especially since your photos are staged and highly manipulated. I suggest you learn that photography is about representation not idealization. --Lawboy25 (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest that Alvesgaspar stop harrassing people that oppose his pictures and stop his arrogant patronizing stance as to the photographic ability of participants, as if his photographic ability were beyond reproach. On top of that, he does not seem to hold himself to the same standards that he demands from others. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- The picture is now georeferenced. As far as I know this species is natural to the Mediterranean and southern Europe, including Portugal. This particular plant is growing wild in a disturbed ground inside Lisbon, together with some other species of yellow Asterales: Calendula arvensis, Glebionis coronaria, Colestephus myconis, Hieracium sp., Sonchus sp. and others. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeap, I have caved in and I've become bitter. No seriously, I can't see anymore flowers. They are intrinsically pretty but the subject gets old. Yes, it does. It feels like a cookie-cutter image, done exactly according to recipe. There is nothing new about it and we already featured tons of flowers. --Dschwen (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't see them anymore and I'm still fascinated with their beauty and variety. Especially this Spring. It rained a lot (it is still raining in Portugal) and there is an explosion of wild flowers with exquisite colors, most of them unknown to me. Coming here is the way I find to share that experience. In this particular picture it was the contrast between the colours in the foreground and bkg that caught my attention. Mostlty aesthetics and little to do with the flower itself. Yeap, I know that you tune up with a different tuning fork... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and it is just my opinion, I'm sure lots of people will like the picture. I'd be interested to see the explosion of wildflowers in more originally framed shots. And for the record I do not think the colors look unnatural. --Dschwen (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 19:19:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support I like the view from the foliage; it gives the feeling that the viewer is "coming out" into the open and into the view of the falls, at least a little bit ;). ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 15:41:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Pond turtles and mallard duck in Golden Gate park 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/Pond turtles and mallard duck in Golden Gate park 1.jpg
Comment This image is a behavior shot of a rare interaction and IMO interesting interaction between the turtle and the duck. Just few minutes before the shot was taken
Neutral Very good, but sadly a square crop. I would support a 10:15 crop, which wouuld make the photo less tight. Utrom (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really love this capture. The crop is a little tight, but I believe that that can be pardoned when the rest of the image's qualities are appreciated. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 23:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technical quality is okay and the subject is very interesting from an educational perspective. But the composition is pretty bad: from that angle it's difficult to see exactly what's going on with the duck and turtles, and the crop is way too tight. A long way from FP quality. Steven Walling20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 19:06:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Cub chewing on a piece of bark with mother in 2009.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cub chewing on a piece of bark with mother in 2009.jpg
Oppose The cub is very cute. The light is dull and so are colors, the contrast is low . I have doubts about the white balance too; the picture looks blueish to me. I think less green grass at the bottom would equal less distraction. I am sorry. Crapload (talk) 20:06, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No information (location, etc., or whether captive or wild); and odd blue-green tone on blurred animal at left edge - MPF (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, so the current issues are colors and lighting (and a possible coloration error in the top-right corner). Could a crop and some adjustments in Photoshop correct these? Blurpeace03:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, er, no! the current issues also include a complete lack of information about the photo, such as where it was taken, and whether the animals are wild or captive. Photoshop can't answer those! - MPF (talk) 07:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go ahead and try! Forgive me if I tend to be a bit cynical on the topic, as I've seen far too many images with minimal information moved from wikis to commons, where the original uploader is long gone as a contributor and doesn't reply to such requests. Also note that unless there are exceptional mitigating circumstances, I wouldn't ever support a photo of a captive animal outside of its natural habitat for featured picture status. Featured status covers more aspects than just photographic image quality. - MPF (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the nomination guidelines: "Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others". Zoo pictures are cheap and easy to take, so are not valuable. They also usually do not show an animal (or plant) in its natural behaviour, ecology or surroundings, so are misleading to viewers, giving a false impression or inaccurate information. Pictures of species in the wild are more difficult to take, but also more representative of the species, and that greatly increases their relative value. In this photo for example, I took a close look at the vegetation; it is all European species, not African species that one would expect to see in a photo of lions. This has other manifestations; compare the camouflage of these lions against their surrounds, compared to e.g. this pic or this. Exceptions? Where the conditions of captivity are not obvious, with surrounds appropriate to the species, as in e.g. this one (also in the FP candidates), where the background species (Picea abies) is one among which the animal would naturally occur. - MPF (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC) PS any progress on getting the location information? - MPF (talk) 13:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MPF, with all respect, your diatribe is full of air. You cannot state categorically that zoo pictures are either cheap or easy to take. They may be easy, but they do dot diminish their possible value. Value in this case will reside elsewhere. A lion is a lion is a lion, regardless of where it is. Zoo pictures may in fact provide a better physical visual description than will pictures in the wild, it is so relative. One thing is to state what you say as your opinion, to which you have a right, but another is to state it as a universal value. You vote support for pictures of much, much easier subjects that offer even less technical difficulties, such as flowers, and yet deny the aesthetic value of this picture, that while in captivity, it has more photographic redeeming value than many pictures here. And the problen again is that this type of voting discourages participation. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a diatribe, it's just an explanation, responding to a request. "You vote support for pictures of much, much easier subjects that offer even less technical difficulties, such as flowers" - yes, they do present difficulties. There are few photographs of plants in their natural environment on Commons; the ability to identify species accurately is a rare one, and few people who have it are willing to donate their images free to Commons, as it negates their option of making any living from their expertise. "And the problen again is that this type of voting discourages participation" - where's your evidence for that assertion? - MPF (talk) 15:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MPF, I´ve been around photography for a long, long time, deeply involved in the craft in many levels, and that includes contests, exhibits, teaching, organizing, promoting, and with personal upfront experiences in the interaction between people and photography, their philosophy and psychology, and that has put me in touch with the personal motivations of people that makes them participate. It is a level much more personal than this, and I assume, based on those long years and a proven track record, as to what motivates people to participate. And probably the single most important variable in the equation is the judging process. That process has to have a very high level of integrity in the way it operates, based on solid ground rules that rest on universally agreed on photographic principles that include technique, difficulty, aesthetics, etc., etc. and which I have pointed out many times, in my opinion, are lacking here. The sad thing is that the potential of this forum is not materialized because the practices of voting many, many times reject valuable photographs based on bogus photographic criteria, such as "poor composition", "noise", etc., Believe me, if Ansel Adams were to upload some of his pictures here, he too would be voted out. All I am saying is for people to learn the distinctions of what constitutes generally good photography and move away from the popularity contest that seems to prevail. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a photographic competition! It is to emphasize the best examples for the project's scope, which means things like scientific and educational value are at least equally significant (if not more significant; I would certainly consider more so) than photographic quality alone. - MPF (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a selection process, and most of the images are photographic, and besides whatever nebulous criteria there is to selecting FPs, you cannot bypass the photographic issues in the selection process. Before FP, it is a photograph. The base from which you build up. Even if you were to consider just the nebulous criteria, the quality of the vote depends on the quality of the intellectual capital of the observer in each particular case. Some people may have the intellectual capital to judge bug pictures, but not flower or social-content pictures. Nobody has it all. What I do, if I do not like a picture, but know nothing of the subject matter, I don´t vote. A no vote does not interfere with what could otherwise be a valuable picture to a certain discipline. But an oppose vote in a subject which I know nothing about serves no one... just a worthless opinion that may do harm. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Troubles with colors became more pronounced. All other problems remained. I believe you that the contrast was increased, but I do not feel that make any real differnce.
I uploaded an edit. My intention was not to make an FP candidate because I cannot fix all problems. I just wanted to share what I would do to improve it, still thinking it is not an FP material pretty much because of the light. To my taste, I fixed the white balance. Maybe trying to get rid of the blue cast, I overdid it. Crop, obviously. White and black points, but I do not feel this significantly helped. I can repeat and elaborate what I still do not like about the picture, but got to switch to another task right now. Maybe later. Best wishes, Crapload (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2010 at 19:49:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Great presidential puzzle2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Great presidential puzzle2.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 09:53:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx lynx-4.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lynx lynx-4.JPG
Info Unfortunately not, my original was lost in a hard drive crash. (I do not think that it would have helped, however, because I vaguely recall trying hard to keep as much margin as I could on the top. I fully agree that it is a bit tight. /Dcastor (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that that is supposed to relate to file extensions but to the actual file names. If it does indeed refer to extensions, I suppose I should check the Latin Wikipedia for directions, since I used a Latin name for the picture. Unfortunately, I am not fluent in Latin so I guess I'll stick with the recommendations of my home Wikipedia where I don't think there are any preferences regarding extensions. (Just showing that referring to off-Commons policies for what happens on Commons really doesn't make much sense.) /Dcastor (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) How should a svwiki user, who uploads an image for use there, know about enwiki guidelines? :o The image isn't even used on enwiki yet. Jafeluv (talk) 22:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how not requiring file extensions to be lower case is evidence of a wiki being "not as well developed". Care to explain? Jafeluv (talk) 16:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the upload form definitely does not require every image to follow enwiki rules. It says "Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used" (emphasis mine). Jafeluv (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that my comments are entirely appropriate under this FP nomination. I do not think that my talk page is the right place to discuss this more widely. If you wish to discuss wider aspects of this topic more widely, then you could start a discussion elsewhere rather than here. My aim is to inform the author, and I guess that the author now has adequate information to choose a file extension in the lower-case or the upper-case. I presume that most users would want there FP images to be compliant with the most number of language wikipedias possible. Commons specifically links the en wiki guidelines, so I do not see any logic in disregarding this recommendation quoting a particular language wikipedia that does not have any guidelines on this topic. I hope that my comments and your comments have provided useful information to the author, and I am hoping to hear his views. Snowmanradio (talk) 20:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that this is a topic of little concern. I usually don't even check what case the extension is before upload, but rather keep the default of whatever software I have been using, which most often is lower case. However, as I understand the referred page (Commons:First steps/Upload form), it deals with file names, not extensions. My reasoning has two grounds: 1. The file extension is not in a specific language, so there would be no need to refer to specific language rules for that part. 2. All other language versions of the page (including linked wp policies) that I can make any sense of deal with the name, but not with the extension. The Swedish version actually has a bad file name example with upper case extension, explaining why to change the name but not mentioning the extension at all. If a convention from enwi is to be regarded as anything else than general information on Commons, it should be agreed on here and be included in the guides. /Dcastor (talk) 23:54, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A good photograph of the anatomy of the upper body of this cat; although, not in its natural environment. I have made the English part of the image description more readable and added a standard summary table. Translations of the image description into more languages would be welcome. Snowmanradio (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info The animal is not in the wild, if that is what you mean by "natural environment". It is however in an enclosure reflecting its natural environment. /Dcastor (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I think the photograph would be more meaningful if the animal could be identified to subspecies level. Is the origin of these cats in the Swedish zoo known? Are they originally from the Swedish population of lynxes? 16:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Info I have tried to find info online on this, but can not find anything. The English Wikipedia article on the en:Eurasian Lynx states that "precise classification of the subspecies of the Eurasian Lynx is still the subject of debate". Since the zoo at hand only shows animals of the Nordic fauna (present and historic), my guess would be lynx lynx lynx, but I can not find any confirmation of this. /Dcastor (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2010 at 23:17:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Oppose DOF to great, creating a distracting background. We have so many flower photos, I don't think we need to feature them unless they are really special. --TheHighFinSpermWhale04:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't agree DOF is too large. With a smaller F number the flowers wouldn't probably be on focus. But the tight framing is another thing... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, yep, this should go to QI. I'm not too fond of the lighting situation either, with the main subject being in a dull shadow and the background sunny and saturated. It is good that you captured the full ID though. --Dschwen (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 12:15:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Barthelemy church of Gérardmer.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint Barthelemy church of Gérardmer.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2010 at 21:42:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Woman beggar.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Woman beggar.jpg
Oppose - A lot of value for me, just before I opened the picture in full size and started to pay attention to detail. A nice composition and theme indeed. Almost too nice, as the posture looks like a pose, the clothes are new and the hand and nails appear clean and neat. I say 'appear' instaed of 'are' because the noise and artifacts are so high that destroy most of the detail. Since it is unlikley that a ISO of only 400 in this excellent camera has produced such a disastrous image one can only conclude that this is the result of a clumsy post-processing. A shame. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LOL!!! LMAO!!! It is beyond me to actually try to imagine how you must be if you actually think this little discourse of yours will pass as anything but as a very bad joke. It is so bad that it makes the situation really funny!!! You really made my day! Thanks! LOL!!! --Tomascastelazo (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technical quality is not superb at all. But the composition is nice, and you should take into account that this is a 14MP image and not the usual downscaled bullshit. Support --Dschwen (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand it is a generic image, but would be interested to have more info in the description, such as in which city/country was this taken. --Elekhh (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Info added to description... photo taken in the city of Guanajuato, Mexico.
Oppose Technically and composition-wise more or less ok, but not superb. The perfectly clean clothes, perfectly draped, in a perfectly clean setting do not convince me as an FP of a beggar. Sorry! --Pjt56 (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do beggars need to be dirty, in a dirty envirnoment and pictures uploaded with "scratch-n-sniff" effects? Beggars go to where potential customers are... tourist places, etc., that are generally clean. This other example was taken in the same general area #REDIRECT [[3]] He looks pretty clean too. Being clean, I think, is one attempt to maintain dignity. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 15:38:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
SupportLarge diameter jobs like this are rare, and interesting. This image shows the different states of large diameter pipe installation, from smoothing out the bedding, joining, backfill and initial compaction. All in one. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is tilted quite a bit. But illustrates the subject nicely. I'd try it somewhere else (VIC, or en.FPC), it does not seem to be flashy enough for commons. --Dschwen (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject and the composition. But the image is tilted (could be corrected) and the sky is very noisy (in spite of an ISO 100 setting with a good camera; we had that before ...). --Pjt56 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rare picture of industrial activity which is often closely guarded.
Firstly it is civil engineering rather than industrial activity, secondly where do you get the idea that this is often closely guarded?! Citation please. Thirdly please log in to vote. --Dschwen (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closely guarded is a weird word choice, but I believe the voter was simply reminding us that construction sites are usually closed to the public (including photographers, obviously). Steven Walling19:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please include the date of the photograph in the image description summery box. Please format the description so that the non-English words are not within the {{en| }} template, and are put within the appropriate language template. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 15:22:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pachycereus pringlei sonora.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pachycereus pringlei sonora.jpg
Oppose At full res it's a bit too bright and is noisy. I also don't think the other plants obscuring the main subject is the most desirable composition, though I wouldn't oppose on that alone. Steven Walling05:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Noisy? Bright? Come on Steven, you must be joking! As to you liking composition, well, that´s your right to like it or not, and I can live with that. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 13:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From your other comments you seem to think all opposes "must be joking" these days, but I am not. The tops and edges of the cactus are overexposed and slightly fuzzy (this shouldn't occur at all, since it's the central area of focus). As for noise, the surrounding underbrush and secondary areas other than the mountains are unacceptably noisy. Steven Walling16:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I don´t oppose all opposes, and it is easy to chech that... There is no sense in opposing opinions, for they are just that, opinions... but technical issues are another matter. I do challenge the noise issue... look at the sky! That is where noise would be evident. I do not see noise where you point it out, other than what may occur naturally in this medium. Digital photography produces noise in shadow areas, nothing can be done about that, for if I were to adjust for better exposure, thus less noise in shadows, the highlights would be burned out, and you are already complaining about that. The medium has fixed characteristicas as to the dynamic range of the scene, and this is bordering on the mechanical characteristic of the medium, both in the shadows and in the highligths. Get a primer on zone system photography as a background to understanding tone, gray scales, luminosity range, dynamic range, etc., and extrapolate the film lessons to digital photography. Same thing...--Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Correct still ordinary picture. I can't see a reason, either aesthetical or illustrative, why it should be FP. As for the depiction of the species, the cactus is partially hidden by another out-of-focus plant. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alvesgaspar, you should apply your own advice to your own pictures. Neither your arrogant attitude nor your very evident defficient photographic knowledge deserve comment anymore. Make no mistake, in my opinion, you are neither a good photographer nor a good critic. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice pic. The foreground plant that blocks the base of the main subject means it is not featurable to me. --99of9 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 99of9. Also as a matter of personal taste I do not like the high contrast between dark hill and almost overexposed sky. --Dschwen (talk) 15:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2010 at 15:08:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Sonoran desert sunset.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sonoran desert sunset.jpg
Oppose - I agree the composition is not good. Also, the image quality is far from excellent, with too obvious chromatic aberration and signs of posterization in the sky. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2010 at 14:42:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/Image:Eurofighter Getafe.JPGCommons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Eurofighter Getafe.JPG
The first steps guidelines on commons refers to language wikis for formatting guidelines; see Commons:First steps/Upload form, which directly links the en wiki to clearly show that the file extension should be in the lower case (jpg) there. I think that it is common sense and good practice that images candidates here should follow the guidelines in the biggest wiki, the en wiki. Snowmanradio (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commons recommends language wiki guidelines and specifically links to the en wiki guidelines. It says on commons in the fist steps guidelines (linked above); "You should use a descriptive name and follow the draft Commons language policy and/or the Wikipedia naming conventions for the language used, which give guidance on capitalisation, non-alphanumeric characters, etc." Snowmanradio (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2010 at 18:35:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baby Bell pepper ''Capsicum annuum'' .jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baby Bell pepper ''Capsicum annuum'' .jpg
Yes, it did. I cut the parent pepper off, except small red part at the bottom, but I did not do anything to an amazing baby.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did not see them at my monitor. I tried to get rid of them now. The lines came from the cover of the book, the pepper was placed to to tkae the image. Do you still see them? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I don't like how the shadows on the sides of the pepper blend into the background, but everything else is nice and it is a good photo, which is why I'm resistant to oppose. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 22:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, slightly unsharp in front, but not enough to me to offset a subtle and moody image of something you wouldn't expect to make subtle and moody. Daniel Case (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2010 at 05:03:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Guanaguato at night.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Guanaguato at night.jpg
Looks like a great subject for a high res panoramic. Lots of details to capture. Unfortunately they are not visible in this image. --Dschwen (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2010 at 00:03:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Simonizer, the low contrast is the contrast given by the D 300. I tried to take a higher contrast. But I saw: the trees are now very dark and the Bald Eagle is no longer the principal actor. Therefore I decided to keep the low contrast. I think: the Bald Eagle shall be the principal actor. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's wrong with photos of animals in zoos, so long as we identify them as such? Specifically, how is it less educational if the bird is flying in a zoo environment? Steven Walling18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kallerna and Steven Walling, the Bald Eagle flies with high speed, there ist no time to look for large crops on every side of the image. I needed the time to put the metering mode spot on the face of the flying Bald Eagle. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Walling, the Bald Eagle has a wingspan of up to 2.44 m (96 in), females are about 25 percent larger than males. I used the "AF-S Micro Nikkor 60 mm 1:2,8 G ED" and made the image with f/2.8, ISO 200, with the exposure time 1/1,600 sec (0.000625 sec) and with the metering mode spot on the face of the Bald Eagle. The f/2.8 has the best depth of field, but we see: this dept of field ist not large enough for a wingspan of up to 2.44 m. This is the reason of the fuzziness at the ends of the wings. Sorry, there is no way to enlarge the dept of field. I think a wide-angel lens is not the right decision. --Michael Gäbler (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
which is true of course. But with f2.8 you will have the shortest possible shutter time which would be good to avoid motion blur (and wings mostly move quite fast). But I really don't get the depth of field addiction which people here seem to have. Amada44 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Impressive photo! I would gladly support if the framing were not so tight. Looking at the dimensions of the image, I suppose the original has some more space around the bird. You could also try to improve the contrast, like Simonizer suggested. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeNeutral This is an impressive photo, but the Depth of Field is too shallow for a captive bird. How does it compare to other flying bird featured pictures? here, here, here, and here. -- Ram-Man23:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, but not featured for me. Low details, distrаcting background, light (the head in shadow) and composition are not perfect too . --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2010 at 19:58:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:On the way to work.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:On the way to work.jpg
Oppose Agree with High Fin, it's definitely a nice photo, but it's nothing too special. It also gets a bit too dark towards the bottom IMO. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 02:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2010 at 11:46:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 11:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Danube delta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Danube delta.jpg
What High Fin means by saying "Per Dschwen" is that he opposes for the same reason that Dschwen gave, which is that the image has a blown sky. ~Kevin Payravi (Talk) 17:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info -- Let me try to explain. We use the expression "blown" to designate those parts of the picture that are pure white (with pixel values equal to 255, the maximum) due to excessive light. All cameras, especially the digital ones, have a limited capacity to reproduce the whole range of light intensities we found in the real world (the so-called "dynamic range"). In this case you should have used a larger F number (or a larger shutter speed) or, even better, to chose another angle and avoid pointing to the brighter parts of the sky. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 12:31:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Pelican and pygmy cormorant in danube delta.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Pelican and pygmy cormorant in danube delta.jpg
OpposeThe subjects are too far away (both from the camera and from each other). It's difficult to even imagine any detail on them. --Laveol (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 May 2010 at 02:23:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Shitzu with buzzcut.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shitzu with buzzcut.jpg
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: strong flash shadow, uninteresting background, quality is not great for a common subject. --ianaré (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 19:09:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Aeshna cyanea male Luc Viatour 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Aeshna cyanea male Luc Viatour 1.jpg
Oppose. Nicely caught in mid flight, and I know firsthand that this is pretty difficult. However the subject is very small, must of it is padding to make it barely above minimum size. And there is very little detail on the subject, given the small image size it should at least be sharp. --Dschwen (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unfortunately I must agree. I also find myself wanting more context (where was it flying?), but it's definitely a good effort. –Juliancolton | Talk22:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 18:52:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Baker Beach 2.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Baker Beach 2.jpg
Info Baker Beach, San Francisco. All by Dschwen (talk)
We both know that, but not everyone does. I understand your irritation with some reviewers but I don't think this is the proper avenue for it. --ianaré (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 20:04:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Bildeiche, Albertshausen, 1.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bildeiche, Albertshausen, 1.jpg
Comment Composition can be very subjective, please give a valid reason for your oppose (HOW or WHY is the composition unappealing ?). --ianaré (talk) 17:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 17:47:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Iron electrolytic and 1cm3 cube.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 18:16:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Otaria flavescens -Patagonia-8.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Otaria flavescens -Patagonia-8.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2010 at 16:35:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Featured picture candidates/File:Spring April 2010-3.jpgCommons:Featured picture candidates/File:Spring April 2010-3.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2010 at 06:12:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Support amazing that this amount of detail survives so long. I often wonder what plastic bottles conserved like this will look in a few hundred thousand years will look like. Amada44 (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Patriot8790 -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Support -- патриот8790 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose -- Impressive walk and hiking path :) Picture less impresses me. Probably the lighting conditions did not help. - Benh (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Oversaturated and
Comment - It's pretty, but the colors don't look natural. Are they? Jonathunder (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Abstain (I don’t want to take part to the review process). This is my n°2 best photo (the first being that one); they have this “rating” because what interests me in photography is depicting emotions. Here, I think we can really feel how old the cat is. Diti the penguin — 23:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Strong support Excellent portrait. Very emotionally, nice quality --George Chernilevsky talk 08:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
QuestionWhere can I check the age of the cat?--Wilfredo Rodríguez (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
—kallerna™ 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination. I was a bit sick the last two days and currently cannot find my original files for this image (shame on me). Plus I'm kind of busy preparing for a trip to SF. So I won't be able to work on this image in the next two weeks. --Dschwen (talk) 16:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
Neutral I like the image size, and it has wow. However, the stitch isn't quite good. There are many obvious ghosts. --Lošmi (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
_2560x1600.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--Dschwen (talk) 14:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)**I upload high resolution of the architectural shots but macro is always difficult especially due to the cropping among other reasons. --Muhammad (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
Original Current FP
Edit 1, proposed replacement 0.34 degree clockwise rotation and curves adjustment
.jpg)
Request I'm missing a geo tag, otherwise support. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)_on_10_November_1943_(80-G-205473).jpg)
Original current FP
New version, proposed replacement more informative version of the same picture
_(3).jpg)
_(8).jpg)
_(18).jpg)
_(2).jpg)
.jpg)
and 
. I would expect a similar sharpness --Muhammad (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2560x1600.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(3).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(8).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(18).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/82/Culex_pipiens_diagram_en.svg/2000px-Culex_pipiens_diagram_en.svg.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2560x1600.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2560x1600.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2560x1600.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_2560x1600.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2222523486).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_-_The_Last_Supper_(1495-1498).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(3).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(3).jpg){kind=link}
_(3).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(3).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(8).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(8).jpg){kind=link}
_(8).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(8).jpg,_featured){kind=link}
_(18).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(18).jpg){kind=link}
_(18).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(18).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
_(2).jpg,_not_featured){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Coke_and_beggar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
.jpg,_featured){kind=link}
