Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2014

File:Big Bang (South Korean band).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 17:00:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Korea.net / Korean Culture and Information Service - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd support after a perspective correction Poco² 18:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone could help with ^^ that would be great. Cheers, russavia (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I gave it a try Poc o² 19:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC) PD: I almost forgot... Support Poc o² 21:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support imho fp --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Not bad but for a photo of spectacle, it does not give me the desire to go there. There are too many elements on the image for my tastes, sorry -- Christian Ferrer 17:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silene reinwardtii 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 18:35:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least for now. The foreground colors don't do enough to differentiate the subject from the background; make them jump out and I'd be more likely to support. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! Gidip (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better... apologies but, for me, it still doesn't "pop". Meantime, just for fun, I tried playing with your original upload in pixlr and there are additional issues, most obviously color bleed off the petals. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 00:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you show where there is "color bleed" please? Gidip (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - At full size on my 1600x900px monitor, there's up to 1/4" bleed to the left of the petals, most obviously the left-most petals of the top flower. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iguana Iguana in San Juan Bautista, Venezuela.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 02:15:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The light is natural light, Without telescopic lens :) -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Beautiful subject, but too much almost—I can't find its locus since nothing is quite sharp, and the reflection in the eye is a distraction rather than an augmentation. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Zoom/crop (delete the appropriate one) is too tight. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Darn. Lovely, but DOF too narrow ("chin" unsharp). I could ignore that, but what really breaks it for me are the severe postprocessing/masking artifacts along the top of the head, between nose and eye. With regrets, Oppose. Lupo 09:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh light, shadow a bit disturbing at bottom left and I'm not a fan of the crop. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sultan Qaboos Grand Mosque RB.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2014 at 00:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Original nomination. Created and uploaded by Richard Bartz - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a noticeable clockwise tilt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Blaze: A perspective correction would help? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a slight rotation would be sufficient as the left and right exterior walls, as well as the tower all lean a bit in the same direction. Easily correctible. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still waiting for a reply from Richard. If no clarification form the Ministries, we need to think about a DR discussion. J e e 02:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive (for the time being). Three nominations and FoP. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:13-09-15 Steelwing Nic Savage 07.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 06:40:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Achim Raschka (talk) - uploaded by Achim Raschka (talk) - nominated by Achim Raschka (talk) -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info as photographer I nominate this with a neutral vote -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Good IMO but the red guitar catches my eye and...is cut. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue rose-artificially coloured.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 13:17:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Noumenon - uploaded by Noumenon - nominated by The Herald -- Herald talk with me 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 13:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's almost too blue; that being said, the framing making a "face" of sorts nails it. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Nice but a bit blurred at bottom left, a bit overprocessed IMO, and crop a bit tight on the right --Christian Ferrer 07:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality isn't ok for me, too artificially and per Christian Ferrer. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Alchemist-hp. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Center of the Milky Way Galaxy IV – Composite.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 18:41:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA/JPL-Caltech/ESA/CXC/STScI - uploaded by Keraunoscopia - nominated by Pine -- Pine^✉ 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pine^✉ 18:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 08:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral--Per en wiki. Herald talk with me 15:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Libération de Brest retouchée.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 13:31:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by a US Army Photograph - uploaded by S. DÉNIEL - nominated by S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St. George the Victorious - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 18:55:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by unknown artist - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Interior of Sainte Chapelle, Vincennes 140308 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 22:01:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by DXR - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wonderful light. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only fault is the cropped artwork top-center. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- perfect symmetry. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gnan garra 11:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot! Is it a single shot or a multi exposure / panorama? It looks like a single shot, and that would be an amazing example for the power of the D800... Although I would rather take the Sony A7 but thats an other side... ;-) --mathias K 11:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as creator, obviously. Thanks to Tomer T for the nomination and to all of you for the reviews. Yes Mathias, this is indeed one single shot, underexposed 1,3 EV and then tweaked in LR a bit. --DXR (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC) Well, if you really need a Sony, get the A7R, that's a D800E in a strange shape ;-) [reply]
Support Very nice shot! @DXR which lens was used? The outstanding Nikon 14-24? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuxyso, no, it was the slightly less outstanding but notably less expensive 18-35 AF-S ;-) --DXR (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DXR, thanks for the info. At the moment (or in the nearer future) I am thinking about a full frame camera and one financial pitfall is an affordable and carryable wide angle zoom. Thus your info was very useful. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the deep effect and the light however I shall have liked a little more colors or a little hotter temperature. Christian Ferrer 07:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great quality, sublime exposition everywhere but wrong format IMHO, this shot should be in portrait format Poc o² 15:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yeah --Pudelek (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vert (talk) 08:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bluebell Wood - Brecon Beacons.jpeg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2014 at 23:01:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Bluebell wood in Wales

Info all by Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty but a lot of overexposed areas Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 01 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of us are struggling to find beautiful places to photograph, you seem to know all the right places but always provide us with a random snapshot of a special place. I don't support because the composition could be so much better. The comment about overexposed areas is nonsense, of course. --193.110.198.7 06:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Motive is nice, but bad quality. -- -donald- (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bluebell woods are lovely but also a very traditional and common English image and this one isn't outstanding imo. The paint marks and hazard tape on some trees are distracting. Christian is right that the dynamic range has exceeded the camera's capability both with a lot of solid black on the tree trunks and also highlights on the ferns catching the sun. There is a reason why the books recommend photographing woodland on an overcast dull day. -- Colin (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Colin sort of wins the April Fool Image Post. I wanted to see how long it took for someone to complain about the paint marks and tape on the trees. There are indeed reasons this never went through the QI drill :) Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Brandenburg-Havel pano (MK).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2014 at 13:42:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Morning view over the Havel in Brandenburg with the St. Katharinenchurch in the background. c/u/n by me, mathias K 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Must be seen full-sized to really appreciate. Just late enough that the colors aren't muted but not so much that the lights are. Even the water's interesting. Good quality, good shot. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convincing at all. I am missing any clear compositional idea - no real eye catcher. The cutted reflections at the very top left are rather strange, the water surface is inhomogeneous, I guess due to stitching, the reflections do not come out well due to mixture of moving and non-moving parts of the water surface. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your wrong here, the water sourface is due to wind and no-wind areas over the river in combination with the longer exposure. There is definitly no stitching error, if wished I can upload a single frame of the pano to proof that. --mathias K 14:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had not stitching errors in mind, but irregularities due to different time slots. If it is the correct representation of one moment it does not change my perception - the wind and no-wind areas have imho a negative effect on the overall image. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I beg you to use this panorama (as panorama, not "image") in related wikipedia articles --An678ko (talk) 16:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Tuxyso, third time in a row, no real eye-catcher here. The quality is really good but the composition is not outstanding IMHO Poc o² 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a bit dull. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw for this one... ;-) --mathias K 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blankenham, Kanon en kruithuisje.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 08:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baykedevries - uploaded by Baykedevries - nominated by Baykedevries -- Baykedevries (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baykedevries (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing featurable here for me. The car behind the cannon is a bit distracting and the crop is maybe a bit too tight. QI but not FP for me. --mathias mathias 11:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With mathias K, also resolution is relatively small. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much tightened composition. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per mathias. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think complaining about not enough resolution is rather silly. All photographs should be down-sampled just too shut up the pixel peepers. This is a web based medium not a fine print business. Not many of us have 4k screens and we don't produce pictures to be sold as printed art by 3th parties. Also this picture might not be good enough but the subject is rather interesting. Does anyone even consider that fact, or are we all looking for noise and aberrations? Featuring something interesting is more important than absolute image quality. Just my 2 cent. --Uberprutser (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pelecanus onocrotalus - Zoo Karlsruhe.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 11:41:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 11:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one! The focus fits perfect on the eye and the sharpness is also very good! --mathias K 17:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cutting off the beak hurts the shot, IMO, eye-centering notwithstanding; otherwise, just beautiful. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a cool one -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Beak cut off + not the full head. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Took a second before I realized that it was some sort of bird. I find the composition somehow a bit disturbing. --Baykedevries (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not a fan of the composition, sorry -- Christian Ferrer 17:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Baykedevries & Christian Ferrer. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rovinj Sunset 2007.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 08:45:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Benreis - uploaded by Benreis - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 08:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We've seen it a million times before, but it works. It grabs the attention; it invokes the requisite sense of mystery and adventure. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low quality technically. Lower third of the picture unnecessary and dark. The boat/people are too small. Nothing that lifts it beyond a common sunset snapshot. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin, images of scenes, which are common, like this one, must at least excel technically, which is unfortunately not the case here. --DXR (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin and DXR. --mathias K 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 Colin --An678ko (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Colin. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 12:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stumpfkrokodil Bioparc Fuengirola 01 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 12:23:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by me - -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me the lighting isn`t the best, the sharpness could be better and the overall image quality doesn`t convince me. Looking over our existing featured pictures of crocodiles I don't think yours is that outstanding to get featured. Sorry Tuxyso. --mathias K 17:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, pure image quality is not the primary merit of this photo. Can you priovide some other (better) example for FP crocodiles to better understand your argument? The main reason for nomination was the composition and the nice expression with the deep view inside the muzzle of the crocodile. Compared to the other photos in the same category my photo is very good. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I can`t, but thats sadly no reason to support yours. And I never said your photo isn`t good or even bad. ;-) But other than that mentioned quality "problem", the composition you choose is what also wont work for me here. The chosen angle brings some problems, the dof is pretty shallow and the most of the long mouth of the crocodil is not in focus. Furthermore the focus should fit exactly on the eye at this shooting angle, which isn`t the case here. Your photos are definitely the best in the cat, but I think there are better results possible. --mathias K 20:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Nice capture. This "crocodile park" (that times there only were crocodiles afaicr) I visited 13 years ago, unfortunately long before Commons time and so no single photo was taken. Not to rule out that the baby croc I had in my hand for a while was just this one. --A.Savin 06:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @A.Savin: The zoo administration massively restructured the park due to the bad reputation of the park received for reasons of very tight enclosures. The "zoo" is relatively small but they now have a lot of different animals very close to the visitors and tried to design the enclosures in a more species-appropriate way - an interesting trend which is visible in a lot of European zoos, e.g. in the ZOOM Zoo Gelsenkirchen. I sometimes wonder if it is really better for the animals or only better for the peace of conscience of the visitors. Nonetheless the crocodile past (I did not know that only crocodiles had been there) is still visible - a lot of different crocodile from small to big are still there. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I saw him, he laughed of my joke. --Christian Ferrer 07:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tony-Lucca-Infobox.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 12:44:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tony Lucca outside The Bean coffeeshop in New York City on 5-19-2011, after doing an interview.

Info created and uploaded by Evan-Amos - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 12:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 12:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it, very good portrait photo --An678ko (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose A bit harsh light IMO, especially on the nose. --Christian Ferrer 07:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsarevets - Veliko Tarnovo - 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2014 at 23:57:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Original nomination. Created and uploaded by MrPanyGoff - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose What a pity. The building at the top lacks sharpness, spoiling an otherwise wonderful photo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall quality doesn`t confince me and the cut off sign down left is a "no go" for me. Sorry. --mathias K 05:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK and MK. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Candi Sari, 2014-03-31 04.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014 at 06:23:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Chris Woodrich - uploaded by Chris Woodrich - nominated by Chris Woodrich -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Massive image of one of the more well-known minor temples in Indonesia. -- — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective issues and a bit noisy (e.g. the leaves) --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support allready seen at en:FPC. Good work. There are perspective issues, but I think the perspective looks still "natural" so this is OK for me. The bit of noise is there but at a resolution of ~155mpx this is really no matter. --mathias K 08:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Converging verticals make the temple appear as if it is leaning backwards. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A sunny day yet the lighting is quite flat, with the façade appearing unexpectedly dark in relation to its surroundings. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that is, at least in thumbnail, due to it being contrasted with the pure white of Commons' background. That being said, I agree that it could be brightened a bit, and am doing so. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest suspending this nom until the issues raised at en:fp are addressed or rejected. That may result in a new better file and we'd then have problems working out which one people voted on. I don't generally think it is a good idea to have two simultaneous noms for the very reason. There is no rush. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Withdraw for now. I am trying to work on a new stitch altogether (though a perspective edit is up). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Asiatic lion 04.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2014 at 15:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support 84mm? Photographer may be safe inside a lion-proof car (?). J e e 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Light and motive are very nice, but the tree directly behind the lion massively distracts the compositon. Visually the tree is cutting the lion. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose +1 Tuxyso --An678ko (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree, as well. Nice subject but I think that to be featurable it needs something special. Poc o² 21:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above, and I almost feel like I have to apologize for it. There's too much of one color in this shot, but there's not much alternative, either. It might have helped to have waited 2-3 seconds so leo was in front of the shadow thrown to his right to give the composition some depth. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a biologist I like this pic especially because there is much of one color and the tree - it perfectly shows the camouflage of a lion in a structured wilderness. Maybe there is no wow - but I don't need an additional wow on a lions pic. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment. This is the only protected habitat for Asiatic Lions in India. J e e 06:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a comment well suited to en:FP not COM:FPC. Commons looks for the wow. WP looks for the EV. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; wow in layman POV and biologist/naturalist POV are like day and night. ;) J e e 16:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that say about me then with my fancy honours degree in biology? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He, he; I'm just kidding. BTW, I don't like those preserved forests (for human entertainments) much. And I don't like we approach them that much close. But I really likes the camouflage here. :) J e e 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Achim, just for shits and giggles: to me, the whole idea of camouflage was just wrong thematically. If he's head-down, crouching, stalking prey, then yes, blending in to his surroundings is perfect; but, here, he appears to be look-at-me-I'm-the-king-of-the-jungle-style sauntering, in which case he's supposed to stand out. If nothing else, thank you for helping me put my thoughts into better words. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Tuxyso. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Achim its ed value is very high, Gnan garra 11:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support More I look at it more I find it pleasant, Christian Ferrer 18:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colina de las Cruces, Lituania, 2012-08-09, DD 12.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 20:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Hill of Crosses is a site of pilgrimage near Šiauliai, in the north of Lithuania. It is believed that the first crosses were placed after the November Uprising, in the first half of the 19th century. According to an estimation the amount of crosses and crucifixes reached 100,000 back in 2006. All by me, Poc o² 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! Very good. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice depth in every aspect. The half-hidden tourist making a picture of her own is a distraction, but not too bad. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:36, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Light and place look interesting. From the photo I had not assumed that there are about 100,000 crosses, but there are definitely a lot. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vert (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very interesting picture. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me the one of the best I´ve seen from this place yet. --mathias K 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The diffuse ilumiacion has been very guessed right, it has allowed to distinguish each element. The sky has very good proportion, and jointly with the contrast of the clouds it contributes a lot of force and intensity to this composition. Happiness. La ilumiacion difusa ha sido muy acertada, ha permitido distinguir cada elemento,. El cielo tiene muy buena proporcion, y conjuntamente con el contraste de las nubes aporta mucha fuerza e intensidad a esta composicion. Felicidades. --Rsantiaguez.
Support Per Rsantiaguez --Baresi F (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Support--Karelj (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC) closed[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Kloster St. Pauli (Brandenburg an der Havel) (MK).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2014 at 13:36:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Monastery St. Pauli with St. Katharinenchurch in the background, seen from south-east in Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany). c/u/n by me, mathias K 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 13:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mathias, Is this the best sun position possible or is there another strong reason for that time of the day? The image is a HDR according to your nom on de.wiki (I feel it would be nice if you might mention such PP in the description) and I find it slightly unnatural in appearance. It appears that this image was shot in your hometown and, according to sun position calculators, the large shadow could be avoided by shooting in the morning. I don't want to be annoying, but I'm struggling with the shadow given that we are talking about a FP nomination. --DXR (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right, this isn`t the best sun position. I didn`t tried it jet, but yes there is a "better" posible time to take this picture for the lighting/shadow problem. But then, it must be a summer morning, the trees in the foreground would be green and full of leaves what makes them way more dominant in the foreground. Thats what I try to prohibit here. When I developed the picture I gave my best to get the most realistic appearance cause I personally don`t like the obvious HDR look. I could gave it a try and take the summer pic to, to have something to compare. But for now I let this nomination run. ;-) --mathias K 18:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation! What was your shooting postion, a private building? Hard to guess that on Google Maps ;-) Anyways, if I'm not completely wrong, it should be well-lit at ca. 9:30 CEST at the very end of March, you might want to try that. --DXR (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will! ;-) And thanks for the hint! --mathias K 19:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I´ve added the infos about the exposure blending in the discription. --mathias K 19:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose per DXR; the shadows should be thrown away from the camera position, IMHO. Also, I might've moved a couple of feet to my right so that the trees frame the windows and the banner foreground left is off the building. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got your point and your right, I also liked to move a little more right when I was taking it, but sadly this is the "rightest" position to take the picture in public area. --mathias K 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As written on German FP page: The usage of HDR technique for compensation of bad lighting conditions (which could be ~~much~~ better in the morning) does seldom lead to convincing results. Combination of light and shadow is not a general problem with architecture shots, can also create depth, but the shadow part here is at the right front and imho to prominent.

@Tuxyso: No problem with your oppose, but your "much better" example for better lighting has an even more ugly shadow in the foreground comming out of nowhere. This is defenitly no serious alternative in my eyes. --mathias K 13:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@mathias K: Cross the "much", photography is ofter about trade-offs. I prefer the trade-off with a well lid building with some strong shadows around the building as shown on the other image. Just my personal opinion - nothing more.

Support on my opinion this image is great and may be selected as Featured --An678ko (talk) 15:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I really like the composition and perspective but the timing is not the best, that big area in shadow should be avoided. Btw, both sides are leaning in, Poc o² 22:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Something in this image is causing heavy confusion in my brain, but I can't really nail it down. I guess it has to do with the colors: It's obviously a bright sunny day, but the colors look kind of dull, missing vibrance (is that the right term?) or warmth. For example, I would expect the roof of the main building to look similar to the roof of the other church in the background. I very much appreciate you trying to avoid the "obvious HDR look", but it seems to me that you've overcompensated a bit here. --El Grafo (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I think I've got it now: Most parts of the image (apart from the church in the (right) back and the two smaller buildings in front of it) look very much like it might have looked to a person wearing sunglasses. If I were you, I'd try fiddling around a bit more in post-production – I've got a feeling that you're not far away from a really awesome picture! Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sun Temple, Modhera - Sabha Mandap 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Apr 2014 at 15:53:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its a really nice motiv which is worth to get a featured picture but sadly the image quality isn't good enough at this one imo. The lighting is pretty harsh, the details are visible but not really "pinsharp" and the dark areas are pretty noisy. Sorry. --mathias K 16:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support There are issues per Mathias, and the focus is inconsistent, but what sold it for me is just enough detail in the shadows without overexposing the sunlit surfaces. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose supporting Mathias in my oppose. Sorry. --An678ko (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Technically not high quality but acceptable IMO and the building has a Wow factor. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excellent composition, good enough execution. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support after some consideration --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias, moreover, I think the crop is a bit to tight. --EveryPicture (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

image:Señora paulina.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 17:17:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rsantiaguez - uploaded by Rsantiaguez - nominated by Rsantiaguez -- Rsantiaguez (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Rsantiaguez (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FPX removed as the image is now well above 2 MPix. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice expression, but still quite small, and the yellow background hurt. Yann (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:US-$2-SC-1896-Fr.247.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 23:39:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Image created, uploaded, and nominated by -- Godot13 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Author: the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. A United States $2 silver certificate, Series 1896.
Support -- Godot13 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Almost like looking into a microscope. Really impressive. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support historical value! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image and high historical value. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The note in the bottom is tilted cw Poco² 20:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment Poc o². Often the reverse printing of a note is off center or slightly misaligned. I use the imprint itself (versus the edge of the paper) for horizontal alignment so occasionally the edges of the bank note may be slightly rotated in order to level the upper and lower images. If you feel that the bottom image itself is rotated, please tell me and I will try to fix that. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lotto Adoration of the Child.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 08:32:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Lorenzo Lotto - uploaded by Vert - nominated by Vert -- Vert (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Vert (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aporia crataegi mating podgorje 2012 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:19:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kulac - uploaded by kulac - nominated by kulac -- Kulac (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kulac (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination denied. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines because only two active nominations per user are allowed. J e e 03:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Prenzlberg SchoenhauserAllee U2 ramp.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2014 at 05:48:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A subway line ramp on Schönhauser Allee, Prenzlauer Berg, Berlin, Germany. Created and uploaded by A.Savin - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks Christian. If wished, I can also apply an alternative development. --A.Savin 06:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done now. --A.Savin 17:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither motive, nor composition or quality justifies imho FP status. We have a lot of such ramps in Germany and I do not see what is special with the nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. I don`t think an other development would change my mind that much... --mathias K 14:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see there encyclopedic value (and like picture too). --Kikos (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support High encyclopedic value (both for the Berlin subway and Prenzlauer Berg), good composition and quality.--ArildV (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to agree with Tuxyso, nice perspective, good quality, but still the scene is not featurable to me Poc o² 21:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Kikos and ArildV. At first I wondered if this wouldn't have been a better snap in another 2-3 seconds, but I changed my mind. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am surprised some people don't like this. The new version is better too. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, perhaps I have spent too much time in cities where subway ramps of all sorts are common but I do not see wow here, although the image is certainly well executed and useful. I would personally like a perfectly symmetric perspective here, and perhaps a HK which is closer to the POV. --DXR (talk) 11:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As for DXR and Tuxyso. Also strange, faded colours and tonal values. -- Smial (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, but per others. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the composition.--Claus (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition appears rather random to me, sorry. The train is too small and the empty tracks are too big. --EveryPicture (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musée d'Orsay, North-West view, Paris 7e 140402.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014 at 11:03:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by User:DXR -- DXR (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The train station turned museum Musée d'Orsay, in soft morning light. -- DXR (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice light. Yann (talk) 11:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great light, great composition and what a quality! Very good! But, to be nitpick, there are one-two ghost/twin-cars on the road. No big deal cause they don´t attract much attention... ;-) --mathias K 11:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good! --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding! --Ivar (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a case where it's clear from just looking at the atmosphere that it's sunrise and not sunset. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 06:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is it cropped that tight at the top right? Interrupting remarkable lines (I mean the bank line at the river) are imho unfortunate. Quality and light are surely superb as already written by other reviewes.

I don't find the TR crop overly tight, but feel free to have a look at the total panorama (quite some view in its own right!) and suggest what you would prefer. --DXR (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the complete one. I would strongly encourage you to make an alternative (or additional?) nomination. The complete panorama is defintely FP worth and would surely receive a pro vote from me. BTW: Complete pano and crop have similiar resolution. Probably you could additionaly increase the EV of the complete pano if you upload a higher res version. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Is this a stitching error on the stairs? -- -donald- (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@-donald- That was an awful one! But it is now

Done. --DXR (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice job. -- -donald- (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A stitching error marked on the roof top? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Given ongoing problems with the stiching and given that a better alternative is also nominated, I have decided to withdraw here, thanks to all for your support! --DXR (talk) 11:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night in Shinjuku 3.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2014 at 09:08:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Shinjuku, Tokyo, at dusk. This scene taken from a - unfortunately rather vibrating - pedestrian overpass hopes to illustrate the vibrant and bustling atmosphere near the world's busiest train station. All by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Was thinking about nominating it, so obviously support. --DXR (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view! --mathias K 14:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose blur. Sorry --An678ko (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, the motion blur is intentional (and difficult to avoid anyway)--Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest the picture doesn't tell me so much. I lived in that area for a while and that's vibrant, you bet, but here I see a road wiht vehicles, a bridge and some neons in the background, I am not sure what you want to express with this work. To me the most interesting in that area would be having lots of people and neons, but here I find the bridge rather disturbing. Poco² 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks Diego. On the one side you're right: Shinjuku is generally characterized by lots of people and neons. But still: this area is also a major transport hub, with huge masses of people permanently coming and going. The railroad bridge in question is almost unbelievably busy, with trains crossing pretty much all the time. So integrating a train seemingly in motion helps convey this dynamic aspect in my eyes. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I love this shot. Complex, busy, not quite focused, not quite not. One thing that fascinated me is, in front of the idling Toyota (between the right-turning truck and the left-turning red car), a pedestrian whose feet are both planted at this instant while his body is in motion, seemingly rendering him invisible from the shins up. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The photograph does not illustrate anything in particular. The motion blur of the train in the middle of the image also plays the spoilsport. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Sanyambahga. --Karelj (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the atmosphere and it gives me desire to see more of this place, I shall have liked a little wider image. Christian Ferrer 18:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would expect a bit better quality. For showing the dynamics, a longer exposure time might be a good idea. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like that it is natural. Pictures with long exposures are pretty, but feel fake. Need something natural for a change. --Elvonudinium (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Calle en Trinidad que da acceso al Casco Historico.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2014 at 16:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Call me crazy, but I'd've knelt for this one—there's too much interesting stuff at street level. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special to me. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Norbert Nagel. Sanyambahga (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ya me parecía extraño que no hubiera más fotografías de perspectiva cónica por aquí... --Araujojoan96 (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ––JOAQUIND 17:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support not bad --Mile (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the left (please, more of that wall or nothing) and bottom (shadow in the bottom right) crops could be improved Poc o² 15:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the composition doesn't work for me: too much foreground. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Norbert --Pudelek (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nobert. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- I've looked at this several times trying to get a sense of what this is supposed to convey. All I get is it's a street. Then I try to reconcile that with the fact this is FPC where we are supposed to find the "finest" images on Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charity gifts for Children with cancer foundation Vanessa Isabel. Pediatric Specialty Hospital of Maracaibo 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 02:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sorry for the harshness of this photograph, I tried where possible to convey a positive message -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support As snaps go, this is substandard—the graininess and lack of focus in this image are almost impossible to ignore, and yet ... every so often a photographer captures a reaction shot that supersedes its flaws. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The half cut lady at the right doesn't make it. Either you include it full, or you cut it. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lovely of course but noisy, a bit blurred and half cut lady. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivan2010 20:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can understand the feelings, especially of the mother as I see similar scenes in our frequent visits to the Regional Cancer Centre. But the picture is extremely noisy and the composition is not outstanding. J e e 05:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The boy's expression is good; but the mother's face this cut one, is not good portrait. La expresion del niño es buena; pero el rostro de la madre esta cortado, no es buen retrato. --Rsantiaguez.

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cómpeta Complete Panorama View Golden Hour 02 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 15:51:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Cómpeta, a nice mountain village in Andalusia, panoramic view at Golden Hour shortly before sunset, all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --P e z i (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I might have shown more of the walkway far right, and the glare from the window one-third from left hurts only a little. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 20:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 05:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even thou this reflection from a window is bit disturbing. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view! The lights on the houses are a tad too bright for my taste but still OK. Good work --mathias K 06:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @|mathias K: Thanks for the review. White facades in sunlight are challenging :) I've exposed the photo in a way that the facades are barely not burnt out. If I had further reduced the highlights, the mood of the Golden Hour light had been vanished. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Donaustadtbruecke-Praterbruecke-DSC 0024w.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 19:30:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Praterbrücke (Highway bridge) and Donaustadtbrücke (Underground line U2) over the Danube in Vienna, as seen from the railway bridge Stadlauer Ostbahnbrücke. Though from 2011 this is already a historic picture because the skyline of the so-called Donaucity changed a lot in the meantime not only with the new DC1, a 250m high skyscraper, but also some more new buildings.
Support -- P e z i (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~I opened this with the intention of supporting. It's beautiful, but at full res it is very soft. It almost seems the focus point was the ship on the left?~~ Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Think you are right with "soft", not with the focus point. I had a look on it and found out, that I didn't apply any sharpening before uploading. Tried a new version now. --P e z i (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it is - as good as before. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like the interplay of different lines. The strong contrast together with the last light on the sky creates a very special mood. Due to the long exposure the sheen of the water comes out very well. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hope the new version is also OK for you? --P e z i (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Very nice colors and composition, sharpness is acceptable now. --DXR (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support per --DXR. --mathias K 04:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Dido Poc o² 20:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Förmiddagsklänning, drottning Victoria - Livrustkammaren - 15799.tif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2014 at 13:38:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Morning dress made in 1911 that belonged to Victoria of Baden. Created by Göran Schmidt, uploaded by The Royal Armoury and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very great! --An678ko (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does it have to be a 50 MB tiff file? Poco² 21:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. On the other hand, the institutions (in one of the largest image donations to Commons ever) have donated over 12,000 high quality images in tiff format to Wikimedia Commons. To download and convert all the files is an enormous task.--ArildV (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see dust spots. Not convinced of the white balance. Soft or DoF issues. While I understand the value of the .tiff I am not sure it meets well with featuring on Commons. However the .tiff means all issues raised are all correctable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review Saffron Blaze . I think I can create a jpg-version (and add it as an alternative) that addresses the problems. Just so I understand you correctly, what is the problem with the WB?--ArildV (talk) 10:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be a bit on the yellow side. It is hard to tell though with the aged fabric. It is minor so don't get too worried about it. I think if you remove the dusts spots and delicately sharpen the dress when producing the .jpg, you will have a much better result. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

New version (jpg, removed dustspots, less yellow and more sharpness and contrast).--ArildV (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Wonderful improvement on a fantastic subject. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Yann (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ivan2010 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:38, 01 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Förmiddagsklänning, drottning Victoria - Livrustkammaren - 15799 01.jpg

File:Horses Latvian EM.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 16:38:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Srolanh - uploaded by Srolanh - nominated by Srolanh -- Srolanh (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Srolanh (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Featured Pictures are generally expected to be outstanding or extraordinary, may it be in terms of quality, subject or occurence. While your image is nice, it unfortunately is not special in any of these categories imho. --DXR (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You nailed the perspective but, unfortunately, the rear horse facing away with its head almost totally in shadow just killed it for me. Sorry. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing very special, per DXR. --Cayambe (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR. Sorry. --mathias K 06:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilya Varlamov Gay Pride.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Apr 2014 at 15:29:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Mr. Varlamov portrait created by Mitya Aleshkovsky - uploaded by Aleshru - nominated by Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC) -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but... I may be about to expose myself (no pun intended) as someone who has no clue what he's talking about. Something about this picture just feels fake; even given a high-quality, hyper-focused lens, something's off. This man's nose, never mind his forehair (is that a word? xD), is a blur, yet the hair under his slightly jutting lower lip, while closer to the camera, is more in focus than the hair immediately under his nose and center-unibrow. It feels like someone used a photo-editor to create depth. Or is it me? xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the end, some photos are a matter of personal taste, and I find portraits shot at 24mm wide open odd, and the composition doesn't help here. The Nikon strap is also distracting. --DXR (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An interesting personality; but he deserves a far better portrait. J e e 09:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThere is absolutely no way this needed to be shot at 1/1000 with 1000 ISO. Especially given that the aperture was at f/1.6.--Usacfg (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bonsai Kitten IMGP4387 smial wp.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 07:10:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Smial - uploaded by Smial - nominated by Achim Raschka (talk) -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, f— yes! How is this not posed? Composition, perfect. Color, wow. Focus dead on her right eye, as it should be. Picture apparently made at 15:35 local time (xD). —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Charming photo IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I think, there is too much black space around the persons. However, it is hard to apply a tighter crop because of the guitar that cannot be cut away. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very dynamic! --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tomi Ungerer par Claude Truong-Ngoc mars 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 12:48:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ctruongngoc - uploaded by Ctruongngoc - nominated by Smial -- Smial (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Smial (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great portrait. --Harald Krichel (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paralacre (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Victoria & Albert Museum Central Garden, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 21:01:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff. This is a (conservatively) HDR tone mapped image, and stitched with ~~cylindrical projection~~ rectilinear projection. Diliff (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ -- Stitching makes rectilinear elements on the façade appear curved. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you reconsider? I've re-stitched the panorama with rectilinear projection. I originally chose cylindrical projection to avoid the distortion at the edges (this is a very wide view), but if Commons insists on rectilinear projection, I'm prepared to put up with a bit of edge distortion if Commons is. Diliff (talk) 10:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neutral It's much better now, but I'm not a fan of stitched architectural photographs. Sanyambahga (talk) 04:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's to hard for me to oppose a image of Diliff (I never had done until now). This image is technical on a very high level and more then just a quality image. But the compact impression and the clear and big visible shadow in front blur the composition IMO. So I sadly can't support this image as FP. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. :-) Yeah, the shadow is a bit of a problem. It won't really disappear until the summer when the sun is much higher in the sky. But is very difficult to get a photo of this garden at the museum without any people in it, so I had to go at 10am when it just opened to get a photo without any people. It's usually more like File:VictoriaAlbert2 small.jpg or even more crowded. The people are maybe not such a problem, but then they will be distorted at the edges (distorted people look even worse than distorted buildings!). Some subjects are just very difficult to photograph well. Diliff (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (weak) I have looked at the image serveral times and cannot really make friends with it. The quality is (as expected) outstanding good but the extreme perspective leads imho to an imbalance of image parts. The right front of the building is overemphasized - compare the size of the very right window on the right (the one with the grid) with the grid one at the very left at the same side of the building. Also the pond in front of the building is emphasized due to its closeness to the camera. On your photo the pond is visually larger than the complete entry side of the building. Such a misleading size ratio is not fortunate for an architecture shot. As far as I can judge from afar an exactly centered position had led to a better balance of elements because the entry side of the building is obviously the most interesting one. Probably on the stairs into the pond there could be minor stitching errors (see note), but I am not sure. Just remove the note if I am wrong. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there are any stitching errors. I took the panorama on a tripod with panoramic head so there should be no misalignment. I'll remove the note. Diliff (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I mainly agree with Wladylaw's comment. Top quality but very disturbing shadow. I would have probably try to capture the building without the pond. The right part of the building is also a bit too distorted, sorry Poc o² 15:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I think the rectilinear view is far better. Also, I'm going to be the odd one out here: I think the presentation would have been more interesting had the shadow taken up even more area, say, half-way across the water. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I looked at this several times and I just can't get past that shadow, as it intrudes so much into the scene and is a distraction. Both projections were fine to me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not think that the shadow is too disturbing because it does not cover the building's main part. --EveryPicture (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but I don't like the new projection at all. I maybe could have lived with the horizontals being arched, but now at least the right half looks simply wrong to me. For instance, have a look at the chairs at the right, the ornaments directly above them or the window panes and bricks in that area: They are considerably squeezed. --El Grafo (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, points taken. I'll try to revisit this another time. The main reason why the position of the viewpoint was so close to the water was because the grass was officially 'off limits' due to recent resurfacing, and there was a 'keep off the grass' sign immediately behind which would have been in the photo if I had been further back. Hopefully they'll remove the sign and let people onto the grass and I'll take a photo from further back, meaning less distortion (and hopefully less shadow if I time it better). Diliff (talk) 22:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cucullie de la scrofulaire MHNT Chenille.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 22:02:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ercé - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish a portrait frame showing more of the leaf (?) below. J e e 03:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes it`s a beatiful caterpillar, but the quality is insufficient for a featured macro imo. The very high ISO (why???) is too visible for me. --mathias K 11:21, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's a very nice picture that needs my vote to counter the pixel peeper's vote above :) --Baykedevries (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, very funny! There is no pixel peeping in my comment! If you would spend some time to have a look through some of our featured macros you should see that this quality isn`t the best commons has to offer! --mathias K 15:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful.--JOAQUIND 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. --Karelj (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support pleasantly surprised: Tomer chose well! -Ercé (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 20:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no way that I can give a "2nd consideration" to this. I don't think the lighting condition under which this photo was shot warrants such a high ISO of 2500. Neither does the caterpillar move so fast that there would be any harm done if the noise is reduced to between 800-1600, rendering a slow shutter speed of below 1/100 (perhaps try 1/60). An otherwise nice photo and caterpillar. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Considering Ercé's information below, I would change my vote to support. Good effort. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Figwort is very high and its leaves are very movable by slightest breath of wind. --Ercé (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me, still I believe that the noise/sharpness balance could be improve reducing the noise level Poc o² 15:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great compo and specimen, but noise level is too high for me. --Ivar (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar. And an additional flash would had been a useful thing in this situation. Kruusamägi (talk) 02:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fat Albert low level pass.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 04:32:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Staff Sgt. Oscar L. Olive IV, U.S. Marine Corps - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact these guys were not given ear defenders is unconscionable. That aside, love the pic, but not happy about the tightness on the top and bottom for the last Marine. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The crop is ok. Could even be tighter. Amazing picture. I hope it will be featured.--192.36.80.8 09:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support amazing! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if this image is suppose to show the plane doing a low level pass then the people obscure that, if the people are meant to show how low the plane is then the angle fails to clearly show that Gnangarra 10:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo isn't supposed to show only one of those things, it is supposed to show both things in combination, and also to show the (non) reaction of the Marines. This photo does that quite magnificently. russavia (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - as I said if the photo is suppose to show how low the plane is in relation to the people then the angle fails to clearly show that. Gnan garra 05:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose plane very unsharp (yes, it's moving perpendicular to the focal plane, but this is too much). Chromatic aberrations (white trousers of soldier at left, trousers, hat, and shoulder of front soldier on the right). Noisy shadows on the faces. Lupo 11:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super. --Karelj (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If someone is up for fixing the minor tech issues please address all the sensor spots as well. The photographer's sensor was filthy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Tigth crop. --Mile (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ until plenty of sensor dust and massive CAs especially at white parts of the trousers are removed. Otherwise this photo is really impressive and should become an FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dust spots and CA removed. Noise slightly reduced. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now clearly pro. An outstanding photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great moment. It doesn't disturb me the lack of sharpness of the plane, if it would be sharp I would probably be irritated about sharp marines with helices and wings emerging out of their heads Poc o² 15:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Without you there are currently more supporters than opposers thus your vote has to be pro if one takes "per other[s]" seriously :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - , OK, now with more clarification. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jwh (talk) 08:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image (and per Poco²) --PierreSelim (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really a great image. Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 08:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bucephala clangula female.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2014 at 17:07:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Female Common Goldeneye, Bucephala clangula, portrait. Taken at Martin Mere WWT, Lancashire, UK. All by Baresi franco (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice quality! I´m pretty excited of the quality you get out of your MFT-system! Great work overall! --mathias K 05:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mathias K - it seems a good sensor (Sony, I think?), esp at low ISO. The fast focus helps, too, esp when I'm among a load of ducks!

Support Poc o² 20:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very high quality, nice details and motive. But crop should be slightly improved (see image note) to reach golden ratio. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tuxyso. How does it look now? --Baresi F (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 08:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Veil of Snow - Sgwd yr Eira.jpeg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 06:15:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Fifty foot waterfall in Brecon Beacons, Wales.

Info all by Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somehow eye-catching and technically well done. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:56, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Time-lapse can feel like I'm being manipulated if it's overdone. It's definitely not here. Nice. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 12:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, still I think that it is overall a bit underexposed. It would be also great to add some more categories. Poc o² 15:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Added more precise cats. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support maybe a bit underexposed --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I feel I'm in my home. J e e 15:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice composition and colours --mathias K 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much contrast (generally dark but with clipped highlights). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's very difficult to preserve the highlights in long exposures of waterfalls without underexposing the rest of the scene. It's not about contrast, it's about the camera having limited abilities to capture the full dynamic range of the scene. Diliff (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll think about it, but underexposing to preserve highlights should really not be a problem. Brightening in post is always possible, or reducing contrast. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian H., your critique is not without merit. I noticed the two areas of clipped whites, but thought they were small enough to be ignored. I should have used some layers to recover those highlights as the RAW has the DR to deal with this. I will see about fixing it when I have some time. Thanks Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brightening in post is 'always possible to do', but underexposing and brightening in post is not always a realistic proposition to solve the issues of blown highlights. If you've underexposed too much, you start running out of usable tonal range and the shadow detail looks poor. But if as Saffron Blaze says, there is still highlight detail in the RAW image then perhaps it can be fixed. Diliff (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very nicely composed and photographed. Diliff (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AKG C214 Condenser microphone.jpg , featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 11:05:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Stitched from six images, each of them being focus-stacked. Created by Lucasbosch - uploaded by Lucasbosch - nominated by Lucasbosch -- Lucasbosch (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lucasbosch (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Top quality but I wonder whether a white background was the best idea. The white strip in the middle is so bright / overexposed that it can hardly be differentiated from the background Poc o² 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've darkened the problematic spots to create better separation (also am currently working on a transparent background version). Please revote if satisfied. --Lucasbosch (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Super detailed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. So detailed, one can see fibers in the mesh. I did see one stitch point at full size, but only because I was looking for it. xDDD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive level of detail, good sharpness and big EV.--ArildV (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--El Grafo (talk) 14:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice job, maybe a dark background would be nicer for the bright details but anyway very good. --mathias K 04:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job. --Ritchyblack (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Quai de l'Horloge, Paris, Île-de-France 140320.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014 at 11:37:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by DXR - nominated by me -- mathias K 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another great "Paris in the morning panorama" by DXR. Light and quality are very good and the composition also! Keep up the very good work! -- mathias K 11:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Uoaei1 (talk) 11:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot Mathias for the nomination and the kind words! I will keep trying to do my best --DXR (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The glitch is really annoying even in thumb size, this is a no go for me. Motion blur might be better than bad ghost removing sometimes. --PierreSelim (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done PierreSelim, would you please be kind enough to reconsider? --DXR (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've strike my oppose. --PierreSelim (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Have you added negative clarity to the sky or why do some of the towers have dark halos around them? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 06:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian, I think this has been caused by the HDR processing. I have tried to keep it to a minimum but it is hard to completely avoid, at least with my tools. --DXR (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's unfortunate. I'll still

Support. I guess the only way to avoid it then is to manually do the HDR editing, which is admittedly quite difficult to get right, too. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I work here !--Jebulon (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:860808-Saffronfarm-05-IMG 7845-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 15:00:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Safa Daneshvar - nominated by Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Harvest of saffron at a farm in Iran.
Support -- Ю. Данилевский (talk) 15:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I want to see their faces.--Claus (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I dont think 200mm was a good idea for this subject and I dont really like the limited DOF here that comes with the choice of focal length.--ArildV (talk) 08:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support if ArildV will forgive the contradiction. DoF where there should be DoF is correct, just from my (clearly?) uneducated PoV. The focal point is the center subject's right hand when it should have been the bit of saffron between her hands, which means Safa missed by, what, one inch? Two inches? Inconsequential. (And, Claus, I don't get your argument at all ... xD) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the DOF was incorrect or that the photographer have made a technical mistake. What I said was that I do not understand the point of choosing 200mm and limited DOF here.--ArildV (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a viewer, it gives me the proper perspective within a tight shot of how small these people are in a vast field while still demonstrating their importance to the harvest. To better explain my comment to Claus, that they're "faceless" lends to this composition. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the comments regarding DoF. It is too limited and the isolation of just two of the workers is off putting at full res. I see this image as a missed opportunity. I don't like that the basket on the left was cut off and I also don't like the one person's face being cut off. Ideally this would have had all the workers in focus and the baskets fully within the scene and all workers looking down presenting the top of their hats. That would have been a masterpiece. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think Saffron Blaze is not wrong, but I support nevertheless. This is a good (enough), and unusual photograph of persons at work, in a rare environment. It has a very high ethnologic value, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A living frame. The DOF is enough as the subject here is only the two people and their work (for me). This is brilliant photography without disturbing the subjects with a 50mm. And for those who want to see the face. J e e 16:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The composition is not good. Not harmony exists between the reason and the marks of the picture. To use the telephoto in scenes like this it is not advisable. La composicion no es buena. No existe armonia entre el motivo y los marcos de la fotografia. Usar el teleobjetivo en escenas como esta no es recomendable. --Rsantiaguez
Support For me the composition is just great! The 200mm was the right choice, the dof fits perfect and the quality is also very good. Great picture! --mathias K 04:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Mandarin Pair.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 19:35:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Arctic Kangaroo -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 19:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Just another very good one (although I'd have cloned out the small white dot on the left in the background). --JLPC (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn!! You made me notice it JLPC !!! =P --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cloned! Thanks JLPC --Baresi franco (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Baresi franco I don't see any difference. Where's the dot you cloned out? I have added an image note for the dot that I spotted upon JLPC's highlighting. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How bizarre - I must have uploaded the original again, although I could have sworn I hadn't. I'll upload the cloned version this evening, cheers.--Baresi franco (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even more strange - I've not done anything, and the dot has disappeared. No change to file upload history, so I must have uploaded the cloned-out version yesterday after all. --Baresi franco (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm it's ok on my phone. Probably a saved cache or purging problem on my computer. So problem resolved. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I have been caught in cache hell before too. Not even a purge would help. I have learned to leave it for a day and see what happens. In every case it resolved itself as the servers propagate the new image and associated thumbs. Saffron Blaze (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it for a day...I'm on computer now and the spot is still there. :( (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry but the picure is not bad but the quality, size ~~and composition~~ are not outstandings IMO for a bird very often photographed. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination! I had hesitated to nominate this, even though it's a fave of mine, because of the high-ish ISO (I can understand your point Christian, although I would amicably disagree about the composition and size). However, I've gone and looked at some of the other Mandarin FPs, and I think the detail is comparable. And the pair of them posing like that against the background makes it memorable, imo. --Baresi franco (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed the composition is not bad and it's a nice image but I keep my point of view for the rest. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great composition.--ArildV (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Baresi. ;-) The quality could be a bit better maybe, but it´s definitely featurable imo. --mathias K 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support When I first saw this photo I thought of nominating it, but I was a little worried about people having an issue with the noise. A definite support from me. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- The picture is beautiful, it represents two birds dialoguing, it is a moment very sugerente, this alone it happens in an instant of time, and the photographer has been very sensitive in transmitting us a magic moment inside our Nature. La fotografia es hermosa, representa dos aves dialogando, es un momento muy sugerente, esto solo ocurre en un instante de tiempo, y el fotografo ha sido muy sensible en transmitirnos un momento magico dentro de nuestra Naturaleza. --Rsantiaguez.

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Piedras en Rio Yayabo.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 23:27:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ivan2010 - uploaded by Ivan2010 - nominated by Ivan2010 -- Ivan2010 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ivan2010 23:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a bit more sky wouldn't be bad. Do you have another version with a crop that is less tight? --EveryPicture (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice image, but nothing really outstanding here. Neither the light nor the quality are really featurable for me. Sorry. --mathias K 04:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. Well-done technically but nothing can make it an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin - Bismarck-Nationaldenkmal1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 07:45:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Musee d'Orsay and Pont Royal, North-West view 140402 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 09:18:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Paris 16
Support Maybe too much "Paris in the morning panorama", but this one is better than the other-- Paris 16 (talk) 09:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb. As already said: If the pano recurrs on the same raw material as the the other pano it would be appreciated to upload a higher resolution to additionaly increase the EV if it is possible for you. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better than the other one. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay. Thanks Paris 16 for the nomination. I honestly hope you guys are not annoyed with my images crowding the space here, that wasn't my intention, of course. @Tuxyso: I have adjusted the size to 40MP, that footbridge from which I shot vibrates like hell and the faraway images are just too soft for any more resolution. Furthermore, I am not sure what the proper process is here? Should I withdraw the other one? Both images were shot seperately and are not based on the same material, and are certainly not alts in the strict sense. Could some more experienced users give their opinion, please? --DXR (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DXR: Under that circumstances I would keep the photo as it is. I can fully follow your argument regarding bridge vibrating - it can be very annonying :( Thus good luck with this nom.
  Flooding with excellent photo is always welcome. IMHO it is a great apprecication of your work that other active Commons user nominate your photos. I look forward to further interesting DXR contributions and nominations :) --Tuxyso (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I certainly appreciate it a lot, just was a bit surprising to me. But you are right, this probably has quite some wow. Well, I guess I'll just take a little nomination break after those images so that it evens out over time ;-). --DXR (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is the better of the two. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and again! ;-) --mathias K 06:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have decided to withdraw the other image due to the redundancy and also due to technical issues, thanks for your support. --DXR (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support better than the other one --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better than the two previous noimnations. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good work! Poc o² 09:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportVery Nice! Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trés painterly. Daniel Case (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Female Barn Owl 2 (6942362843).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2014 at 13:52:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tony Hisgett on flickr - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak support~~ Oppose Underexposed on the left. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It lacks sharpness IMHO and the lighting is not good, only a small portion of the face is good exposed Poc o² 19:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow, sorry.--Claus (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow; no caption --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the motiv and composition has some wow, but sadly the light and quality isn`t good enough imo. --mathias K 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose sorry but I agree with Mathias.--ArildV (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Night in Shinjuku 2.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 09:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Another take on bustling Shinjuku, Tokyo, at night. An exposure time of 3 seconds caused light trails that, at least in my eyes, create dynamic verticals which are leading the viewer into the vivid, colorful center of the image.
All by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are those poles on the left? They are rather distracting imho. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what do you mean? The trees? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No...those in the lower left quarter of the photo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please add a note. Thanks! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good question. The upper "pole" appears to be a cable. The lower one... I'm not sure. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I guess I'll have to work on it a bit --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chroicocephalus ridibundus 2012a.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 18:20:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by ArildV - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I Am Spartacus!" —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:57, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (sorry, I had to do it ...)[reply]
Support ArildV, do you record the call? J e e 02:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, i didn't thought about it.--ArildV (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait—you mean, it's not "I Am Spartacus"?! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 09:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find the brown-greenish area in the lower left corner of the background surprisingly disturbing. Nevertheless that's a clear Support for me. --El Grafo (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain Thank you for nomination!--ArildV (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Rule-of-thirds not followed, distracting brown-greenish area in lower left corner of the background. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The brown-greenish area most likely a building. I dont really agree with that image does not comply to rule-of-third, note how the bird's head and upper body is positioned. However, to compose an image is not just about formulas imo (you have to apply the rules with respect to the object, and sometimes dare to break them just as long you know why you do it). Regards--ArildV (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think AK is talking about Lead room which is not practical in this case (without doubling the width). The background can be cleaned if necessary. J e e 03:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The shooting angle is not the best with the cut off feed, but this nice pose is compensation enough. ;-) --mathias K 04:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with El Grafo, is there a way to smooth or even clone that the big brownish surface on the left? Poc o² 20:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have no objection about removing it (I dont have the technical knowledge to perform the removal, but I guess many others here have). The only problemmet is that many have already voted?--ArildV (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portal da Catedral de La Seu d'Urgell.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 16:45:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portal of the Cathedral of la Seu d'Urgell. Catalonia. Spain. Created and uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Christian Ferrer -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the FPC talk page J e e quoted the opinion of the jurist Heta Pandit in last year's Wiki Loves Monuments: "I would have also liked to see some more human element. The relationship between monuments, nature and people is so important. ... A lot of the pictures were like tourist brochures.". He inspired me this nomination. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Those people giving me a "going out of frame" feel; but interesting, overall. J e e 02:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with Heta Pandit, and I like this one. Yann (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --EveryPicture (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just see disturbing people in a normal quality picture. Nothing extraordinary, not a FP.--Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. Kruusamägi (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per Jebulon. Sanyambahga (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as Jebulon Moros y Cristianos 18:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon. --mathias K 04:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment español: Comprendo que la gente estorbe cuando hay caos. No comprendo que la presencia de seres humanos en una disposición que estimo ordenada pueda ser disruptiva delante de un pórtico realizado por seres humanos. En este caso, al revés, considero que es interesante. Pero solamente es mi opinión y no deseo votar aunque lo de "normal quality picture" me parece casi insultante. Estoy harto de discutir!--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 01:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Luis Miguel, you must accept comments, even negative ! "normal quality picture" is NOT quasi insulting, even if you feel it is. If you think so, it will be hard to discuss, and to assess pictures here ! How could I say that I think it is not a FP ? Subsequently, do I have the simple right to give my opinion and to oppose ? This is a strong and not acceptable psychological pressure !--Jebulon (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry Jebulon, a normal quality is not a QI. What you want to say with "normal" (The question is irrelevant IMO: You do not have to answer)---Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But I don't have problem, I think that the image can't be FP, but the problem of the image is not IMO "normal quality"--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't say the problem of the image in English. If you want, I can say it in Spanish, but I think that it's irrelevant--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I do not want to waste time with this discussion, but do not feel uncomfortable with me--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bělohrad Lázně 2014 8.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 21:40:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Karelj -- Karelj (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Karelj (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very good subject, but distored and not symetric. Can you fix it? -- -donald- (talk) 12:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I believe that image is good enough as it it is presented. --Karelj (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Well, I don't and I think a lot of other people won't either. You mean you can't crop it down to being symmetrical? Daniel Case (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estación de FFCC, Gdansk, Polonia, 2013-05-20, DD 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Apr 2014 at 21:32:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info EN57 regional train of the Polish State Railways direction to Malbork at the platform 2 in the Gdańsk main railway station (Gdańsk Główny), Poland. All by me, Poc o² 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's hard to tell through the windshield if the front of the train is blocking the building's main entrance under the façade or if that's just another window; I might have backed up a few feet. Otherwise, nice framing, nice convergence. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Borderline between the sky and building is strange on the left side. Overall good, but not outstanding. --217.159.158.132 08:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not like the point of view of this image. There is too much empty space on the left side, moreover, the column is disorted and cut off at the bottom. In addition to that, there is a glare in the sky visible between train and the roof. Maybe you have another version where the focus is set on the station building and the interesting train? This one is no FP for me, sorry. --EveryPicture (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version addressing some issues: fringes, CA, perspective correction, noise Poc o² 18:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice image nevertheless. Good attempt at shooting a station+train shot. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really, really like the composition of this one! It`s nearly a perfect train station pic for me. --mathias K 04:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose I've come back to this picture a few times. The idea is really good (It could have been a brilliant photo), but the execution has a few flaws imo. It's not a good idea to place the pillar right on the edge of the picture (it highlights the perspective distortion and also an unfortunate cropping there), the train obscures the station building more than necessary. I think a picture taken a few feet further back would have been better (and solved both issues). Another possibility would be the opposite, to use a longer focal length to get a tighter crop of the train without the pillar on the left and with less of the station.--ArildV (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle Howard Antique Passage.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 09:30:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice lighting and perspective, but there are a row of issues with this picture due to the challenging conditions: lack of sharpness, too high noise level and perspective correction needed to get verticals vertical. Poc o² 09:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Requires correction for barrel distortion. Sanyambahga (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:U.S. Navy Diver enters the water during a training evolution at the Naval Diving and Salvage Training Center 140218-N-IC111-156.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 12:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kevin B. Gray - uploaded by Fæ
Support as nominator -- Fæ (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support perfect moment --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is just a curiosity, but he suit doesn't look to me as the best one for diving, it has even holes :) Poc o² 09:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is curious. He appears to be wearing a well used boilersuit over a wetsuit. This might be so that the strapped on kit does not cause damage to his wetsuit, or it could be normal for salvage divers who may otherwise be injured by bumping against scrap metal. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 14:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good moment has been registered in in this picture. Thank you to offer us such a creative instant. The plunger seems an aquatic skater. Muy buen momento ha sido registrado en en esta fotografia. Gracias por brindarnos un instante tan creativo. El buzo parece un patinador acuatico. --Rsantiaguez.
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:2013. Manavgat River & Mediterranean Sea With Flag.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 18:42:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by danielåhskarlsson - uploaded by danielåhskarlsson - nominated by danielåhskarlsson -- Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose crop and lighting, looks oversaturated. Tomer T (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tomer. The sea horizon is not really horizontal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cayambe (talk • contribs) 20:24, 6 April 2014‎ (UTC) Sorry for my formerly unsigned oppose. --Cayambe (talk) 12:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sorry guys but here you are wrong. The only work thats done on this image is contrast. Thats the only thing. Photo was taken from a boat so how the sea horizon look, what can I do?? This is just the way it look from the view where I take he photo from. The picture is a original size, it's not cropt. The only thing to disagree here is if the contrast is to high, and ocfoourse I can take down lighting to but I like it this way :) Turcey is the place of the sun! And then I think it's right to have a picture with brith light :) Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, strange composition. By the way, when Tomer T says "crop," he is using it as a synonym for framing. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tomer/Cayambe. "What can I do"? Hold the camera level and adjust at home if not. Levelling a wonky horizon is basic stuff. And it is so over-saturated/exposed that the red channel is blown. -- Colin (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose. --Yikrazuul (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition makes it seem like flag accidentally intruded into the frame; hard to see what the subject of the image is supposed to be and thus low EV, if any. Also, color on flag just doesn't seem right. Daniel Case (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2014 (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: so many issues stated above. J e e 16:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Helleborus orientalis. Lenteroos 04.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Apr 2014 at 16:22:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Helleborus orientalis. spring Rose. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 05:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Solid quality, however, in my opinion there is nothing special about the picture. Sorry, --EveryPicture (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Flower (bud?) in top left corner is distracting. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The special feature of this picture is in my opinion the dots in the flower and the symmetrical distribution. Seedlings of Helleborus are often selected by color and dots. In the background the top left you will see a budding flower.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per EveryPicture. The chosen aperture (f/11) gives a nice sharpness and a "large" dof but that makes the background pretty disturbing in my eyes. Maybe a larger aperture, ~f5.6 or so, and some focus stacking could make a nicer BG. Sorry. --mathias K 05:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive flower, very sharp. Background no issue for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superb quality, the background is no problem for me. --Cayambe (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the picture would gain in composition with a tigther crop on the top and left Poc o² 20:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do you mean, crop the picture?--Famberhorst (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit on the top and on the left Poc o² 22:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done cropped
Oppose (weak): With EveryPicture: Quality ia at a high level, DoF is well managed, but imho light, composition and motive are too ordinary. And with mathias K: Background is quite distracting. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with EveryPicture, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the picture. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would have cropped a little more on the right, but that's a personal taste. As it is, good enough to use in a clothing print. Daniel Case (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants/Flowers

File:Anacapri BW 2013-05-14 13-55-21.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2014 at 11:46:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of the composition. The view from this place is wonderful, but in my opinion, you concentrated too much on the foreground that appears disturbing. Sorry, --EveryPicture (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose Don't include those poles and columns! They spoil the photo terribly! --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Arctic Kangaroo: You strongly supported a picture with wires visible to become a FP but strongly oppose the promotion of this picture because of columns? --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AmaryllisGardener: IMO the wires in that photo don't distract the viewer, and are not very obvious anyway. But in this case, the columns and poles are far too obvious, and looking at the photo also makes me wonder if the author even intended to shoot the scenery. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per EP. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition, it has some kind of intimate touch for me. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the general idea to integrate the columns and poles into the composition and the view is very nice. Photos which make use of such an in-picture framing are ofter very eye-catching. But here I see the problem that the balustrade crosses the bay and convers important parts of the harbour and is too distracting. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish that the shadows in the foreground was brighter, but I like the idea and composition. The picture is also taken from one of Capri's most famous buildings, making it even more logical to include construction details in the foreground.--ArildV (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Butterfly Eastern Festoon - Allancastria cerisyi.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 10:19:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Zeynel Cebeci - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although the bottom one is partially OOF due to slight alignment issues. J e e 13:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support The photographer should have gone down further, to be more parallel to the butterflies. But the photo is still not not parallel enough for me to oppose. Nice shot overall. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor denoising. --Ivar (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vincent van Gogh - The Church in Auvers-sur-Oise, View from the Chevet - Google Art Project.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 07:43:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Vincent van Gogh - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong oppose, perspective disortion and tight right crop! Also the women in front of the church are slightly disturbing --ArildV (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mention the white balance is totally off. --PierreSelim (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per ArildV. Yann (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claus (talk) 11:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Berlin - Haus des Reisens1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014 at 08:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The building leans a bit to the left and the whole image looks distorted. The top looks wider than the bottom. Can you try to correct the tilt and carefully "reprocess" the distortion thing? Otherwise a good picture. --mathias K 08:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will reprocess it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A bit bland for FP. A fairly nondescript office building and no redeeming features. Apart from that, the building seems wider at the top than it does at the bottom. Perspective correction overdone? Kleuske (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you find this building is nondescript. It's factual a very important exponent of DDR-architecture called Neue Sachlichkeit. I don't think that your personal taste should be indicator for your voting. A perspective reprocessing will be done. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Per Wladyslaw (even though he's the nominator). Image is plain, but that is the location, which is represented very well imo. --DXR (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kleuske. Yann (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New image with less pespective correction. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parasol oder Riesenschirmpilz, Macrolepiota procera 3.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 00:09:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Böhringer - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer 04:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This one feels fine for me..The Herald 15:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Cropped version. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 11:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Dante And Virgil In Hell (1850).jpg (delist), kept

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 09:56:35

Info 1,608 × 2,001 pixels, file size: 322 KB, unknown source, low-quality (Original nomination)
~~Delist~~ -- Paris 16 (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless you have a replacement. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Paris 16 (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Yann (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Kruusamägi (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace Saffron Blaze, reconsider your opinion. :) J e e 05:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the keep, but somewhat concerned over the colours in the replacement (despite the Google Art source). Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist and replace --Claus (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 6 delist and replace, 0 keep, 0 neutral => kept Jee 12:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

file:Calliteara fascelina Buchstein01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:16:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kulac - uploaded by kulac - nominated by kulac -- Kulac (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kulac (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 12:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Deileptenia ribeata Buchstein01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 10:18:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by kulac - uploaded by kulac - nominated by kulac -- Kulac (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kulac (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great image, but there's a problem with the composition. The moth needs to be lowered. I would have supported if not for that. :(
--(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- what do you mean with lowered? that there is too little space on the upper side of the picture? --Kulac (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ya something like that. Generally it is a good guide to leave some space in the direction that the animal is facing. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. i uploaded a improved version, in wich the light is also improved. i could still add more stone in all directions, but i think that would be too much. --Kulac (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm should be lowered even further. The picture now appears too dark as well. Probably I can show you my suggested crop if you email me the full size photo or upload it in a separate file and link it here? Then if you agree you can upload it. Don't need to credit me even if you upload it. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Better. Yann (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 16:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 12:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Surin 86 Châtaignier mort D35A 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 11:29:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JLPC - uploaded by JLPC - nominated by JLPC -- JLPC (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JLPC (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful shot --Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful! --DXR (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lighting looks rather flat. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bgag (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King of Hearts. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Too centered IMHO but the subject and scenery is FP to me Poc o² 09:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is optimal to me, and a centered composition is not a problem for such a "portrait". I think it is a FP, because very high technical quality + wow enough.--Jebulon (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, photo very plain + the sign on the trunk. Didn't check for other issues though. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice atmosphere --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kangaroo.--Claus (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice, but not enough wow for me to be featured. Sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alchemist-hp (talk • contribs) Poc o² 12:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 12:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013-11-21 21-59-16 moisissure-85f.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 20:11:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low EV as neither the cheese or mould are identified. Is this a cheese that is bought mouldy or one that went off? The image description states 85 stacked frames made up the image. But the lighting isn't great and the view so close-up one has no concept of depth or scale. This seems more an exercise in photographic technique than educational imaging, something the classification hierarchy also makes apparent. -- Colin (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. --Cayambe (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-03-27 12-43-57 soda-moisi-19f.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 20:09:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but what IS it? There's no scale, and no description other than "soda moisi". Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's some mold on soft drink. --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThe image above gave me a clue... Fungi on something (cheese?) Kleuske (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's in the category 'Focus stacking images of soft drinks mold'. Strange. :-) Diliff (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The categorisation of this image is just stupid. I know Commons category tree is broken but seriously, the primary categorisation of this image should be that it is a mould on a soft drink. So if I go to that category I expect to see it. I don't expect to have to further specify the kind of photographic technique used to capture the image, and especially not when there are no other entries in that category. Focus stacking is as irrelevant to the user as the camera or lens used or the f-stop. Really we should learn to categorise at the sensible depth and not the n-th degree of specialisation. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The categorisation of this image is just stupid." BE POLITE, PLEASE !!! --ComputerHotline (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I am being polite. There is an adjective before "stupid" that I could have added. -- Colin (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure how a soft drink goes mouldy but should I care, this picture/description doesn't tell me what the drink is, what the mould is (or are), how big it is, how tall the growth is. But I can plot it on Google Earth :-). Highlights are blown. -- Colin (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "I'm not sure how a soft drink goes mouldy but should I care" : it's some Coca Cola. --ComputerHotline (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you get it to go mouldy rather than just evaporate away? It seems a bit contrived, as mouldy soft drinks aren't common in my experience. Anyway, my point is a featured picture, in addition to an outstanding image, needs to make some effort wrt file naming, image description and categorisation -- see the "Image page requirements" of the Commons:Image guidelines. You've told me that it is Coke but haven't updated the image description page. -- Colin (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young redstart.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 18:29:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Людмила Голуб - uploaded by Людмила Голуб - nominated by Людмила Голуб -- Людмила Голуб (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Людмила Голуб (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - needs location data - MPF (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Legs partially chopped off, distracting shadows, composition problems. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Open Make Up For Ever 2013 - Alla Vaskovich - Alena Zhebeleva - 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 10:14:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Pyb - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good sport images taken in the exact right moment imo. --ArildV (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop and technical issues. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Yikrazuul Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lady on the left out of focus --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they are syncro swimmers shouldn't their hands be in sync? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. They have probably lost some points for small error. This duet is composed of young synchro swimmers. Pyb (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may be a trial. They seem look in different points too. J e e 15:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice shot. Pleclown (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with some comments above: tight crop (especially on the right), lack of sharpness of the lady on the left, distracting background (line), good shot, but not yet at FP level to me, sorry Poc o² 12:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other opposes. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 13:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle Howard Exterior.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 09:33:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also this one needs a perspective correction. I recommend you to nominate your pictures first in QIC to get this kind of feedback. The picture also looks a bit dull to me and the sharpness is not outstanding either, and too much sky IMHO, as well. Poc o² 09:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Further to what Poco has mentioned, I feel like I'm looking 'up hill' at this image, partially due to the lack of perspective correction, and partially because of the fact that there's little foreground and a lot of sky. I suspect it is slightly up hill, but it doesn't help the composition. Also, I think you've selected an inappropriate aperture. f/16 is going to result in softness due to diffraction. Diliff (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose -- As pointed out by Diliff, the image needs perspective correction. I don't find anything wrong with the composition though. Sanyambahga (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bee 01 (MK).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 06:29:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I`ll try this one. I know the dof isn`t perfect on the upper one but I really like the composition so I think I will give It a try. c/u/n by me -- mathias K 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 06:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well-captured. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is important to count with an existing category for these bees and the identification of the flower would be also good Poc o² 09:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Diego: Done I`ve created a category, cleaned up the taxon cat and added and linked the name of the flower. Thx for the advice! ;-) --mathias K 15:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Composition, useless file name. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your great review. Very helpfull... But for real, useless filename?? Are you kidding me? It is a picture of a completly IDed bee. So whats that for an "useless argument"? --07:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Technically not perfect, but indeed nice composition. --DXR (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overhead view, heads OOF, focus seems more on the legs of the upper bee. J e e 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jee You're right with the limited dof. But whats wrong with an overhead view? Do You see everything from sideview? I think an overhead view has the same eligibility like any other direction?! --mathias K 07:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a matter of taste. :) J e e 08:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:159 - Glacier Perito Moreno - Bateau et glacier - Janvier 2010.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 04:37:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. The very tight crop is intentional. I feel it helps to "read" the image from left to right, ending at the boat, which is the only element allowing the viewer to get a sense of the sheer size of the ice wall. I made another panorama from the same location with a more conventional crop, but I feel this one is truly superior. -- S23678 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S23678 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Yann (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really dislike the crop and the colours/darkness seems significantly altered compared to others in Category:Perito Moreno Glacier. I encourage reviewers to look at the other photos in that category (many taken by S23678). I don't think this is the best photo. -- Colin (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I partially agree with Colin. Personally I dont understand the point of isolating the glacier from the environment. There are better compositions imo. For example, your own panorama showing more of the glacier or or take a panorama from this location.--ArildV (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ Oppose ~~I have no idea what exactly am I looking at.~~ Per Colin. Nice attempt at showing the patterns and size of the glacier, but the picture fails technically, and does not give a overall view of the glacier. Sorry. @S23678 --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea might be interesting, but how it is done here is very unfortunate. Especially the first half (from the left) looks like a crop mistake because one does not know if the glacier should fill the whole frame or not. Also on the first half there is no visible reduction to the inner part of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I knew before proposing this FPC that I was going against the general consensus here, especially for the crop, but I felt the image was still FP worthy. I wont beg for people to change their votes, I will just try to beter explain my "artistic choices" and some of the technical difficulties of such a shot. I know my chances to turn the tide are slim, but I'm willing to face the wind.
1. Crop : I'll expand on my first "info" bullet. It's very hard to get a sense of the scale of Perito Moreno by just looking at the glacier itself. It's truly a monstrous mass of ice, and very few pictures (IMHO) does justice to its size because of a lack of scale. By keeping a tight vertical crop, the boat isn't lost in the composition, it becomes an obvious element. This panorama isn't a crop from a larger one (all the pictures are exclusive). The extremly small portion missing at the top of the glacier on the extreme left was cut during the trimming of the panorama. I feel it's not a big deal, but I could crop the left of the panorama if some feel it could be a game changer.
2. Color/brightness : The ice is clearly blue to the naked eye. The -2EV frames would have picked-up darker blues than non-HDR pictures, and I always give my pictures a strong saturation. Wether you like it or not a really a personnal choice that I can't discuss, but at least you know the origin of the color. As for the brightness, the -2EV frames (1/8000s, f/5.6, ISO 100!) were the only one not to overexpose the ice (on an overcast day!). Only the +2EV frames started picking-up colors in the forest, but the exposure fusion of all 3 exposures gave it a "shitty HDR" look, so I kept only the -2 and 0EV frames. As well, the dark forest really isolates and highlights, IMO, the glacier and the boat.
3. Composition : I divided the image in 3 "thrids", first one shows ice details, the second the entire ice wall and the third is the boat. I know the picture does not shows the entire ice wall (which is impossible to do from the ground because of its concave shape), but are we limited to only showing the "big picture" without ever going into details?
4. Other pictures : To the voters who proposed some of my other panoramas (with wider FOV) of the glaciers as an alternative , I just want to mention that I had to dismiss most of them as possible FPC because of uneven skies caused by internal lenses reflection from the very bright glacier at the bottom of the frames (this isn't obvious on first look). I'm still glad you liked these panoramas. Sorry for taking up that much space! --S23678 (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@S23678: I will reconsider my vote, just fyi. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose bud cut, bad image quality. Sorry, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture as banner, e.g. for wikivoyage, but the decisions you took didn't contribute IMHO to a FP-worthy result Poc o² 09:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. Nice attempt, but crop is not so good. Sorry. Nikhil (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:126 - Toronto - Panorama - Septembre 2009.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 04:23:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- S23678 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- S23678 (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nice view but overexposed lights, sorry --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Wladysaw, + the photo is just too bright. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Doesn't compare well to your own File:122 - Toronto - Septembre 2009.jpg, which has far better lighting. -- Colin (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Terraza de los Elefantes, Angkor Thom, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 08.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 22:12:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Terrace of the Elephants, Angkor Thom, last and most enduring capital city of the Khmer empire, today Cambodia. The 350m-long terrace was used by Angkor's king Jayavarman VII (1125-1218) as a giant reviewing stand for public ceremonies and served as a base for the king's grand audience hall. All by me, Poc o² 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 22:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but the bottom left is a bit unsharp and overexposed, and the right bottom is a bit unsharp too. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stephansdom Taufkrone.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 13:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Uoaei1 - uploaded by Uoaei1 - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Framing (crop) on the top not good. This should be a portrait (more height than width). Yann (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grose Valley, NSW, Australia - April 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2014 at 17:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is large, very large (which is good), but the only feature of the image (the waterfall) fades into insignificance. So unfortunately not enough wow for me. Moros y Cristianos 18:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The feature is the valley itself! It may not have many other notable features, but neither would a photo of the Grand Canyon have any other features other than a big valley. Is the view not enough wow in itself? I've seen plenty of photos with less impressive views pass here without any opposition. Diliff (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one! The quality is awesome and the view is definitely featurable! The waterfall is "just" a nice addition... --mathias K 06:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing too special about the image, but it's a nice one. Just doesn't appeal to me. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality, nice waterfall but composition overall is not outstanding to me. It is also a bit blueish, sorry Diliff Poco² 20:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't a blue tint across the image though. The Grose Valley is part of the Blue Mountains which is named for the blue haze caused by the eucalyptus oils that evaporate from the eucalyptus trees, get trapped in the valley and which selectively scatter blue light (See En:Rayleigh scattering or En:Aerial perspective). This isn't even unique to the Blue Mountains though, as most mountain ranges have the same effect, so I'm not sure why you bring that up as an issue? As composition and aesthetics are subjective, I won't attempt to persuade you on that, but I don't see what is wrong with the composition or how a better view would be achieved. Diliff (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I echo your earlier sentiments. Wow is indeed subjective but given what has passed as wow here lately I fail to see why there is resistance to this image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak): Motive and quality are impressive enough to vote with pro. The light could be better, especially at the farer left part. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Postcard-pretty. Daniel Case (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anacapri BW 2013-05-14 13-32-36.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Apr 2014 at 17:37:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for those who don't like columns ;-) -- Berthold Werner (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I also like the other version! --Uoaei1 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don`t really like the crop. Too much sky for my taste. May be with a wider crop? --mathias K 08:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thank you very much @Berthold. ;) I've added an image note for a dust spot. I will support if it's fixed. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Both suggestions done. --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice view and composition. My first impression was that the photo has a blue cast, but after a second look it looks Ok. Further dust spot marked. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done ... who are you? --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's me, --Tuxyso (talk) 06:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As promised. Beautiful island in the middle and scenery. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The picture we'd all like to be able to say we took on vacation. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK now. Yann (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Älvkarleby June 2013 (2).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Apr 2014 at 11:55:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Älvkarleby Hydroelectric Power Station built 1911-15 as one of the first big hydroelectric power stations in Sweden. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice colors. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The right is leaning in -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thank you.--ArildV (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Although the motive is not very spectacular there is something (probably composition, clouds, colors or whatever) very eye-catching. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --mathias K 06:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bgag (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Good quality, composition also interesting, but not outstanding (actually I would like to see a bit more at the bottom), lighting not good with the facade that IMHO is most interesting of the power plant in shadow Poc o² 09:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support High technical quality offsets potentially dubious composition. This image shouldn't work but ... nevertheless it does. Actually, it shows a nice contrast between nature and artifice. Daniel Case (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:El Torcal Iberiensteinbock 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 06:24:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Spanish ibex (Capra pyrenaica hispanica) at rocks in El Torcal, Andalusia
Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The composition is very good and the light pleasant - unlike the bokeh (sorry, I know there's almost nothing you can do) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Buying a 70-200 f2.8 lens :) --Tuxyso (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Perhaps you could try to fake the blur a bit on the other rock, might work? --DXR (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DXR, that's an intersting idea. But I am unsure if such "blur enhancements" are accepted with regard to the encyclopedic accuracy of a photo. Are there other opinions on that topic? Probably moderate blur improvements do not remarkable change the expression of the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 03:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality and nice composition. --mathias K 06:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice image, the ibex is very sharp. But sadly as mentioned above, we can't do much about the slightly distracting bokeh. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The blurred rock at left is too prominent for me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, do you mean the "blurred rock" is bad in general or do you think a stronger blurred rock would be better? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMO, it is too big, and takes too much space in the picture (composition problem). Some say "weak support" for that. I say "oppose".--Jebulon (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally agree with Jebulon, as I commented Tuxyso in QIC / my talk page during the nomination in QIC. To my perception he left rock is neither too blurry to ignore it nor too sharp to include it in the composition, sorry, Poco² 09:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Poco, I've nominated this photo with the knowledge in mind that you will oppose :) I can follow your argument (though I see less alternatives), nonetheless the photo is eye-catching enough for me (from motive and composition) to give a nomination a try. One question still remains: Is it eligible to add some additional blurr or is it problematic with regard to later encyclopedic usage? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good question, I think that adding some blur would be still ok, because you could have also achieved it technically (bigger aperture or getting closer + smaller focal length). That said, I am not sure how the result would be... Poc o² 15:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 12:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thunderbirds mirror image 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Apr 2014 at 09:57:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Brandon Shapiro - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Russavia -- russavia (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- russavia (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose slightly underexposed. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simply a military show ... boring. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simply a military show… exciting! odder (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! (3) — Revi_complaint? 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One more...wow! Poc o² 09:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow indeed. But is it sharpening halos around the flights? J e e 13:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no wow --Mile (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is the "5" on the upper written upside down? --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One would look at the question and the obvious answer would be "because the plane is upside down duhhhhhh". If you look at this photo of the 6 Thunderbirds, the 5 is upside down. This is because Thunderbird 5 is the aircraft which is inverted for this stunt, whilst Thunderbird 6 stays right way up, such as this and this. It's quite a dangerous stunt, and sure it's just an airshow, but it's a sight more dangerous and exciting than capturing a photograph of a caterpillar crawling across a leaf...right @Alchemist-hp: ? ;) russavia (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. :) Jee 05:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's a non poisonous snake Jee, and I reckon I would get harder bites from the magpies that I hand feed on a daily basis :) russavia (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Russavia: : per Jkadavoor and the main question: what is the point of this dangerous stunt? Ah, I know ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Lazyhawk (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 22:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 12:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Samovsaran Mandir Palitana 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 14:35:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some perspective issues and maybe need to tilt it a bit cw. A bit more of clarity and overall brightness could help Poco² 09:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support FP to me now Poc o² 12:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Poco. All issues are fixable, and I will be happy to support.--ArildV (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have imported a new version. --Bgag (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Better imo. Nice images! --ArildV (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhavnagar 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Apr 2014 at 14:18:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice subject, good quality, but the people are pretty disturbing. As it looks like the all of them go inwards, do you have a shot a few seconds later that you can offer as alternative? Poc o² 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support -- I don't mind the people, but I think the colour balance could be improved. Sanyambahga (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trevélez Highres Panorama 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 08:16:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info High resolution panorama (55 Mpx) of Trevélez in the Alpujarras, one of the highest located villages in Spain. The sun was already deep to enough have a nice light at the white facades. In the background the snow-covered mountains of the Sierra Nevada are visible. I look forward to your comments

all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 06:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Pano template would be useful) --P e z i (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Pano template added. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Please try the ham from here: one among the best in the world ! --Jebulon (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in addition to Jebulon's saying 2 illustrative photos I've just uploaded (including the ham monument):
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Grey foam-nest tree frog chiromantis xerampelina.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 14:03:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Charlesjsharp - uploaded by User:Charlesjsharp - nominated by User:Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong oppose Blur, and so noisy, fake-looking and oversaturated. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Eye and head unsharp, seems taken from far below the subject. (I don't think AK's comment is that much offensive even if the subject is rare to photograph. Here in FPC, you must expect some hard reviews.) J e e 11:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the technical issues, unexceptional composition. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ouro Preto November 2009-11a.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 00:33:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Alvesgaspar - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow IMO. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Immaculate Conception Church, Farm Street, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 20:43:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by User:Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Daniel Case (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is a picture very beautiful, very good exhibition, and very good color harmony and you line. It is a very guessed right image.

Es una fotografia muy hermosa, muy buena exposición, y muy buena armonia de color y lineas. Es una imagen muy acertada. --Rsantiaguez

Support The more I look on your church interior shots the more I loose the interest to try good interior shots myself and nominate them here because you set the "benchmark" such high :) Keep on the great work. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are perhaps talking in jest, but this is a curse of FP -- that the benchmark in some areas is so high we actually stop taking/uploading photographs if we can't compete. And this would be a shame for this particular topic, as many buildings are "at risk" and their beautiful structure and interiors disappear. I think capturing a high quality photo of them along with a free licence is a pretty worthy endeavour, whether one merely manages a single frame or a multi-frame HDR. -- Colin (talk) 07:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in addition to what Colin said, I'm sure you're capable of achieving similar results. You were inquiring about getting a panoramic head recently. That's really the one physical tool that makes these high resolution images possible. Apart from that, it's just a matter of spending time on the photography. You need to spend around 5-10 minutes taking the individual component images (sometimes much more if you have to wait for people to move out of the shot!), and then in the region of 30 to 60 minutes processing and stitching them. So yes, it's not the sort of work that results in a high volume of uploads, but I tend to prefer quality over quantity. Valuable as every image uploaded to Common has the potential to be, I generally don't bother to take a photo unless I expect that it will be one of the best of its kind available, and particularly with a free licence as Colin mentioned. Diliff (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too late, but anyhow: outstanding! Poc o² 12:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for me too. Excellent, I want learn how to do this kind of picture. Leave EXIF information could help. Excellent art work and excellent picture representation --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Balearica regulorum portrait 3.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 20:30:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Portrait of a Grey Crowned Crane, Balearica regulorum, in captivity at Martin Mere, Lancashire, UK. All by -- Baresi F (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi F (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support But background is a bit noisy, please try to reduce it. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've done my best to reduce the background noise --Baresi F (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DXR (talk) 20:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Wonderfully composed, great colours, very sharp. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Nikon/Canon and their huge lens era is over. :) J e e 15:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very good composition, color and alignment. It is a good Closeup that supports the majestic value of an Ave like this. Muy buena composicion, color y encuadre. Es un buen Closeup, que apoya el valor majestuoso de un Ave como esta. --Rsantiaguez.
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's crispy! Poc o² 12:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teatro Principal, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 02.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 21:33:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Night shot of the illuminated fountain in front of the Principal Theater, Puebla, Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 21:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Left and right are leaning out. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical perspective corrected among other improvements (tilt, perspective, denoising, centering crop) Poc o² 19:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Daniel Case (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tavolara Punta Cannone.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2014 at 11:20:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View from the top of Tavolara island, in Sardinia (Italy). Created, uploaded and nominated by Roberto Mura -- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 11:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting, especially at the top left, with exception of the cloud. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great idea but sun blows out too much for FP. Daniel Case (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, understanding your positions. Thank you DC. Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 13:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Piz Boè Lec Dlace Pas dl Lech Dlace.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Apr 2014 at 15:24:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky underexposed, mountains slightly underexposed. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AK, I am not sure whether this is a fair comment. I guess this is not observed very often in Singapore, but in the Alps there are some very clear days when the sky appears extraordinarily dark and saturated. I am sure that Wolfgang is experienced enough to set the brightness according to the conditions he experienced. --DXR (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DXR: Haha no. No such thing in Singapore. Our skies are never clear btw. Even when there appears to be a clear blue sky, there is definitely a layer of clouds high up in the sky, probably cirrostratus, as the airport METAR will report "BKN300" (broken clouds at a height of 30000ft/9144m). This probably explains why sometimes skies in photos taken in other parts of the world on a really clear day seems too blue to me. But of courae I still support those photos. And based on your comment above, I've striked my oppose and support. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think AK is correct. While I can accept the polarised sky the whole image is still a bit underexposed. That aside, there is a big spot in the sky (upper left - see note) perhaps a flare? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I fixed the sky with a new upper crop. I am afraid that there is confusion in the terms underexposed and dark. There are no lossed lights in the picture which has a high dynamic range (contrast) due to the light conditions up on 3000 m. elevation with lots of sun and snow. The light conditions of the image are the same as those of the mountain I have skied these days. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with AK that it's underexposed. The sky is not normally this dark, and there is quite a bit of room to go before the snow starts to become overexposed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Uploaded a new version. I insist that the term underexposed or overexposed are misleading in this context as I stated above. Thanks for the review --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. Slightly unsharp but not too concerning given the huge resolution. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality is acceptable but not outstanding, the scene is nice, too, but I miss something especial here to make this image excellent Poco² 12:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry for you, probably more at easy with BMW buildings, never mind, thanks for the review --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 17:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lastenia Tello de Michelena.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2014 at 12:37:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Author: Arturo Michelena. Shoot by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese children play water games with U.S. Marines during a pool party at Camp Foster 110808-M-PH080-472.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2014 at 14:30:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brianna Turner - uploaded by Fæ
Support as nominator -- Fæ (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distracting hand and head in foreground. J e e 15:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jee. --Cayambe (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question An engaging editorial pic Fæ, but I am having a hard time understanding how this image meets the criteria for a Featured Pic on Commons. Perhaps you can explain your thoughts on the matter? As an aside, I would add that perhaps a Personality Rights template is warranted. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was an engaging photo that meets the technical criteria, with an interesting human sub-text of recovery for displaced families and orphaned children, only a few months after the devastating earthquake, along with more general fact that we only have 15 photographs of boys of Japan (we have 427 photos of boys of the United States). I did not realise the foreground partial figure would be so distracting for others. I am happy to withdraw this photo on that basis. --Fæ (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the foreground element is unwelcome and is the kind of thing that gets noticed here. Is there others from this shoot that might meet the prevailing standards here better? We do need more images of this nature (human element) here at FPC. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated a Wounded Warrior photograph that stood out for me, where the human interest element is more obvious to a viewer. If anyone wants to mark this one as withdrawn, that's fine. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014 Cape Verde. Sal. Hund Vid Färgad Dörr.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 11:27:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by danielåhskarlsson - uploaded by danielåhskarlsson - nominated by danielåhskarlsson -- Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please review the categorization. There are a lot of red links and categories that seem far too specific ("street","dog"). I also suggest that you remove the correctable quality issues (like CA) first, otherwise the image is likely to have a tough time here. I would also be interested to know if the light on the dog is natural or was added in post-production. --DXR (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThanks for write. I have now removed some categorization. But don't understand the CA and quality issues? Please explain more. The light ON the do is natural but I have added "darkness" to the area around the dog. Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, CA is the colorful outline that is caused by imperfections of lenses. You can e.g. see it at the sign that says "No entry under 18", where black lines are surrounded by color that wasn't really there (you can read more here). This is usually easily removed by software and that's why it is usually expected that it is no longer there in FP candidates. --DXR (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank again for your time =) The photo was taken free hand, with a tripod the picture will got more sharpen ofc. But I think this new version I upload is much more sharp and clean. But please give more opinions! Danielåhskarlsson (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very artistic. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. The composition is nice, but I don't like the darkening around the dog. At least, I don't like the way it's so obviously darkened. It appears as a halo around the dog, rather than a gradual vignette. Diliff (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per "Digital manipulations must not deceive the viewer". We expect documentary standards for non-studio shots. In addition to the fake vignette, there's just too much overall manipulation of levels/contrast/saturation. If the islands have colour doors and walls, then show that faithfully, rather than crank the knobs up till my retina's complain :-). -- Colin (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neue Donau.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Apr 2014 at 10:38:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Sahehco - uploaded by Sahehco - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sahehco (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocesessed, large quality issues. Can be nice for other purposes but certainly not FP for me. --DXR (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Apart from the image quality and noise, it's tilted: neither the Kahlenberg antenna on the left nor the bridge's piers are vertical. Additionally, an earlier version of the image had a watermark, and its removal got the image recompressed. darkweasel94 11:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per DXR. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:38, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unsharp, high ISO, very overprocessed, far from reality. -- -donald- (talk) 07:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. Daniel Case (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A bit unsharp and way overprocessed. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kastellet April 2014 02.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 11:28:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info High resolution panorama of Kastellet, a citadel located on the islet Kastellholmen in central Stockholm, Sweden. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment very nice, but might need a perspective correction. Some (not all, which is strange) of the verticals on the right side seem to be leaning inward. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vertical leaning varies throughout the picture and on the right side there is some bowing of the wall. Did you apply lens corrections before saving the images to stitch? Or perhaps the stitching software is trying to "correct" barrel distortion but shouldn't be? May be worth applying some vertical control points to see if that helps. -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationThank you for reviews, comment and suggestions. I will try to make a new version, but unfortunately I have no access to the original files until after the Easter holiday. I withdraw the nomination, and and renominate a new version later. Thank you.--ArildV (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When making a new version, you can also correct the stiching error in the rope (see note) --Llez (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:USO-CAB - 20131130 - Ruck.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 11:47:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This picture was taken during the french Top 14 match opposing USO to CA Brive, which was attended by two accredited photographers, thanks to Wikimedia CH. The ISO rating is quite high, due to the late hour (the sunset was at 16h52 in Oyonnax on this date) and to the necessity to freeze the action, but I think that this doesn't harm much. The white CAB player has been tackled and is releasing the ball for his teammates. The other white players on top are protecting the ball. The red player is there to try to steal the ball. The crop is thight, but the subject is the white player on the ground, and his gesture to give the ball in the best possible conditions. Pleclown (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cant underestand what's happening here. Puffed composition --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Top crop looks too arbitrary for me. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Can't do anything, withdrawn. Pleclown (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:El Torcal Cows 2014.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 08:54:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice detail. Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lighting is very hard and the cows are a little bit lost in the scene (camouflaged cows). Not sure about the square crop. It is a quality image, but not perhaps among the finest. -- Colin (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin on the cows. I had to spend some time to search for the cows. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the reviews, I am not yet convinced either. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fendt 714 Vario with a Claas-baler.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 22:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by High Contrast - uploaded by High Contrast - nominated by High Contrast -- High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- High Contrast (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose composition? wow factor? quality? Sorry, not featured for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The horizon cuts the image straight down the middle. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As before. -- -donald- (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 07:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anacapri BW 2013-05-14 13-50-16.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 13:12:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 13:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a statue. Sorry. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 07:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rio de Janeiro Corcovadoview crop2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 22:34:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Original Nomination. Created by Wolfhardt - uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The wider picture is better. It has higher EV (particularly including all the bridge) and is framed better on the left. -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Daniel has a good point. (previous nom) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What point would that be? Daniel asked a question, which was answered, and supported the other one. So how does "Daniel has a good point" explain your weak support. -- Colin (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support--sure..The Herald 16:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald: Can you done a cut in the image to remove the disturbing right (see note)? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative crop

Info Alternative crop. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The other version is much better. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This picture is better than the other. It has higher EV (particularly including all the bridge) and is framed better on the left. But both pictures are more useful than beautiful and the low resolution (only 10MP) limits its use as a detailed panorama of the city. However, I'm surprised to see this pair renominated as they didn't get any love last time, and the images haven't been worked on. -- Colin (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Appears blurrer, less detail, objects shown in above picture is sufficient. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you need your eyes tested AK. Examining both images at 100% show them to be essentially pixel identical. The only difference is the crop. -- Colin (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 07:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hausen im Wiesental - Hebelhaus.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 18:59:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, nice house, but I don't see anything special here to make it FP. Sorry. Yann (talk) 14:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Totally agree with Yann. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The light is a bit harsh on the house at left but good and nice image IMO. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Yann. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the opponents: please tell me how you would wish to be this object photographed in a featured way? This nice building (by the way it's a listed building and has a historic importance) is shown isoleted from disturbing pedestrians, parking cars or other stuff. It's shown in a nice light and the flag is flying in a nice way so you can see it very well. So we have a idyllic and calm mood. By the way: the flag is shown only in days of Hebel memorial, so it's very seldom. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Obvious encyclopedic value. --JLPC (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Yann. This is QI. Wladyslaw, not all subjects are special enough for a straightforward photo of them to merit featuring. Being listed or historically important isn't much relevant to the image on the screen. -- Colin (talk) 11:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

of course, I have forgotten to photograph a cute animal baby or a flower, next time maybe. --Wladyslaw (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 06:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trappe i rådhushallen.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 18:58:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good composition --The Photographer (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support With The Photographer. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 10:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strong composition based on shapes Poc o² 12:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 06:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 17:34:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Julia W
Support -- Julia\^talk 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love the composition and the mood. But the technical accomplishment is not so good IMO. The image looks bit washed out and not so sharp in some parts (in 100% view). Maybe you have made a RAW which you could reprocess it? --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go with my RAW originals. Julia\^talk 23:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it looks washed out at all. If anything it's particularly crisp as a result of the nice blue sky and sun facing the building directly. It is a little unsharp though. Diliff (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- great mood and composition, maybe a tiny bit overprocessed (saturation and/or contrast) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Harmonic composition. I would crop out the tiny reflections on the very left (see note), but that's only a matter of personal taste. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ J e e 02:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice, but apart from the sharpness, there are also some red borders (CA), can you fix that? Poc o² 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary Oppose to avoid speedy promotion if the bot restarts. J e e 05:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose technical issues --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not that sharp, some noise and CA, need of a perspective correction. (Technical issues).--Jebulon (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Taking into account the CA and softness that have been mentioned, I have used a different set of photos and created a panorama. The resolution is higher and there are more details, but it is also sharper I think. I removed the CA too (thought honestly I saw very little to begin with). Sorry to add this so late, have been too busy.
Support I prefer this one, it is better. Julia\^talk 22:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this one's even better. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. J e e 02:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm undecided. It seems a bit too much contrast/clarity, compared to the other one which had softer shadows. Perhaps in the other one the shadows were lifted a bit. And both were taken at the same time, more or less, so conditions would be expected to be the same. The angle of the building has changed -- is this due to a change in camera position or attempt at fixing horizontal perspective with software? If the latter, I'm not sure about it -- flipping between the two I kind of prefer the look of the former and the new one seems slightly wrong but I can't put my finger on it. -- Colin (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Lightroom history shows that yes, I did lift shadows in the original, and forgot to do the same in the new stitched frames, so that would be the difference you see there, as I left contrast untouched and clarity only a very little. I can fix that and upload over the top. I was in a different position between these two (further to the right for the original), which will account for the different angle, as I didn't fix perspective in either of these. Also bear in mind that the first is just a single frame at 24 mm and the second is a stitch of four images, each at 33 mm. I'm not sure what I can do about the fact that it seems 'slightly wrong' to you, as I don't know what you mean really and I think they both look okay. Julia\^talk 15:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect my concern about angle is just from flipping between the two and apparently seeing the building change angle without an obvious shift in location of camera. I would prefer the shadows to be less contrasty, but it is your picture and I won't oppose. -- Colin (talk)

I lifted the shadows from RAW and restitched. Using a different projection this time gave me a slightly better result that is more like the original. Uploaded over the top. Julia\^talk 19:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Wladyslaw
Comment This is not an alternative, but another nomination (different file). Sharpness is better, CA are out, but noise remains in dark parts. Persp. correct. is still needed IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:South facade of Lyme Park house, 2013.jpg

File:Venyov (Tula Oblast) 03-2014 img14 train station.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Apr 2014 at 14:33:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 05:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TU Wien Lange Nacht der Forschung 2014-DSC 8845w.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Apr 2014 at 22:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Vienna University of Technology, facade illumination during Lange Nacht der Forschung, Karlsplatz, 4th district of Vienna
Support -- P e z i (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is a majestic picture, where the one framed dark of the night, it incorporates a great symbolism, and it enhances the importance to an architectural monumental work. Es una fotografia majestuosa, donde el enmarcado oscuro de la noche , incorpora un gran simbolismo, y realza la importancia a una obra arquitectonica monumental. --Rsantiaguez.
Support Yann (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Southern Warthog.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 17:04:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting animal, but the contrast with the background is low. Can this be corrected? Yann (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kaiserkrone Pflanze.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 21:08:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mariofan13 - uploaded by Mariofan13 - nominated by Mariofan13 -- Mariofan13 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mariofan13 (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background way too distracting. Subject doesn't stand out from the rest. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I really like the colorfull background. I wonder why the photo is rather soft - is it blurred? 1/100sec at 55mm could be critical for APS-S cameras. Was the photo hand-held or did you use a tripod? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt was handheld, because my tripod is under repair since two weeks. I didn't do an "photoshopping", it's the orignial picture. Mariofan13 (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the relatively long exposure time (1/125sec or 1/160 had been better at this focal length) the image is not fully sharp (not fully sharp = blurry). --Tuxyso (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per Tuxyso/AK. -- Colin (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisbach Surfer3.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 21:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Munich, Germany: Eisbach surfer. All by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice moment --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent capture. Potential POTY for me. Nikhil (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 to that. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 17:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent photo and AF test :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ... the 5D Mark III's AF is by all means just amazing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not only AF, your composition is amazing too --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Behind any camera, even the best, there is a photographer...--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Didn't want to miss the party :) Poc o² 19:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. and Jebulon: Surely was is Martin who take this great shot with his photographic skills. My point was that this shot is an example where the camera does matter. A perfect interplay of man and machine :) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course we all agree with this.--Jebulon (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, maybe in the future, be enough, you throw the camera in the air and she will do everything --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:997 GT3 RSR of Flying Lizard 24h Le Mans 2012 (8234776578).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 17:05:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by besopha - uploaded by FAEP - nominated by FAEP -- FAEP (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FAEP (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --FAEP (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:View from Balcón de Europa in Nerja 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 13:31:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly. Yann (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Who is the girl? --The Photographer (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The Photographer, I don't know who she is but from a photographic viewpoint it was very friendly that she was just walking over the beach when I was talking the photo :) --Tuxyso (talk) 06:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Nice composition but white houses and crests of waves are overexposed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done IMHO overexposure was marginal (technically not obvious in histogram) but I made some careful corrections. King of Hearts, please take another look. Is it better now? --Tuxyso (talk) 06:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately, the detail is still not there. Maybe the white is now 253 rather than 255, but when it's uniformly 253, that doesn't help. (A simple trick I use to look for washed-out areas is to tilt my laptop LCD backwards. Everything should go dark except for the brightest areas, which are still bright.) But reassessing the image, it seems the problem is not as big as I thought, so I'll move to Neutral. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are my eyes fooling me or is there a lot of clarity and contrast added here? I love the scene and composition but it all seems a bit harsh to me. --DXR (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DXR, the new version should have less clarity than the previous one. Probably you've taken a look on the old one. Nonetheless a bit (local) clarity enhancement helps to bring out the structure of the waves and the foggy mountains in the background. I have not added additional contrast (in the new version). --Tuxyso (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, you're right. The new version is nicer, still a bit harsh, but certainly good enough to Support. --DXR (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 05:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 07:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Stained Glass Window.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 10:26:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Colin - uploaded by Colin - nominated by Colin -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Memorial stained glass window by Robert Anning Bell, located in St Matthew's Church in Paisley. Detailed, high resolution, perpendicular viewpoint and well exposed. Issues in previous nomination have been resolved. -- Colin (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Extremely detailed stained glass, well framed and nicely exposed. Have you considered tone mapping to recover some of the stonework detail though? ;-) Diliff (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did take different exposures of this window in case I needed HDR but in the end one of the exposures was sufficient for the window itself. I was mainly concerned with the glass as the stonework isn't particularly attractive round the window, with lots of white/dark staining. Although I could raise the shadows to include more of it, the result could be distracting and somewhat artificial; I prefer the near-silhouette. You can see an HDR image of the church interior including this window: File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg. The exposure of the window area in that shot is generally brighter with a more compressed tonal range. -- Colin (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 12:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Diliff. Yann (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done, perfect quality --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Nice detail and contrast. WLMBP (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Invalid vote, User has less than 50 edits, sorry --DXR (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 07:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Kabul River flood-plain east of Kabul, Afghanistan.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2014 at 20:37:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by philmofresh (probably a U. S. Army helicopter ~~pilot~~ actually Crew Chief) - uploaded by Slick-o-bot (at my request) - nominated by ain92 — Ain92 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ain92 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks nice, but useless without a description. Yann (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of description do you want? I'm not sure, but probably this as an aerial photo of Kabul River flood-plain east of Kabul, Afghanistan. Ain92 (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've received a comment from the author of the photo on my TP and started a conversation there. I think anyone may join in. Ain92 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added that. If you can get more details, please add them. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added a rename template because I think "IMG 4414" is a nondescriptive title for a featured picture candidate. Can you get any more information from philmofresh? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support OK now. Yann (talk) 07:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Always nice to see aerial views. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check Aerial photographs of Afghanistan, you may find quite a lot of nice aerial photos (including ones from the same author), and maybe even nominate some here. Ain92 (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clockery Fairfeld who, me? 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Darkness. See note. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vaxholms kastell November 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Apr 2014 at 13:20:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Vaxholm Fortress. The fortress was originally constructed by Gustav Vasa in 1544 to defend Stockholm against shipborne attacks from the east, but most of the current structure dates from 1833-1863. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arild Vågen (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sanyambahga (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 19:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice but shame it doesn't show clearly it is an island. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice subject and colors, brilliant execution Poc o² 12:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Great image. But I find the motion blur of the Swedish flag disturbing (although there's nothing we can do about it due to the need for long shutter speed) and there is obvious border around parts of the building from sharpening. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice, but white sharpening thin line all along the roof.--Jebulon (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the sharpening line and the blurred flag necessary tradeoffs for getting an otherwise excellent blue-hour photo of a non-modern building, something which nicely balances out our many blue-hour photos of modern buildings (i.e., buildings that are illuminated at least in part from within and thus easier to photograph under those circumstances). If the photographer had chosen otherwise, we might well have an image with a clear flag and no line ... but blown highlights all over the castle walls, which would have been a dealbreaker for me. Daniel Case (talk) 17:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Apart from the white line, I'm not far to agree with you, Daniel Case --Jebulon (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 05:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chuck Sketch, a Wounded Warrior with the veteran swim team, swims laps during a practice session 120214-M-YO938-177.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Apr 2014 at 19:05:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mark Fayloga - uploaded by Fæ
Support as nominator. This was a technically challenging shot, taken from below into sunlight, apparently with a colour filter to reduce glare overwhelming the composition. The composition chosen emphasises that Sketch is swimming with no legs, both making this an immediate and slightly discomforting feature of the shot, while providing interesting contrasts of seeing the sky and clouds from underneath the disrupted and coloured water surface. In the people category for FPs, I do not believe there have been any disabled sportsmen or women featured yet, so if this does not pass, it may be worth reviewing the Paralympics and Wounded Warrior categories for other candidates. -- Fæ (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hard to judge the technical, but it is a very striking and emotive image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on EV grounds. And yes; we featured disabled sportsmen earlier. Jee 02:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing this out, good to know. I had only looked through the People category. --Fæ (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Emotive image and good resolution given the tricky conditions, on the other hand the composition, sharpness are not FP to me, sorry Poc o² 12:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco. Emotional but not to be FP. Sorry, but author can't challenge this shot.--Kikos (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clockery Fairfeld who, me? 17:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco and Kikos.--Jebulon (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great shot --EveryPicture (talk) 17:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco, sorry --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Erysimum 'Bowles Mauve' 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 15:53:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Erysimum 'Bowles Mauve'. Short-lived rich flowering plant. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photos of flowers from you as usual, Famberhorst. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice and clear. :) Clockery Fairfeld who, me? 17:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Nice but a bit dark IMO, sorry --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Something lighter. --Famberhorst (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ,but I was talking about the general lighting of the moment when you took the picture. Not fixable, sorry. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flumserberg (Schweiz) -- 2011 -- 7.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 15:08:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 15:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 15:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 12:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No cow. Euh... Sorry, I meant "no wow".--Jebulon (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kegon Taki.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 15:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- Jordy Meow (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jordy Meow (talk) 15:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could you add geocoding please? Yann (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read about the location template but is there a way I can add this in the summary of the image? I am not sure how to do it. Maybe you could edit it to show me the way? The location is 36.738012, 139.502345. - Jordy Meow (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done; check for accuracy. J e e 03:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark area in the background really annoying (you should have got rid of it with higher focal distance or getting closer to the waterfall), both sides are pretty blurry, too significant CA, sharpness overall not convincing. Furthermore, IMHO the view looks more spectacular from a higher POV (like here) Poc o² 12:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the foreground is to dark, very pity + per Poco. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great color elsewhere is ruined by the foreground shadow. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- -donald- (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lausanne Sport vs FC Sion - Avril 2014 - Vincent Rüfli & Yoric Ravet.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 12:02:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ludovic Péron - uploaded by Ludovic Péron - nominated by Ludovic Péron -- Ludo (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ludo (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good shot, but to me the scene and/quality are not extraordinary to support for FP, sorry Poc o² 12:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Where are the fans??? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 20:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:USO-CAB - 20131130 - Lucas Amorosino 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Apr 2014 at 11:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lucas Amorosino is an Argentine rugby player, currently playing for the USO, a club of the french Top 14. This picture was taken during the match opposing USO to CA Brive, which was attended by two accredited photographers, thanks to Wikimedia CH. The ISO rating is quite high, due to the late hour (the sunset was at 16h52 in Oyonnax on this date) and to the necessity to freeze the action (ie. to have a shutter speed of 1/1,250 sec or more), but I think that this doesn't harm much. The player is going to try a coup de pied à suivre (kick for himself) in order to outrun the defensive players on his left. -- Pleclown (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great action shot. Yann (talk) 11:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good moment; but the framing failed. ~~And I see many compelling frames there.~~ J e e 12:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "the framing failed". And for the "many compelling frames", those pictures can be proposed for FP later, right ? :) Pleclown (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needs more lead room as the subjects are running to the right. You can crop the "cut" man on left; but difficult to add more space on right. Other picture by you I mentioned seems better in composition. But face of the man in red shirt is not sharp there. I withdrawn other choices as they seem poor in full resolution. J e e 13:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I will see tonight if I can do something (as the image is cropped). Pleclown (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would definetly support File:US Oyonnax vs. CA Brive, 30th November 2013 (7).jpg. The current nomination has no wow for me (just a matter of taste I believe). --PierreSelim (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PierreSelim, but it is rather noisy and unsharp in full size. Any possibility to repair it? J e e 17:06, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jee, I would do something like File:US Oyonnax vs. CA Brive, 30th November 2013 (7)-2.jpg: darken the dark tones, reduce a bit noise and sharpen a bit, however noise will still be there and details are a bit lost. However I believe we are generally too harsh on noise for sports photography, when professional photos are generally full of noise and downsized. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your re-work. It is an action pumped moment. :) J e e 17:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've thightened the crop. Pleclown (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good shot with lots of action. Ball is a little hard to find and highlights on sleeve are a bit blown, but those are trifles. This is one of the best rugby shots we've got ... should be used as a lede image in more articles. Daniel Case (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 20:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Backlit Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 03:13:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Poc o² 12:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Stepping back to neutral after a review in QIC. The quality is just not at FP level, the lower part of he picture looks like painted. Poc o² 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This version is not in QIC :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer 15:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be the next Bliss. Daniel Case (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Beautiful, but technically just okay, imo. --DXR (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Dull and not the best of sunsets or sunset pictures I've seen. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great mood! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Quote: "almost all sunsets are aesthetically pleasing, and most such pictures are not in essence different from others". A pretty picture, but that's it. Kleuske (talk) 09:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With Kleuske, even if it is not forbidden to support a sunset picture !--Jebulon (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey highlight. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CaptureNX version

Info Powered by DXR commentary, I developed the image again with CaptureNX2 and not Lightroom --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support better! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Much better! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support also prefer this one! --DXR (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not retracting my !vote for the above image, but I do like this one too. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Great silhouette but the detail in the lower area is almost nonexistent. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice capture but the quality is just not at FP level, the lower part of he picture looks like painted. Poc o² 17:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Much better. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. --JLPC (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Tamme-Lauri_tamm_suvep%C3%A4eval.jpg

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /MainFrame (talk) 18:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

The chosen alternative is: File:Backlit Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela CaptureNX2.jpg

File:Hôtel des Invalides, North View, Paris 7e 140402 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 10:04:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by DXR - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very nice but needs a 0.3° rotation to make the horizontals level. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks again, Tomer. I personally like this image, but I was slightly worried about the fences. Colin, I have followed your suggestion and removed the tilt. --DXR (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:10 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 05:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't remember that using a tripod was possible here (cars...) Nice symmetry. --Kadellar (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Tomer T (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Memorial J Kubitschek Brasilia 2009.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 13:18:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Arion for your interest in this image. --Cayambe (talk) 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am Brazilian. I like Brasilia (or Brasília, in Portuguese) and the works of the city, the federal capital of Brazil. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- For sure..The Herald 16:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Cayambe, I think the composition is good but I am missing sharpness, specially in the monument itself. Imo the other picture linked in the description is much better (and far sharper). --Kadellar (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Kadellar, regarding composition I am not sure either, I miss something here, Poc o² 09:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Roque Agando, Parque nacional de Garajonay, La Gomera, España, 2012-12-14, DD 01.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 13:15:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Roque Agando (Agando rock) belongs to the Garajonay National Park (UNESCO World Heritage Site) and is not far from San Sebastián de la Gomera, capital of the island of La Gomera, Canary Islands, Spain. This 1251 m high volcanic plug is one of the landmarks of the island and has a prominence of 180 m (220 m from the south side). All by me, Poc o² 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 13:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi Poco, What about geolocation and altitude?. And could be nice too see interwikis in description. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 04:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go: altitude is already documented in the description here, I also copied it and translated in the file page. I added 16 iws in the file description, along with the geodata. Poc o² 05:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose more environment/syntax please: to tide crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ I agree with the user above. A bit tight and awkward composition. WLMBP (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Invalid vote, User has less than 50 edits, sorry --DXR (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very impressive. The extra space at the left really made a difference. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but are the gray patches clouds? I think I have commented something similar in prior QIs or so. I looks a bit awkward imo (though not really disturbing). Just to check, are these things also visible in the unedited raw file? --DXR (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DXR, I assume that that was a cloud but cannot 100% say it with certaincy. I will not be able to look up the RAW file until Sunday, sorry. Poc o² 06:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, as I said, just a minor thing. --DXR (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 10:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /--Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Saturn diagram.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 02:24:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ȸ (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Anonimski (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual. ;o) Yann (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support another Wow FP SVG :) Well done --The Photographer (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO the colours of the planet itself are too light. Doesn't exactly reflect the real Saturn. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Saturn PIA06077.jpg. Natural colour of Saturn. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Saturn blemished by Mimas PIA12533.jpg, File:Saturn from Cassini Orbiter (2004-07-17).jpg, & File:Saturn in natural colors (captured by the Hubble Space Telescope).jpg. Also natural colors of Saturn. —Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...not sure who's fault is it. Could it be the brightness of your screen? I usually adjust mine to the optimal level for FP or QI voting, and on my screen the colours of the 3 Saturns you've given still look darker than the Saturn in your diagram. :/ --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 00:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They look pretty similar to me but there's no good way to compare them & my diagram bc the lighting's different in each one. Is this really such a sticking point for you??—Love, Kelvinsong talk 02:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I just wanted to highlight it. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget my spanish version. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@The Photographer:

Done—File:Diagrama de Saturno.svg—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --The Photographer (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nppp!!!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 13:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but Kelvin, "liquidier"?? "Gassier"?? You out there makin' up yo own words? ;-) I realize that saying "more liquid" is confusing because you do not mean "more" as in "total volume" but as in "relative to other states of matter" (i.e., gas), but I am not sure this need for specificity gives you the right (?) to coin terms. How about, "More-liquid" instead of either "More liquid" or <shudder> "Liquidier". Eh?? It's a beautiful picture, of course, as per your usual style! KDS444 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The flower of a Trichosanthes cucumerina in hand.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 07:44:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by aathavan - uploaded by User:Aathavan jaffna - nominated by User:Aathavan jaffna -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a pretty flower but not really improved by holding one in the hand. The image isn't particularly high-resolution or detailed. -- Colin (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the hand is very distracting and it's a bit unsharp. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2013 Porsche 911 Carrera 4S (991) (9626546987).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 17:02:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by David Villarreal Fernández - uploaded by AVIA BavARia - nominated by FAEP -- FAEP (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- FAEP (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom-up view is not the best possible shooting angle + distracting foreground as a result of the bottom-up view. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The angle ot the view is ok, the quality is ok, but the foreground is distracting and the licence plate is tilted. -- -donald- (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding --EveryPicture (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the angle, which makes the shot special. Also, the colors fit well overall. Great image! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the quality, the angle and the surroundings. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 09:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Beat Zberg TdF2006.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 05:56:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 05:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 08:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 37.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 15:21:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A dolomite rock in a funny shape sculptured by the erosion. Mourèze, Hérault, France. Another try with this subject after that and that. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 13 april 2014 (UTC)
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:20, 13 april 2014 (UTC)
Support Yann (talk) 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This one has the best composition and lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Still NO WOW :( --Kikos (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As before. I don't see how sticking a slightly unusual rock on a rule-of-thirds line makes an FP. Nor how taking the same photograph a few steps closer has changed things dramatically since the previous nominations. What's so great about the composition and lighting? Or the subject? The world is full of funny shaped rocks. Some of them are notable. -- Colin (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Great candidate for QI, but not FP. Nothing special about the shape of the rock and the rock doesn't resemble anything. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Frankly, I think that the negative comments here are too strong. It is not very fair to shout "NO WOW", and not very polite neither. This image is very good to me, very well composed, with good light and sharpness. The subject is interesting enough and has high geological value. As for me, it deserves the seal, like the tons of birds or landscapes or "blue hour" views we promote so often...--Jebulon (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, frankly, I think submitting more-or-less the same unexciting image to FP three times is "not very polite" and just gaming the system. What if everyone did this in the hope that one time the previous opposers might be on holiday or grow tired of opposing? This is a long way from the most impressive example of rock formations in the region (try Google). So are we to expect every funny looking rock in the region to get nominated here? I await Cirque de Mourèze, Hérault 3745.jpg. This is just a QI. The camera did its job. The purpose of FP is to select our finest images, not to pat Christian on the back because this attempt is slightly better than the last one. -- Colin (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 06:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had seen photos with less wow factor get rubber-stamped on FPC, probably just due to the name of the photographer. In general: yes to a higher threshold, but then please for everyone. Still, this is a nice landscape and I had supported a similar version some time ago; so it's just consequent to support this one either. --A.Savin 14:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Caecilius Mauß (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, I don't see anything special in this one but a nice light. QI, but not FP. --Kadellar (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Front de Seine as seen from Pont Mirabeau 140412 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Apr 2014 at 12:00:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DXR - uploaded by DXR - nominated by Paris 16
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oops, that's wow indeed. --A.Savin 12:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Colours look artificial. --PierreSelim (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks a lot to Paris 16 for the nomination! I agree that the colors were somewhat off, I adjusted the purple tint and reduced overall saturation slightly. Apart from that, I do not consider the colors artificial (obviously, the scene is a bit brighter than reality to better illustrate the scene, but I think I have the freedom to do that). From previous comments, I assume that Pierre might still disagree, but that's fine for me. --DXR (talk) 14:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 15:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with Pierre Selim. I'm sorry for the following DR, but too many of these buildings are protected by copyright. There is no Freedom of Panorama in France. --Jebulon (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
no problem with copyright here, no prolems with colours, very nice view, good technical accomplishment, but I am not happy with some strong overexposed parts, especially the area of the Statue of Liberty and surrounding. The strong flashlight at top of the Eiffel Tower and some not very important illuminated advertising I`m willing to excuse. But the mentioned area is eye-catching and should be reprocessesed IMO. --Wladyslaw (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wladyslaw, I agree with you that it is not ideal, but you should keep in mind that bridge is extremely bright while the buildings are only illuminated by ambient light. I have already tried all what can be done with normal raw files and I think the result is borderline but just acceptable, although I understand other opinions here. In principle, HDRs could solve that, but that will probably cause a massive mess with the water, especially when stiched. Perhaps this conflict could be avoided by shooting earlier (I will certainly do this in the future), this was not possible on that day since a cruise ship was turning in the river, pretty much destroying the scene. --DXR (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you try partial HDR only in this mentioned areas? I know it's much work. I agree with you that HDR will destroy the water, this is here definitivly a highlight. So I thought about partial work. -- -donald- (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do not have the exact frame in different exposures, so HDR is not really an option here. The only possiblity would be cloning these areas from a slightly different frame. This would certainly take hours if done very well on my desktop with a fast processor and a good mouse, but unfortunately I cannot access this PC until the end of May since it is at my home in Germany. I have tried it on my slightly old laptop but the results are just not good enough in gimp since everything is just lagging and precise operations are very difficult when dealing with such large files. --DXR (talk) 12:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, I thought about new pictures. -- -donald- (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will take more photos, but not sure whether they will make their way to commons given the issues with FoP. If they come out well, I'll probably upload them at the Wikipedias that are less restrictive... --DXR (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- -donald- (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Copyright concerns alleviated by cityscape, making everything de minimis. Otherwise excellent. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that it will be kept : Support. --JLPC (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Naqsh-e Jahan Square by Pascal Coste 1 Ver2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 15:45:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pascal Coste, Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems with white balance and irreal sky color and tones, Remember upload color enhanced in another file version without overwrite the original version. Thanks --The Photographer (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Clockery Fairfeld who, me? 17:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose, strongly per The Photographer.--Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alborzagros (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
strong Oppose Very hard to review, the new version have very different colours and the source link dosnt work for me. For a historical work of art, I expect that the reproduction is as faithful as possible. The image is also cropped!--ArildV (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the the original version I got directly from source. I remind you: First of all This image is not cropped. Second, Even if you see images from original source, it is not faithful. This small water paint has been drawn on a piece of paper about 200 years ago. During the time paper color became dark yellow to brown (If you see unretouched black and white images of this book, you can see this effect much better). The paints color has been changed as well during time. Therefore after changing some tones, not 100% sure but I believe it is more likely to the original image at the time it has been drawn. You can see drawings, specially sky, is much more clear than before.Monfie (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not cropped? The original version have more sky.--ArildV (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose modifications (crop and color changes) alter the original significantly and beyond what I think is reasonable. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Support--Monfie (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 08:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --The Photographer (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 08:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Redningsbåden køres gennem klitterne (high resolution).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 10:03:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michael Ancher - uploaded by Villy Fink Isaksen - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 10:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support $Jacopo Werther iγ\partialψ=mψ$ 20:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ȸ (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vista de Teruel desde la torre de la iglesia del Salvador, España, 2014-01-10, DD 82.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 04:31:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of Teruel at dusk from the tower of the Church of St. Salvador, Aragón, Spain. All by me, Poc o² 04:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 04:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCould you try a tighter crop ? (and maybe work on the perspective, as the window in front is not aligned) Pleclown (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your point, I uploaded a new version with an improved perspective Poc o² 20:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPleclown (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 dustspots (see notes) -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned, thanks, Poc o² 20:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Good compo but I'm not a fan of the light. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 08:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Mosquito coil.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 05:49:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

- Info created by Monfie, Monfie - uploaded by Monfie - nominated by Monfie -- Monfie (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Monfie (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 19:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 07.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 04:11:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer 04:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 04:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alex Florstein (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not among our finest landscape images. The sea is unremarkable, the distant view unattractively urban, the sky smoggy. The reflected wall and sunlight is pleasant but no more. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough wow. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not enough to be featured: to much uninteresting sea. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Compositionally no more exciting than a typical photo of the sea you'd find among someone's vacation photos. Daniel Case (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pyrrhula pyrrhula female 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 14:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u Baresi franco n Arctic Kangaroo -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as usual, I'm tempted to say ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Bgag (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination and comments. It took all day to get a couple of decent shots of this lovely finch, but I think it was worth it. Hopefully I'll get the male in a similar pose next time. --Baresi F (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Really very nice, well done. I remember being camouflaged for hours at the mercy of bloodsucking mosquitoes in the jungle of Margarita Island for a poor decision. Sometimes it is simply a matter of luck --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wilfredo. It would be worth putting up with a lot to get a lucky shot like that :) --Baresi F (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In certain circumstances, it is about making a burst of 100 pictures, and then do the big task of evaluating each photograph. Nice Shoot, you are welcome --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --ArildV (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have so many birds, that the bar is very high... I can only oppose when it has chromatic noise on the "shoulders" (see note)--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Jebulon, as I'd definitely missed it. I've uploaded a new version with the chroma noise reduced - is it any better? comment of Baresi franco who forget sign

Yes, it is better, and I'm proud if my comment made the picture better, but I still see something... Anyway, I'm not a good judge anymore. I've seen a flaw once, and now I only see this part of your picture, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Human nature. :) We may not see the flaws initially, but when we eventually spot it, we keep focusing on that. I've had this experience many time before. ;) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mallard duck and her 12 chicks.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 20:42:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Charlesjsharp - uploaded by Charlesjsharp - nominated by Charlesjsharp -- Charles (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Charles (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak support Nice. It's really good, but it would be better to nominate this image as quality image first.--XRay ^talk 16:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose A whole lot of technical issues. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ? ? Did you smoke something forbidden ? --Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jebulon: At first I thought the water looked too bluish, and the photo unnatural. Please correct me if that is really the case. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to say, dear Arctic Kangaroo. First you "strongly" oppose, and two minutes later, you support. Strange. Just strange.--Jebulon (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Subject about banal, photograph banal, nothing extraordinary nor outstanding. Could it really be "the best of "Commons" ? Not FP-worthy, sorry. A decent QI, nevertheless.--Jebulon (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP quality for me, sorry. --DXR (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Etheldreda's Church 1, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 22:33:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose Underexposed~~ Support Colin and you are right, we need this exposure to see the windows --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's supposed to be dark like that to keep the original atmosphere of the interior. It wasn't accidental underexposure. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice for me --Pudelek (talk) 09:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree about the light levels -- dark oak should be dark, not HDR mid-tan. The contrast with File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg is strong -- this is an old dark church. One suggestion, though, is to nominate this and the File:St Etheldreda's Church 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg west view as a set. -- Colin (talk) 10:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. Is it possible to change a single nomination into a set without introducing all kinds of confusion? There's so much code in Commons FPC that I'm a bit unsure about how to do it properly. Diliff (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Colin --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Could you please consider an horizontal perspective correction ? The ~~shoals~~ benches !!! should be horizontal, IMO (see note). Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 13:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's as simple as that. I'm not sure why they are not horizontal image but it could even be that they are not not actually physically aligned perfectly with the aisle (unlikely, but possible). Usually when the verticals are corrected and the centre of the panorama is defined accurately (which it is, I think), then any horizontal lines which are parallel with the plane of the camera remain straight and horizontal. If they do not, I usually suspect there is actually a genuine reason for it. Also, I made a panorama looking towards the back of the church and the pews lean in exactly the same way for that panorama too. Yes, it's possible that I made a mistake in my technique somewhere, but I don't think so. I've made many similar panoramas without any such issues, and I don't think that my equipment could be the cause of an issue. I'm using a quality 35mm lens with virtually no distortion (and what distortion it does have, I correct in Lightroom), and I'm using a panoramic head so there should not be any stitching or alignment errors that could introduce a lean. In any case, I don't think it's possible to 'correct' them without introducing distortion or leaning elsewhere in the image. Diliff (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for quick and detailed answer. I'm sorry if I'm not convinced by your explanation. I have to look at this more carefuly, but I've never seen ~~shoals~~ benches !!! like this before, so far from the altar. No logical reason.--Jebulon (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, regardless of whether you are convinced, I don't see that it is an easy correction to make without affecting other parts of the image. Changing the tilt of the seating will affect other true horizontal lines. Also, what exactly do you mean by shoal? See the typical English use here, which doesn't have much relevance to a church. ;-) Diliff (talk) 11:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - ! Shame to Google translator ! Sorrysorrysorry ! The "collective seats" are named "bancs", in french. You link me to another meaning of "bancs", and I made the mistake ! Thanks for correction.--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done : Benches !!!--Jebulon (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No problem. :-) We call them pews in English usually. A pew is a bench specifically for churches. Maybe it's a Anglo-centric word, because the article certainly talks mainly about English Protestant churches. Google tells me the word pew comes from the old French 'puye' which in turn comes from the Latin 'podium'. But a pew is not a podium.... Anyway, enough linguistics! Diliff (talk) 15:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 12:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this image as it is! --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can't let my preference for a more focused crop stop me from supporting something this good. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 10:03, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Terrace of the Lions 05.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Apr 2014 at 17:06:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bgag - uploaded by Bgag - nominated by Bgag -- Bgag (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Bgag (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well known place, but I find this perspective interesting, and I like this composition very much. Maybe a crop below would help ? FP anyway.--Jebulon (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pity that the examiners are interested to photographic technique and not enough on content. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is what en:FP is for :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what en:FP is for (except confusing), and I don't care because I work on fr:wp, and fortunately, there is no picture contests in this wikipédia, here I am (you are) on "Commons", and I strongly support Archaeo in his opinion. You english speaking people have two FP contests in mind, we french speaking users have only "Commons". That's why we often suffer of disagreements, and why we don't judge with the same criteria. The spirit of "Commons" FPC is slightly moving in a wrong direction IMO: some of us forget the basis and the ruling criteria....--Jebulon (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeb, en:FP rewards EV above all else. Commons looks for a balance of technical, art and beauty in any reasonable combination. It's not hard to separate the two. However, if you are expecting Commons to become more EV focused I think you will be disappointed. It has never been that way to my knowledge. I agree though, FPC is moving in the wrong direction as the bar for "finest" is being lowered in an almost systematic way. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 10:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Animales-aiguamolls l'emporda-2013 (8).JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Apr 2014 at 08:38:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Alberto-g-rovi - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but please add a English description.--ArildV (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support And geocoding please. Yann (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Subject should be shifted more towards the centre. Bad crop. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Composition, setting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris Metro February 11, 2014.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2014 at 23:30:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by freeside510 from USA (Flickr) - uploaded and nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drikke fontaine i Aarhus Rådhus.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2014 at 14:08:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Villy Fink Isaksen -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely composition and classic simple Danish design. -- Colin (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for me: unfavorable crop. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can see what you were thinking but for me the benches clutter it up too much and we lose focus on the basin, which I gather is what you were trying to highlight. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elfbergen Gaasterland Oorlogsmonument 01.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 May 2014 at 17:39:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Elfbergen Gaasterland War Memorial. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by Famberhorst -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see anything extraordinary about this image. (The long exposure and focal length choice is odd) -- Colin (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The marker does not stand out in any featurable way. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Famberhorst (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondinho chegando ao Pão de Açúcar.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 14:15:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Halley Pacheco de Oliveira - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) Picture is blur. 2) No wow. Weird objective, shooting from the top downwards, with a disruptive cable car??? What is the photographer trying to achieve???? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:11, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The title is "Cable car arriving at the Pão de Açúcar*" [translator note: Sugar Loaf hill, in Rio de Janeiro]. So he was probably trying to photograph the cable car arriving at the Sugar Loaf station. --G Furtado (talk) 23:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. The motif is not compelling. The cable car visually sits on the canopy of trees. Lots of other minor issues that ensure this is not one of our finest works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Per users. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagarto (Sceloporus mucronatus), Zona arqueológica de Cantona, Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 03.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 12:31:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Lizzard (Sceloporus mucronatus), archeological area of Cantona, Puebla, Mexico. Poc o² 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 12:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC) Oppose Yes too bright. I wonder how this became QI!!! --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather make no comment on that. Poc o² 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't think the composition is exceptional. The very bright rock/lichen is distracting. -- Colin (talk) 20:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 16:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:14 P416 6136.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 12:09:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Karol Gierad - uploaded by Karol Gierad - nominated by Karol Gierad -- Kargi4 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kargi4 (talk) 12:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Too many technical issues. Blurness, noise, background problems etc. I would be very, very surprised if this nomination is successful, as the photo clearly does not meet the FP criteria at one glance. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Scallop Neurological Diagram.svg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 07:46:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by KDS444 - uploaded by KDS444 - nominated by KDS444 -- KDS444 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A little context: this image is a full false color rendition of a similar diagram from a monograph on giant scallops. I realize it looks a little like something out of The Matrix, but this is in fact the actual arrangement of the neural system of a scallop. I have produced it here with lighter color shades representing those parts closer to the viewer, and darker shades as those further away: in this way, one can see that the system is arranged in a single "folded" circle/ loop connected to the various ganglia via nerves, with the animal's "left" half on one side and "right" half on the other (the scallop is, in this sense, "facing" the viewer... Though scallops, of course, don't have faces!). I have also attempted to show all nerves as having 3-dimensional round (cylindrical) shapes (i.e., their actual shapes) and have shown every nerve in its actual position and locus of connection. In the end, the image is highly accurate. And it wasn't easy! Also note that the image has been purged of all raster components. What is left is strictly vector-based. KDS444 (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent Svg work, easy to underestand and hight EV. We need support it. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the original monograph online? And if so, could you give us a link to it? This diagram is very beautiful indeed, but I would just like to check it against the original. Also, do we know for sure that this arrangement is the same in all scallops? Or is the diagram really just for one species of giant scallop? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The original image file has the information to the source, but let me give it again here: Drew, Gilman Arthur. 1906. The habitats, anatomy, and embryology of the giant scallop (Pecten tenuicostatus, Mighels). Figure 23/ Plate 12. The diagram is specifically of a giant scallop-- more than that, of course, it is a diagram of one particular giant scallop, the one that Drew used for his own illustration! I know of no reason to expect other scallops to have a very different neurology, though I would be glad to narrow the claim of this image to being that of a giant scallop only. KDS4444 (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the book dates from 1907. It is online here: [1] By the way, this is usually called "the nervous system" rather than the "neurology". I am studying the images on his plates now. Invertzoo (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing this diagram with the original, I have found one nerve (on each side) that has been accidentally omitted, an unbranched one at the front of the diagram, one that runs out almost level with the visceral ganglia. It also it seems to me that the cerebral ganglia need to be far more swollen and rounded-looking, as they are in the original, otherwise they don't even really look like ganglia. And in the original, the anterior pallial nerve comes to more of a point at the top. I am tired tonight but I will look again in the morning and see if I can spot anything else. I must say however in KDS444's favor that the 3-D rendering makes the diagram very much easier to understand than the original. Invertzoo (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me re-examine my diagram in light of these comments and revise as necessary. It is a quarter past 5:00 in the morning here in L.A., and I am very tired-- later today I will consider a reconstruction along these suggested (and no doubt accurate) lines. Aside: it was the utter confusion I experienced while looking at Drew's original strange image that inspired me to create my own based on his work, a version that wouldn't invoke such cerebral cacophony and confusion. Hopefully this will bear out in the end! KDS4444 (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This diagram that KDS4444 has made is indeed a gorgeous rendering which really shows the 3-D arrangement of the nervous system. However, this morning I have noticed a couple more little things: where smaller nerves attach to larger nerves, if you look at the original you will see that the smaller nerves sort of blend in, with a curved line, rather than attach like one piece of pipe to another, or just sort of stop when the smaller nerve hits the larger nerve. Judging by dissections I have done of other organisms, the original is how things actually look in real life. Another thing: in the original the branchial (gill) nerves are drawn as just ending in mid-air, if you look at the original you will see what I mean. I assume the author did not want to superimpose the enervation of the gills on top of the general enervation diagram, which would make it REALLY confusing. In this new version it looks as if the branchial nerves just taper to points in the distance and that is that. I don't know what the bronchial (gill) enervation is really like, but I would be pretty sure that it is more complicated than that. Many thanks for your hard work KDS4444! Invertzoo (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple more things needing fixing. I would go ahead and label the nerves which are marked as "ppn" in the original. I think "ppn" means posterior pallial nerve, (but please check this in the caption for the plate!). Also if you look carefully at the original, the palp nerves branch off of the cephalic ganglia itself, not off of the thin nerve running upwards, the "apn", the anterior pallial nerve. What you have labelled the "anterior pallial nerve" is actually the "cpn" (does that maybe stand for the central pallial nerve? -- check in the caption of the original plate.) And why does the cerebral commissure change color halfway round it? Is is a ring-shaped structure and should all be the same color. I hate to say it, but I now also see a couple more things that are a bit off. Perhaps I should hold off until you have fixed what I have mention so far? Thanks, and sorry to be a pain, Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. I would like to withdraw the image from candidacy. I will work on my worm image now. Thanks! KDS444 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination KDS444 (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:16 wood samples.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 20:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Anonimski - uploaded by Anonimski - nominated by Anonimski
Support as nominator. - Anonimski (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting idea. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don' t know why I support so tardily...--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not really wow-ed by the visual impact - which is imo impossible to achieve given the subject. But the interesting idea, the convincing conceptualization, high quality execution, and impressive documentation make me give my support. Very high EV, too! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Martin F. Yann (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:An ocean of motion about Spanish commotions or the windy explosion of pot-hous oration LCCN2003681692.tiff, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 15:51:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by William Pyne, scanned by the Library of Congress - uploaded by Fæ
Support as nominator; see this jpeg version if you prefer to use the Commons ZoomViewer. This is a difficult document to digitize due to size (45 inches or 1.14 metres wide) and this is part of the reason for nominating it as an exemplar of the excellent work of the archivists at the Library of Congress in releasing the British Cartoon Prints Collection. Pyne was notable for establishing the Royal Watercolour Society. This cartoon is historically significant as it was made at the time of the Anglo-Spanish War (1796–1808) showing stereotypes of the Spanish as expressed by different classes of the British population. It is a rare example of William Pyne's humorous cartoons (the only political cartoon of his that I can find on Commons), the majority of his published work being palace illustrations and British costumes. The digitization shows detail of costumes and characters, sufficient for each to be taken as a separate detailed illustration. The full size image shows natural foxing due to age, and creases from being folded up, which it was designed to do, but these do not detract from the impact or quality of the etchings. The main humour of the text is to poke fun at the Spanish, with the cobbler calling them "fish-eating rascals" and the journalists for the Spanish Gazette having nothing to report (on the left) while the British cryers (on the right) are exhausted from having ten years worth of incidents to report in one day. I would hope that a consequence of bringing attention to this cartoon would be to help improve Wikipedia articles about Pyne, at the moment the article about his life exists only in English and is a stub. -- Fæ (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember add a short description in image hint look up .tiff|600x300px|SHORT DESCRIPTION]] --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed that, added one now. --Fæ (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Obviously. Yann (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support high ev --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blassenstein Erlauftal mit Nebel 02 Panorama.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 07:19:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Also see the original nomination. Created by User:Uoaei1 - uploaded by User:Uoaei1 - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 07:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 08:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better. Yann (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Caecilius Mauß (talk) 09:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I still think cropping along the top of the dark clouds makes a much more dramatic picture -- the shaft of light from the left then forces the eye into the clouds in the middle of the picture and the dark clouds then frame the picture rather than having a distracting bright part in the top left or blue part in the top right. If you don't want as extreme as 3:1 then keeping the bottom but cropping the top is still better imo. -- Colin (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am I the only one who feels it is slightly tilted? I added a note. --Kadellar (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Dear Kadellar, thanks for the hint, you are absolutely right! I have uploaded a new version to correct the tilt. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Clockery Fairfeld who, me? 11:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 12:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original Crop

Info created by Uoaei1 - uploaded by Uoaei1 - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a very nice scene but the crop isn't good. Too much sky (and vapour trail) and the nearby rocks are distracting. A 6000x2000 crop as indicated would imo make a great panorama. So I suggest that as an alternative. -- Colin (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for your valuable proposal! I'd rather take a 2:1 crop instead of 3:1, which well-preserves the rule of thirds and some of the details in the foreground (trees disappearing in the fog). What is your opinion about this? --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral While I do love the one area of the trees, I am having a hard time understanding the level of support for this scene (see above). An oppose at this point would be rather arrogant if not petulant. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't understand the logic of this new suggestion. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because it is the original nomination not a new one. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Blassenstein Erlauftal mit Nebel 02 Panorama.JPG

File:Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch für das Deutsche Reich.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 12:42:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Unknown painter. Uploaded by me, modified by User:Алексей Гоманков, nominated by me. Thanks in advance. Hausratte (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. Hausratte (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bottom cut off. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capilla de Lourdes.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 15:01:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the composition and colours.--ArildV (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Very nice scene but overprocessed and soft at 6MP. Why are the colours so different in File:Lourdes Chapel.jpg which appears to be the same photo but without the bird removed. The trees in the nomination photo have a white outline against the sky, compared to the other photo. The sloping white faces of the church are near white in the second photo but considerably darker in this nomination, suggesting the highlights are lowered too much -- a white surface facing the sun would be expected to be white. This makes the tonal range compressed. The scene could be fantastic at a slightly better time of year when the trees are less bare. -- Colin (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The other version is a pratice test with CaptureNX2 without real colors and with a fake bird. You can download the NEF file and try by yourself develope the jpg, if you want (you can find the link in file description) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not particularly impressed that this is the second fake you've uploaded to Commons. At least File:Lourdes Chapel.jpg now admits this, but wouldn't it be better to request its deletion. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is not a fake. Why delete File:Lourdes Chapel.jpg? If you consider that in commons should not be altered images, please also nominates all pictures in Photomontages of animals and Photomontages, You are free to nominate it to deletion. ;). By the way, it's a good idea to focus on this nomination. A hug --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crown Queens Bavaria Schatzkammer Residenz Munich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Apr 2014 at 14:33:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Biennais, Nitot and Leblond - Photographied, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support New in "Commons", a masterpiece of the french 19th-century jewelry, made in Paris for Queens of Bavaria in 1806-1807 (altered in 1867), when the bavarian electorate was erected as a kingdom, allied of Napoleon. In use until 1918. Gold, silver, pearls, diamonds and other gems. On display (behind a glass...) at the "Schatzkammer", in the Residenz of Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. IMO it would better with the full base (at the bottom).--XRay ^talk 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, such a reason for oppose to this kind of image leaves me speechless...--Jebulon (talk) 19:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ups. Sorry. It's a good picture, but IMO it looks incomplete with a significant part of the base.--XRay ^talk 17:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you elaborate a bit on the shooting conditions? I obviously have no business with this sort of photography and will therefore not make a vote, but the exif leaves me a bit wondering. Did you hand-hold it for 0.2s or could you push it against something stable? It looks a bit soft (in the sense of denoised) to me for a ISO 400 image. --DXR (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Speechless again... Lack of base of the cushion, and questions about Exif Data, that's only what suggests this picture ? I took this image hand hold (or maybe I used the glass as stable surface, I don't remember). I post processed with Lightroom5, and after that with GIMP. I used luminance and color denoising with Lightroom5, adjusted sharpness a very little, and the white balance too. After that, with GIMP, I used the selective blur tool in order to correct the noise of some pearls, one after the other. I removed some disturbing elements in background by cloning out, and corrected the perspective a very little bit. This image was taken without tripod nor flash in a museum full of tourists, behind a glass, it is as difficult as it is interesting, a real challenge.--Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not looking to get into an argument here, but I'm not sure you should be "speechless" that an image of a crown, even if it's admittedly a beautiful one, will not blow everyone of his feet if nominated as a commons FP. As I said, I will refrain from voting, but I think my question regarding the quality was legitimate and your comments help assess the quality of your work here in a postive way. --DXR (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it was challenging to capture this picture does not add any value to the photo. Photographers often mistakenly think it does but I'm afraid it doesn't. Some get rewarded because they were lucky, some work hard and and the outcome is slightly above the average. That's life.. --85.253.101.104 21:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense imo. Of course it makes a difference, but IP commenters have usually presented themselves to be fairly stubborn in their opinions, so what's the point of debating here... --DXR (talk) 21:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As for me, I just asked for assessments, nothing else. I gave explanations because I was asked for. I don't think long discussions make a photo better (I tend to think the contrary). Shall I suppress Exif Data next time ? That's the question... Something like "Love it, or leave it"--Jebulon (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For once I'm not bothered by the bottom crop ... because the base blends so well into the background that you might not notice unless it's pointed out. And, really, the crown captures so much attention you won't mind. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support given the circumstances quality is very decent. High EV! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The cropped base allows the attention to concentrate on the crown. Enough of the base is there to let the imagination (our brain) 'see' the missing part. Very good technical quality and high EV. --Cayambe (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I understand the challenging conditions (I've been there) and I appreciate the editing work of Jebulon done here but the quality is still not at QI level to me (yes, I doubt it can get better, but that's a different topic): not enough DoF, dark halos around the pearls in the background, some of the reflections don't look natural to me, it is ccw (taking the cross in the top as reference) and overall lack of sharpness. I wouldn't manage it better, but I just judge the result. Poco² 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As one can see here, the so-called tilt is in real. I think there are also positive things to say "in pro" for this picture, but even negative, I thank you for your detailed and useful review, apart of the tilt, nothing of what you say is really wrong... BtW, it is already a QI...--Jebulon (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant FP level instead of QI level, I guess I spend too much time at QI... And, of course there are positive things to say about it, and as said, I will not even try to get this shot. Poc o² 22:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa)-3 new.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 00:47:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dean Franklin - uploaded by Papa Lima Whiskey - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Good quality, high value. Yann (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I support the alternative instead. Yann (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noisy sky (not sure it is an original...), and at least two dust spots.--Jebulon (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just saying no to the black coloured pines. A clear indication this is underexposed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info Alternative version. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 18:53, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Even better. Yann (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, much better, but why the reduction in image size? Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Saffron Blaze:

Done. Also wanted to know. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support better! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. Compares well with some of the finer takes on this scene I could find on the internet. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi F (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's better. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

The chosen alternative is: File:Dean Franklin - 06.04.03 Mount Rushmore Monument (by-sa).jpg

Comment @Jee: The category is Objects? Why? Places would be better? Or not? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 12:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time to understand the subject. Mount Rushmore says "The Mount Rushmore National Memorial is a sculpture carved into the granite face of Mount Rushmore." So it is an object if it is a sculpture; it is a place if it the mountain. Any way I don't want it to place under "natural" is it is not very natural now. Any other editor can change the category if he prefer/think so. :) J e e 12:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Munich subway station Westfriedhof.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 16:50:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Munich subway station Westfriedhof- all by --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 17:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and a suggestion. What if you crop the lower part until you get 1:2 ratio? I feel that if the black line on the floor ends closer to the corner of the image it will look nicer. --Kadellar (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same suggestion (perhaps 16:9) earlier today (see note). Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 20:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow ! And per Kadellar.--Jebulon (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive --Jamez42 (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice work. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info and Done Thanks for your friendly reviews. As suggested I cropped the image a bit - you were right, the result is more convincing. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I can't support twice !!!--Jebulon (talk) 13:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I knew it would look better with the crop but this far exceeded my expectations. Very strong visual impact now. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. Train at right is a nice touch. --DXR (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Visually striking. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - even better with that crop --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Outstanding shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:21, 42 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Paris Palais du Luxembourg façade s printemps 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 20:34:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JLPC - uploaded by JLPC - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are two FPs of the Palais du Luxembourg, but this one is very beautiful too. The sky, the fontaine, the people, the trees gives a nice atmosphere.-- Paris 16 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 00:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 08:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice mood and light. --Jebulon (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wanted to do a pano one day, but I see that it has already been done very well! --DXR (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and thanks to Paris 16 for this nomination and his help on other files. --JLPC (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely contrast between the unstoppable symmetry of the building and grounds and the relaxed attitudes of the tourists. Daniel Case (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shepherds Bow - Google Art Project.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2014 at 22:36:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DcoetzeeBot (file), Unknown painter, photo from Google Art Project - uploaded by DcoetzeeBot - nominated by --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Andrew J.Kurbiko -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 22:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unlike WP I don't feel the need to promote every good scan to FPC status. There are 13 other images of the "Adoration of the Shepherds" in that article and this is perhaps the lesser of them all.Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stadthalle Mülheim Panorama Blaue Stunde 02 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Apr 2014 at 19:39:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, too dark. Yann (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO it is not that bad, even dark structures are still visible. Yann, have you looked on the correct version? Yesterday I've uploaded a brighter version, probably you've seen an old version in the cache. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's too dark. Trust us on this one. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daniel it is not the question if I trust you and Yann or not. If it is the perception of you then I take it seriously. Nonetheless a few questions: What is the best brightness for such a shot? As you can see it is not a classical cityscape - you have only lights which brighten the main building and few lights at the left part of the bridge - the dark parts are trees. In short: Longer exposure with HDR or earlier shot? I've exposed in a way that the bright parts of the building are barely not burnt. Additionaly the sun sets behind the right part of the building thus you have at the beginning of the blue hour a strong brightness gradient on the sky. Another possibility had been to take the shot early in the morning before sunrise (sun behind me), but I do not know if the nice lighting of the building is there at that time. What would you suggest? --Tuxyso (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the darkness is correct. It is night, and this emphasizes the situation. A night shot, in which can be seen more than is lit, I think is unrealistic. This composition with the lights reflected in the water and the rest of the twilight hour I find a good balance.--XRay ^talk 08:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no EV in this one because we can't really see the shape of the building behind the lights. Therefore the darkness is not correct. Daniel Case (talk) 03:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yann, Daniel, XRay and others: I am always surprised about the dynamic range of my D7000. I've created an alternative version with shadow and brightness correction. IMHO noise stays at an acceptable level:
. Do you think that version is better and could have a chance here? --Tuxyso (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment much better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Martin, I've added it as alternative nomination. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Comment Alternative nomination, with improved shadow details. After certain consideration I also think that this one is better than the previous nom. I look forward to your comments. --Tuxyso (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 13:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support So ... much ... better! I love the eight-point flares around the street lamps and the reflections in the river! Daniel Case (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Technically sound but monotonous due to the one colour of light. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Monotonous for you, for me a very nice color contrast between orange and blue which well brings out the building. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose This version is by far better, but still I cannot see anything here that blows me away, it is a good quality night shot Poc o² 09:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 12:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Dark, mono and boring. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better than the other, but still a bit dark. The composition is not special either. Yann (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ukas (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Stadthalle Mülheim Panorama Blaue Stunde 02 2014 Alternative.jpg

File:Summer fields near Rosehearty, Aberdeenshire, Scotland - pomprint.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 06:25:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Steve Allen - uploaded by TeleComNasSprVen - nominated by TeleComNasSprVen -- TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In thumbnail view, oversatured, white balance... --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the green is a bit vivid but don't see any white balance issue. I've suggested a 2.4:1 crop that I think is much stronger. -- Colin (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but would it be more appropriate to upload a crop as a separate file derivative work? I wouldn't want to touch the original, to keep the loss minimal and other concerns, but if you decide to make a cropped version we can link it here and vote on that. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course yes, you could upload in another version in this nomination --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because strong oppose doesn't get more weight. This looks like a cartoon due to colours. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'm new to the FP process, but why is looking like a "cartoon" a problem for an image? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The colours are oversaturated. While I am here... not fond of the crop/composition either... image is split in half. Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 12:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velika noč - jedila hren šunka pirhi potica.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 20:40:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Klemen Brumec - uploaded by ModriDirkac - nominated by ModriDirkac -- ModriDirkac (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ModriDirkac (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now I am hungry. That aside, there is a very unfortunate loss of sharpness towards the bottom of the image. It is bad enough that it is distracting. The image also seems to be a bit dull as if it could use a bit of brightening. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Suffering from insufficient DOF (and focus not on the plate) and very high ISO. The edit that reduced noise also seems to have reduced contrast and actually applied negative Clarity according to the EXIF (which I can understand being done selectively on a female portrait or dreamy scene, but not food). I'd love to know what the different objects/foods are in the picture. I suspect the lack of a tripod limited what could be achieved here and we've only got a 50%-sized image from a potentially great camera. -- Colin (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron Blaze and Colin, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting observations, thx for feedback. I do not know where description was lost in the upload... Nevertheless, picture is now at least properly categorised.--ModriDirkac (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 12:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whistlejacket by George Stubbs edit.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 09:15:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by George Stubbs - uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Its status on the wikipedias is supported by the strong EV. I don't think that should have the same impact here on Commons. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. However, I disagree with your opinion. We have many paintings, which have been given FP status on various wikipedias, elevated to FP status in commons. For example this pic got FP staus, this one and many more are there. IMHO, EV is an advantage for a pic in commons, besides technical quality. Nikhil (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not suggesting EV isn't a consideration on Commons. I am saying a good scan of a high EV paiting should not be the threshold for FP status on Commons. Commons is about the image... and without the written backstory in the WP article as to why this is such an important painting it becomes are rather unremarkable image to me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 23:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zinnia_flower_in_jaffna.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 14:27:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by aathavan jaffna - uploaded by aathavan jaffna - nominated by Aathavan jaffna -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom -- Aathavan jaffna (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is just my opinion, but an FP macro (or near macro) should use a near perfect specimen and either focus stack or find a compelling way to use the limited depth of field. This image is just an ordinary photo of a flower. It is not one of our finest works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you ever bother to compare the number of plant FP we have against the number of arthropod ones, for instance? It makes no sense. Something in the evaluation process is very biased against plant photographs. Your reasoning highlights this. There is no reason to expect plant FPs to be focus-stacked. We don't have so many plant FPs. And I am not supportive of this specific candidate either. Gidip (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Gidip.--Jebulon (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have many arthropod ones because of one or two dedicated individuals. If your concern is systemic bias I will inform you I couldn't care less. BTW, focus stack was just one option. It is not my job to teach people how to photograph flowers in a compelling way. My job is state I don't think this is one of them. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree with Saffron on this. I suspect mentioning focus stack may have touched a nerve -- something that isn't really feasible except for cut flowers in the home. But that is merely one technique that one could be used. As an example, there's a rather nice Bing desktop photo of a zinnia you can Google for. There's also an existing File:Zinnia elegans with Bombus 01.JPG featured picture. Unlike animals that fly about, flowers are rather easier to take a frame-filling shot. And there are a huge multitude to choose. So making someone go wow requires something a bit special. Like with sunsets, you might think that having a beautiful subject would make the task easy, but perhaps not. -- Colin (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~--maathavan (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Invalid vote. User has less than 50 edits --DXR (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 23:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Memorial J Kubitschek Brasilia statue.jpg, featured , featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 20:01:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Cayambe - nominated by Arion -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Juscelino Kubitschek, the founder of Brasilia, in front of the JK Memorial in Brasilia.

Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like Cayambes pictures very much, especially those one of Brasilia. This is a very good detail shot of this Kubitschek memorial. But the main object is sadly not right sharp. Because this is a very simple subject I have to be strictly than e.g. with aerial views. Please reprocess this image and I'll gladly support it. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info New version uploaded, noise and CA reduction and a bit of sharpening. --Cayambe (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 11:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2014 at 15:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by me -- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This facade is flat, round windows are fakes, it is just a trompe l'oeil painting, as a restoration work. Emperor's Courtyard of the Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.-- Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. And the man in the archway is perfectly posed. Or is he fake too? :-) -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, what a good idea ! I'll think of it next time ! --Jebulon (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent composition with harmony feels :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Striking shot. --Baresi F (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great! I should have had this idea myself and already a long time ago. Yet I didn't. Good work, Jebulon! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Martin Falbisoner. That's because I was a tourist, with a "new eye". I'm fan of pictures of Paris by non Parisians: they see some things I've never seen before ! Anyway: Es lebe München !--Jebulon (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the quality I'd wish for a building photo. Missing sharpness; artefacts. Not very much wow for me, so I'd have abstained if it at least was a real QI. --A.Savin 21:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - I agree the image isn't as sharp as we might want and we have lots of megapixel stitched architecture images that show greater detail than this. But unlike QI, FP is judged for wow and artistic qualities which can mitigate against technical issues. When I saw this picture I went wow, both for the effect of the subject itself and also the pose of the man in the archway. It makes a great picture overall. This is the heart of FP, not pixel peeping. But everyone sets their thresholds and balances at different levels so I can accept some think the technical deficiencies (whether sharpness or noise) are too much. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - About sharpness: please remember this is not "architecture", but "painting". What you see is a flat wall, one cannot compare with any other facade. The painted lines are not as "pin" if it was a real relief (on purpose IMO).--Jebulon (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I appreciate that, and studied the real bits too. There is some grain/noise that removes sharpness -- not sure if due to processing like Tuxyo suggests. But ultimately I guess we are looking a raw captured pixels rather than a downsized image, and it is rarely perfect at that level. Maybe you should try your hand at stitched panorama! -- Colin (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think I'm able ! Actually I don't know how to do. But since a few day, I work with some collaborators who know how to do, and I'll ask them (they make professional interactive panorama pictures ! You point at a spot, and you have a close-up !). I'll see what kind of softwares they use.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (weak) I also like the innovative composition as said by other reviews. But imho the problem of the photo is the bad light. It looks for me as if you extremely pushed the shadow parts of the building which lead to some unfavorable noise at the facade. Probably you just excluded the sky because it had been burnt out due to back light. For a photo with a strong accentuation on the structure of the facade it is not crisp enough. --Tuxyso (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "excluded the sky because it had been burnt out due to back light": well possible; see this small burnt area behind the arch. --A.Savin 05:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nothing is burnt, see histogram.--Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ■ MMXX ^talk 21:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow imo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure some people actually know what Trompe-l'œil means Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

very easy to solve as there's an useful, albeit only little known project called Wikipedia: Trompe l'oeil ;-) --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And we have many subcategories of Category:Trompe l'oeil...--Jebulon (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh!!!! Today isn't April Fools' Day!!! :P (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The man is a plus and makes it different. --Kadellar (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose interesting picture, but strong and visible artefacts and noise --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 11:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Cydalima perspectalis carterpillar.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 19:28:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Archaeodontosaurus - nominated by Tomer T -- Tomer T (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you to TOMER. This animal is very affectionate, if some want to adopt, I can send you. I have thousands in my garden. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Barcex (talk) 14:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice caterpillar. :) But the black background puzzles me. Are you breeding it? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is made in the natural environment. With 3 flashes if there is no background nearest the background appears black (even in the daytime). In this case it suffices to choose a branch isolated. This technique allows the interest focus on a part of the image.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 08:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support would prefer all the leaf in the image if it was in the original --Charles (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tigress in Bandhavgarh NP.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 May 2014 at 01:02:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Archith - uploaded by Archith - nominated by DendroNaja -- DendroNaja (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DendroNaja (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Problems: Composition cut, unnatural light, motion blur, contrast too strong and The animal was cut to blur the background so unprofessional. IMHO this image is far from outstanding mainly by excessive retouching --The Photographer (talk) 01:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very very strong oppose But I don't quite get what The Photographer is saying. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 01:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is astonishing and unique, but unfortunately the image is ruined by overprocessing. Could we notify the creator to reveal the unprocessed image? There is a chance with a quick fix it might be at least VI. --Alexander Vasenin (talk)

@Alex.vasenin: Lol. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:38, 27 April 2014 (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: Totally falls out of criteria. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 01:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fabrègues Plain, Fabrègues, Hérault 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2014 at 04:41:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Christian Ferrer
Support --Christian Ferrer 08:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose *sigh* -- Colin (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry: but no wow and boring for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Colin. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 23:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Christian Ferrer 06:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:TF Wildpark Johannismuehle 03-14 img11.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 07:45:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by A.Savin
Support --A.Savin 07:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great, but maybe a portrait crop would be even better. --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much in shadow and want a more detailed image from a captive bird at FP. -- Colin (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Notable chromatic noise under the wings and on the breast. Not sharp enough, sorry. No offense Colin, but I don't see why it should be more detailed because captive: anyway, the bird is as mobile as in the nature, no ? It is not a stuffed specimen...--Jebulon (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not less sharp than some of building photographs getting promoted here (and also supported by you sometimes); yes, quite mobile birdy which does not stand still for more than some seconds; and - yes, some noise but certainly not chromatic (=colour) one. --A.Savin 19:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be angry ! I know what "chromatic" means, I learnt ancient greek when I was young, and the word is the same in French. So, there is chromatic noise, as I said. And I find the bird, especialy the face, not sharp enough, sorry. And yes, I've probably made mistakes in my votes. Didn't you ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think A.Savin is right, there is noise but it's not chromatic. Chromatic noise would be a mixture of red, blue and green blotches. There's very little of that in the image. It's just luminance noise. Diliff (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy the "we have promoted images that are worse than this" argument you've raised here and in another photo. That some weak images get through isn't an reason to promote another weak image. If that argument held, we'd be on a downward spiral towards mediocrity. Perhaps we are :-(. I'd be very surprised if any 10MP unsharp building image got promoted these days. Comparing building and animal photography is pretty silly anyway. Jebulon, a captive bird can be trained to land and stay quite close to people. So it it would be possible to get as close as one desired and the keeper/circumstances allow. With a wild bird, one would be happy to even get the bird to fill the frame of a huge zoom lens. We have lots of highly-detailed head-portraits of captive birds of prey, for example. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition, nice moment, nice pose. Well done --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMHO not sharp enough for a bird FP. The level of detail is relatively poor - even at the sharper areas. Also f/5 at 130mm could be a problem - the claws a very unsharp. Light is not really good, the background is bumpy. --Tuxyso (talk) 05:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't see this as one of our finest works, particularly in the bird category. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, sorry. --Kadellar (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Berlin - Schloss Bellevue2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 May 2014 at 19:53:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info High resolution image (about 30 MP) of Bellevue Palace, official residence of the President of Germany, all by Taxiarchos228 -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, this is OK! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to support as well, but please fix the dust spots in the sky and perhaps lighten the shadows on the left. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I´ll do this soon. --Wladyslaw (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Saffron Blaze: sky should be cleared completely now. The shadows are IMO not disturbing for the impression itself and everything within the shadows is visible clearly. So it would be too much brightening I think. The curves are already adjusted and well-balanced. --Wladyslaw (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support At the first glance I thought to have found a stitching error at the right part of the building - but that's no error, the building looks a bit strange there also on other photos . Nice panoramic view at good light. --Tuxyso (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please correct the tilt or the distorsion (please see note) ? Thanks in advance.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the 100%-view you'll see that the image is horizontal straightened. Nevertheless the builings is located at a small slope so it might seem a bit angular. But this is reallity. The Bellevue Palace isn't even Versailles ;-) --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for answer, but even at 100%, the roofs looks tilted... Anyway, you know the place better than me so I have no reason to doubt. Do you want a cliché ? This leaning roof does not look very "preussisch" ! Seriously, I'm not bothered with the shadow, and it is a very good picture, now in use as QI, VI and future FP in the relevant article of the french WP (french caption added, BtW).--Jebulon
Support --JLPC (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very detailed. However, the light is harsh compared to File:Bellevue Palace Berlin 02-14.jpg -- Colin (talk) 12:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Ooo. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Very nice! --Godot13 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Stephen Walbrook Church Interior 2, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Apr 2014 at 22:29:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Diliff - uploaded by User:Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is cut down --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What does 'cut down' mean? If you mean cropped, then yes, I carefully cropped the image to get the framing I wanted. But what specifically about the composition makes you oppose? Diliff (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the seats are cut, that's what I mean --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have preferred more of the seats in the foreground too, but it was not physically possible. My tripod was pushed up against a pillar directly behind the camera, so I could not go back any further. And to tilt the camera down further would result in a lot of distortion. Already, the viewpoint is looking down at perhaps a 60 degree angle at the bottom of the frame. The field of view is extremely large. Diliff (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I underestand the situation. You could merge severals pictures in the future? --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a stitch (notice the edit summary?) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Capturing the whole of an interior like this is not easy. The wide angle-of-view can lead to all sorts of stretched and distorted forms, and features such as columns and chandeliers can look awful. This image shows a good control of these problems and has a strong three-dimensional feel. The level of detail is great, as one would expect from Diliff, and the bright natural lighting is handled well. -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question We have one round oculus (close right to the pulpit) , and several oval oculi. Is it normal, or is it a perspective deformation ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is normal. Only the 'central' oculus is round, the rest are genuinely oval-shaped. I think they are progressively more oval shaped, but I'm not sure and did not pay enough attention at the time. There may be some perspective distortions at the periphery but nothing that would make a circle look so oval-shaped. 14:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, convinced. Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and following Wilfredo's complaints, I feel that if we could see a bit more of the bench, it would be better, but it's FP for me anyway. --Kadellar (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 09:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:2014.03.29.-08-Mannheim Neckarau Waldpark-Wiesen-Schaumkraut.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2014 at 20:29:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Hockei (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Photo is oversaturated imo. It looks very unnatural, especially the grasses behind. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree with AK here. I find the light/colours/bokeh are fine. However, it is the tight crop on the bottom that is off-putting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I suggest a less square crop. Gidip (talk) 18:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 21:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Norbert Kiss - GP Camión de España 2013 - 08.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 19:11:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Truck pilot Norbert Kiss at the Spain Truck GP 2013 (panning shot). Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nikhil (talk) 01:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Nice panning, sharpness is ok but lighting not the best, overall FP to me Poc o² 08:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleclown (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really something special here, more than "technical quality" ! That is why FPC exists, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 04:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Einstein2 (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godhulii 1985 (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 02:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:USO-Sale Sharks - 20131205 - Ballon flottant.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 21:14:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by, uploaded by, nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This picture was taken during the match opposing the USO to the Sale Sharks, competing in the European Challenge Cup, which was attended by two accredited photographers, thanks to Wikimedia CH. one of the player as let the ball loose, creating this "floating ball" moment, with all the eyes converging to the ball. -- Pleclown (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks like a Flemish painting. Great sports shot. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 17:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really good --Baresi F (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hieronymus Bosch for the faces, maybe... But as it is the focal point of the image, I'd wish a ball without chromatic aberration (purple fringe). Thank you.--Jebulon (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version. Pleclown (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there another crop possible? A half player on the left, a half player on the right ... --XRay ^talk 14:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this is the whole thing. Rugby is a packed sport, there often is bits of players missing in pictures. For a little bit more context, I think that this action follows a lineout (thus explaining the number of players). Pleclown (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Jasná Ski Resort - gondola lift Kosodrevina - Chopok (1).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Apr 2014 at 09:29:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do not find the motif very compelling. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Capri BW 2013-05-14 17-20-55 DxO.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 May 2014 at 16:59:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. -- Colin (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but something in the composition is missing Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rumex pictus 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Apr 2014 at 14:54:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Gidip (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Gidip (talk) 14:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- JLPC (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice picture, but why did you cut off the other flowers along this stalk?? I would have supported if not for that. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. The bottom crop creates an unnecessary and unwelcome tension in the image. The overall composition is not convincing either. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for general knowledge, these are fruits. Cheers, Gidip (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aschaffenburg - Schloss Johannisburg 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 May 2014 at 07:57:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Maulaff - uploaded by User:Maulaff - nominated by User:Maulaff -- Maulaff (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Maulaff (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rather a lot of the subject is obscured by trees. Other viewpoints are clearer (e.g. File:Aschaffenburg, Schloß Joahnnisburg-015.jpg). Also quite soft and some CA on church spires. -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin. --DXR (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info These trees are part of the palace garden which is specially structured because an old monastery prevented the construction of a regular garden in accordance to the fashion at that time. So the image with the trees gives more information. By the way, the hidden towers look the same as the two visible ones. No information is lost.--Maulaff (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not bothered so much by the trees—they make a nice irregular, natural contrast to the regular lines of the castle. What does ruin it for me is the blown highlights on the clouds, particularly to the right. Daniel Case (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The subject is nice and interesting. Trees or not, it is matter of taste, even if I tend to agree with Colin. But the overall lack of sharpness, the CA and above all the burnt sky (strongly overexposed, as noticed by Dabiel Case), are really a no-go for me. Technically speaking, it is not a Quality Image... But don't discourage, and try again.--Jebulon (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hotel Iberostar Málaga Playa Torrox Costa 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2014 at 08:58:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info No historic building or church :) High resolution panorama (62 Mpx) of Hotel Hotel Iberostar Málaga Playa in Torrox-Costa
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support makes me want to go on vacation. Now! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great detail, subject, composition and lighting, good job! Poc o² 09:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Btw, could you improve the symmetry (the right side is closer to the camera than the left side)? Poc o² 11:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry, forgotten your comment): Yesterday I spent several hours on the improvement of the photo in order to check a suggesion by Colin regarding another projection (Panini General), see my discussion page for details. During the work I also tried to improve the symmetry but finally my disappointing insight, probabaly you can give a comment on it on my talk page, was that I still prefer the version I have nominated here. It simply looks better if I use the trees at the left and right as framing than strictly align the center to the lines on the floor. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you do a version without the trees on the left and right... i.e a few steps closer perhaps? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not. I really like the trees here. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They work as a framing device but the one of the left is a bit distracting given it is the one large dark element in the image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I though you mean the palm trees but you mean the smaller ones at the very left and right. Nonetheless is does not change the situation that I only have image material from the given positon. Indeed, my idea was to use them as framing. Cropping is no option because the pool building at the left would be cropped. I could try to brighten the left tree, what do you think? --Tuxyso (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Done: I've brightened the tree at the very left. Do you think it is better now? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tuxyso, can you spend a comment to my question above about the lack of symmetry? Poc o² 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco -- Colin (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent sharpening --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm afraid the panorama distorsion does not work for me, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly does not work for you? What had you done better? Where do you see problems with distortion? In the foreground or at the building? --Tuxyso (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Shortly: I should not see this if I where at the place of the camera.--Jebulon (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm willing to adjudicate if someone will pay me to take the place of the camera. My verification of the perspective and field of view should take around two weeks. Thanks in advance. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, but no need. If some can wait a few months, I'll be there (or close too) in next july.--Jebulon (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - But don't forget to take new motives besides all the motives I have taken bad photos of (you made a similiar comment on my Alhambra photos) during my visit in Andalusia. Should I add a category Photos of Andalusia by Tuxyso to simplify your work? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh sorry dear Tuxyso, I don't want to hurt you, and your pictures are very good ! I have a mental problem with panorama pictures and subsequent deformations/distorsions, that's all. And the rest of your productions is always very interesting, I don't think I can do better ! That was just a joke, answering to Colin's joke. Sorry again, no offense, really.--Jebulon (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This time I have indeed understood the joke from Colin (which is not a natural consequences in a foreign language). But I have clearly understood your statement the way that you will make a better photo when you are in the region. BTW: I have a non-panoramic wide-angle version of the motive but imho the high resolution makes the difference here due to the plenty of details, take e.g. a look on the magazine the girl at the very left is reading :) --Tuxyso (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. --DXR (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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