Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/March 2014

File:Bibliothèque humaniste de Sélestat 21 janvier 2014-97.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 04:43:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Claude TRUONG-NGOC, nominated by Yann (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Sélestat library, with statue of Jean Mentel, printer and publisher (1410-1478).
Support -- Yann (talk) 04:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice find. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks CW tilted. QI? --XRay ^talk 11:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you see that? It seems OK to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice, excellent. Not tilted IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice --Paralacre (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 10:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job both to the photographer and the discoverer :) I just have the impression that it is a bit ccw tilted Poc o² 21:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice picture --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote --A.Savin 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Durdle Door Dorset Sunset.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 22:42:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you very much for sharing this, it is a relief to see a good picture. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition is incredible. —Mono 02:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry; I still prefer your old super FP. Although the subject is interesting; I failed to see the scope for two FPs. J e e 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A relief to see a good picture?? super FP?? I haven't seen so much sucking up here before. You really are the Lord of the Flies. Correct me if I'm wrong but this picture was a alternative of previous nomination and now you have nominated it again? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No; the nom. I mentioned above is at EN which has different review criteria. My comment above is also per my personal POV; not about its quality on aesthetic aspects. There is not a requirement that a reviewer need to be capable to take competitive pictures. But he had a lot of FPs earlier; and this make a Flickr Explore #1 recently. J e e 09:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture you are referring to is really excellent. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The sea is unnaturally dark and the same with half of the cliff. I haven't been there myself but a quick google search gives me pictures with much better lighting, for example here. Apart from this, a long exposure would certainly add some wow to the photo but now it's just a snapshot. I would expected something more from someone with so "high standards" and extremely critical towards others. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not make personal attacks. You should refer to comment on the image. It is the best way to bring this section, the most balanced, technically and objectively as possible. I invite you to reflect and stop this negative attitude. On the other hand, from the technical point of view, the example you have shown me a picture much more digitally modified than the current nomination (look the sky and overexposition, for example). I lived on the coast for 30 years and have seen similar colors to this photo. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wished a MUCH tighter crop at the top (see note) and a wider crop at the right. I am unsure if the light is fortunate for that motive. Most parts of the relief are in shadow. Contrary the warm light on the sand is nice. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good comments by Tuxyso. Hopefully addressed. Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. and Mono are asked if they still support. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will support the tighter crop at the top :) --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support New crop is perfect IMO. --DXR (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better with the new crop. Yann (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. You also improved the light (probably a bit overdone, but that's a matter of taste). --Tuxyso (talk) 08:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice colours and picture, but I find the people rather distracting. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people is to underestand the real size of the natural monument --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI invite you to read this. About using people to measuring scales. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 11:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read it. BTW, please take a look: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arctic_Kangaroo&diff=117042047&oldid=116984406 (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 10:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 11:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Composition is very good, but I am shared, IMO it's a little bit oversatured (yellow, orange and red), I can particularly see it on the clothes of the characters but however the color give the mood. Anyway a nice image. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Le ito xx 13:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kranensee Wien-Aspern Seestadt-DSC 3676w.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Feb 2014 at 22:35:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support technisch nicht perfekt aber das Bild hat einen Wow-Faktor. --Ralf Roleček 23:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I love the colors, but the composition just comes across as too random. For this sort of thing a video might work better (but then of course it has copyright issues). As it is I can't tell from the image alone that the cranes are performing a ballet. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —레비 Revi 08:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose quality ain't good enough. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally added "s" instead of "o". Now fixed. Kruusamägi (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Daniel: Colors are nice, but the composition and motive do not work for me. The crop at the right seems very random to me. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand that the motion blur is necessary to convey the sense of movement of the crane arms, but the verticals are out of focus too. Sorry, but not convinced about the composition or quality. --DAJF (talk) 11:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Nice image, but the lights are very bright and there is a big dark area at the bottom. --XRay ^talk 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Huh what??? I could just oppose by looking at the picture on the FPC page alone. That's how bad it is. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, thats nothing like blurry cranes (I’m not talking about the motion, but there’s nothing in focus) and overexposed lights. Nothing special at all. No idea what that picture wants to tell me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose No. —Blurred Lines 17:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 12:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shirakawago.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 04:38:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Night view of the village of Shirakawa-go.

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- Jordy Meow (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jordy Meow (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:27, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two other nominations by the same user are still active below. (File:Itsukushima Gate.jpg and File:Okinawa Aquarium.jpg) --DAJF (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I am really sorry about that. I will be definitely more careful next time. --Jordy Meow (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Qwertz1894 (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs some perspective correction (see bottom left) and I wonder whether the top left corner has been darkened in the postprocessing, it looks a bit strange. On the other side the composition is great, so I am ready to support if my comments are fixed/clarified Poc o² 11:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment location please. --High Contrast (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A nice job technically getting the lighting to work, but unfortunately for me it comes out too cluttered (to the point of confusing me as to what I'm supposed to getting from this), plus the snow on the house at the left seems blown. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 12:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 12:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Tamme-Lauri Tamm suvel.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 02:03:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian contingent has had a disproportionate impact on the results here and on possibly the POTY, but I would be surprised there is any kind of puppetry going on. National pride is not yet a crime. Would hate to be proven wrong though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.101.124 (talk • contribs)

Hello Mr. Saffron Blaze, I don't belong to Estonia. I just thought that this was a pic worthy of FP status and I just nominated it. I am neither the sockpuppet of the uploader nor biased towards Estonia. I was browsing through the user page of the uploader and found this pic. Nikhil (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Italic text is copied from another page and in not a comment by Saffron Blaze to this nomination. Just wanted to warn Estonians for voting here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.253.101.124 (talk • contribs)

Well firstly, it is not great style to post unsigned comments from IPs. I think it would be for the better of this project, if we had people from all countries as engaged as the Estonians here. I cannot speak for POTY, but I see not a lot of issues going on FP. If people think that images should not promoted, they have to oppose - simple as that, I do not think that there are enough people from any country here to get FPs through on their own. --DXR (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: I was not aware about the ongoing issue at the talk page. However that does not change my opinion since it is a special issue involving two users, not an entire country... --DXR (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, DXR. Whoever is editing from that IP, I think it is not in the interest of Wikimedia Commons to write a reckless comment about bias towards a country without logging in. As I said, I nominated the pic here only when I thought that this would be worthy of being an FP. It had nothing to do with my nationality or that it was a pic from Estonia. One can point out any technical flaws in the nomination without logging in, but please stop making prejudiced comments. Nikhil (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be surprised the IP address is from Estonia? That aside, I never said there is arranged country block voting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm sorry but I don't want to participate here. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Urmas Haljaste, according to the guidelines you can withdraw photos authored by you. Or am I wrong? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination thank you for advice. I must have missed this possibility. Thought it is only a nominators privilege. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hausdülmen, Heubach -- 2014 -- 3.jpg

File:Albarracín, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 154.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 23:02:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Peña la Cruz, Pinares de Rodeno (in English Cross Rock, Sandstone Pine Forest) is a protected landscape than spans 6 829,05 ha and is distributed over the municipalities of Albarracín, Bezas and Gea de Albarracín, province of Teruel, Aragón, Spain. All by me, Poc o² 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not sharp. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Noticeable sensor dust. RalfHuels (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither light, nor motive, composition or quality is imho appealing. Sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 19:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Calle Nikhom Makassan, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 01.jpg

File:2013 Patterdale Ullswater Boredale Hause.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 17:52:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Thunderstorm coming up – c/u/n by -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kreuzschnabel (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. Yann (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes, beautiful! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks over-saturated. --Rutake (talk) 09:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Ever been in the Lake District on a bright autumn day? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No I haven't. --Rutake (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The EXIF data says "Saturation=High" so it has been boosted a bit, probably in-camera. However, I will confirm the colours can be vivid on a bright autumn day and some adjustment of saturation is quite normal. I guess the turquoise sky next to the orange slopes is a bit clashing in terms of colour harmony. -- Colin (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is a beautiful landscape but the composition isn't working for me. The cloud keeps taking my attention off the land. The smoke is a fire rather than a steam train, which is a shame. The path isn't successfully leading the eye. I'd like to see a bit more of the lake and less of the path. The 4:3 ratio doesn't help I think. -- Colin (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturation, smoke from a wrong source, bad crop (with the cumulonimbus cut off). (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn’t know there was such a thing like right and wrong smoke sources. Since there is no railway line even near this place, a steam train would be much wronger a source IMO. Is there a list of the goodness of smoke sources I can refer to before taking my next photo of a wrong one? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refer to Colin's comment. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which one? "The smoke is a fire rather than a steam train, which is a shame"? I can see no point in putting a steam train besides that hedged wall – far off any railway line! – just to please the eye. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great for me. Halavar (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination This is a ridiculous discussion about wrong smoke sources. I surely like that pic regardless of a FP tag. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kreuzschnabel: Even if you don't talk about the smoke source, the picture still has other problems, such as the crop and oversaturation. Hope you can understand. I'm not insulting you or your photograph, it's just a comment and my opinion. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blue tit front and back-lit.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 20:49:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baresi franco - uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Baresi, but the head is not very well-focused. And the bird "stands out" in the picture in the wrong way. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 01:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't agree, in my opinion the head is focused well. Halavar (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is not on the head / eyes. The FP bird bar is quite high, and this one is imho no FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Tuxyso. This is a common bird. -- Colin (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Focus is IMHO acceptable but this picture looks strange to me, have you reworked the bokeh with a noising mask? to me the bird looks isolated from the enviroment, especially around the head. Poco² 21:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment - I've done some background noise reduction via a mask, but nothing drastic. The isolation from the environment is caused by a very strong backlight from sun reflected off a window, and combined with the facing side getting the direct sunlight is part of the reason I like it so much. If it was just backlit you'd lose contrast in the subject, but here you don't - this does look different, I'll grant you. This here was one that got away (and in a slightly different spot along the same branch), but also shows the same backlit effect. The light was reflected off a small window, and only lasted a few minutes to illuminate this particular spot --Baresi franco (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Example of the front/backlight
- I've uploaded a crop from the original that hasn't had any work done to compare - it's second from the top in the file history. Cheers --Baresi franco (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Heavy photoshoping. Not realistic picture. --Kikos (talk) 07:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Above comments confirm my thoughts that the bird seems to "stand out" in the picture - but not in the good way. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. —Blurred Lines 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Obviously not popular lighting conditions for a bird-on-a-twig photo. Thanks for the comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baresi franco (talk • contribs) 02:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MatsaluSuitsuJõgi.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 10:46:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Urmas Haljaste - nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Very nice environmental portrait. You might get some complaints about tilt but with old buildings it is not so relevant. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment similar FP for reference. J e e 05:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same shit different day. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. Is it just flipped? Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Looking at the satellite map and the image... this one is flopped image of the same place. --Ivar (talk) 06:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a photograph, not a photocopy. Yes, it is flipped. I think it looks better this way. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Flip doesn't represent reality => clearly disqualifies from FP, and btw the geocode seems incorrect. --A.Savin 09:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reduced educational value; maybe suitable to describe Flipped image. Other similar stuff already FP. J e e 10:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't know that. Some of my other FPs are also flipped. I will start to delist them. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 10:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just flip them back then. Why to cause trouble? And why to flip them in the first place? Kruusamägi (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; just flip them back. I see no need for a mass delist. J e e 15:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COM:OVERWRITE? --A.Savin 15:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a point; but if FPC community accept it, I see no problem. Anyway better wait till POTY ends. J e e 15:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this case this is the correct flip and better processed. A delist and replace wold be suitable here. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will never happen. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best. -- (unsigned)
Oppose If this one is flipped copy of existing FP (just positioned very slightly different) then I'm annoyed the nominator has tried to fool us into promoting two nearly identical pictures at FP. -- Colin (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: Note, here the nominator is different. J e e 12:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't spot that. Still, having two mirror images will lead to these mistakes. Which is why I also don't support requesting the "original" be uploaded in cases where the flip doesn't matter. -- Colin (talk) 13:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one is different as there is an existing FP of the same image. This should not have been nominated. However, it is my opinion this is a superior edit. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know about the satellite image but I have actually been at Suitsu and it seems to me that this one is truthful and the other picture is flipped. But I could be wrong. This one just seems more genuine. I guess satellites never lie. In either case, I don't feel deceived. --Rutake (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nissan Altima at Salton Sea 2013.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 12:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support IMHO, the lighting is excellent and quality is decent but the composition could have been better. I wish the car could have been captured front-on rather than side-on.Nikhil (talk) 13:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Pro: Light works well, nice scenery; Con: 15mm equiv. makes the rear of the car superlong, not sure about the gap between palmtree and car. --DXR (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @DXR: I've very corrected stretching very moderately. Keep in mind that the car is quite long :) I like the gap between palmtree and car - it brings some tension into the photo. I've used wide-angle to include as much as possible from the interesting environment and placed the car just under the remarkable cloud. I was a bit in hurry because the outside temperature was 47°C (117°F) :) --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have actually looked up normal images of the car before commenting the first time and stay with my opinion. I see and understand your points, but I just do not really find the overall composition pleasing to my eyes, sorry. But it's just a matter of personal taste of course... --DXR (talk) 09:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Has the technical quality and "wow" factor. Deserves to become a featured picture. --DAJF (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems really partially stretched. The rear wheel is not round, the front is. The upper part of the sky is too dark. Polfilter? -- -donald- (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used a polfilter. But for this kind of motive I really like it and think it is fortunate :) Nonetheless the sky was very dark blue. Stretching: You have some kind of distortion with such wide-angle shots, I guess that is not changeable anymore. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition just not working here. Shame, because there are the elements of a car commercial here. -- Colin (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: What had you done better? Where do you see room for improvements? --Tuxyso (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The critic is entitled to comment without being talented enough to do better!! :-). The components are far apart with a hole in the middle. The elements on the left of the tree are distracting. The car overlaps the sea in a way that seems accidental rather than posed. The white sand needs to be an out-of-focus background rather than something so detailed you see the imperfections (such as the weed near the car's tyre). The car is too small and in an undramatic side-view pose. The front of the car is not as well lit as the back. I don't know what your intention is but I guess I'd be looking to create an image that makes one think "Beautiful car in a perfect setting", but where the subject (the car) is dominant and detailed and the setting is more of an impression. -- Colin (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Colin, first: Thanks a lot for your circumstantial comment - I really appreciate constructive comments with ideas for improvements. It's a good question what my original intention of the shot was. I am no commercial photographer thus "Beautiful car in a perfect setting" was not my very intention. The location, the Salton Sea, has been a very popular holiday location in the 19th century. Famous stars like Frank Sinatra had their fincas there. But the sea was massively polluted by farming and is now acid. The past splendour of the place is gone, the villages around the sea become more and more ghost village, see e.g. this photo and tourist do not yet go there. Thus my original intention was not perfection. At the first glance the setting implies such perfection (blue sky, nice clours sea, palms, ...) but at the second glance this perfection is undermined: dirt on the sand, the gap between car and palm tree, the massively leaning electricity pylons at the very left. I confess that the composition is improveable if one had moved the car - I just went out (46°C) and tried to compose a photo as good as possible - I was satisfied with the result. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Very interesting. Well all I can do is repeat my request that folk offer a rationale for this picture like you've done now. Some pictures work simply as straightforward subject shots for WP, say, but others are more complex or have interesting shooting conditions. See Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Stipiturus malachurus - Southwest National Park.jpg for another case where it would be interesting to know the situation and be explicit about the technical challenges. There are feelings about this photo and the landscape that are in your head and didn't translate to the bare picture nom. If it was part of a visual narrative of the area, then it might have worked better (though I'm not sure how this car fits into that story). It would be nice if someone offered such a visual narrative as a FP set, say. Would make a change from assessing sole photographs that are expected to stand alone in judgement. -- Colin (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Background information to photographs are interesting, especially in technically challenging cases. Your idea to add narratives to photos is interesting. But I see problems with the language gap. Those people who are more familiar with the English language do have advantages with such nominations. Nonetheless I completely agree that background information to FP noms are valueable and should be added if possible. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        By "narrative" I meant en:Visual narrative, not text (though words in the description are useful). See "The Photographer's Story: The Art of Visual Narrative" by Michael Freeman, for example. -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I mostly agree with Colin's perception. My first impresion here was a car and a palm, none of which are predominant but still tends to be in my eyes a (not featurable executed) commercial shot of a Nissan car. The fact that the surface of the sea is hidden by the car, and the elements on the left are also a minus to me. I would also add the the sharpness is just middle of the road (applies to both, the palm and the car). Summary: strange composition that doesn't work to me and is not overweighted by quality, sorry. Btw, I fully agree on the need of adding a description with the nomination. I have always done it and will always do because it adds value to the nomination and we all want to learn something there. Furthermore if there is no information we could miss something (intention of the photographer, cultural or historical value, etc.). Poc o² 11:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment need a crop at bottom, IMO.--Claus (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sky too dark and it really looks better intended for a two-page magazine spread. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support We have far too little of such commercial photos here. --Ralf Roleček 11:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- S. DÉNIEL, can you please give a reason for your Contra vote? --Tuxyso (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Si vous regardez l'histograme vous verrez que l'exposition n'ait pas bonne. Les couleurs sont ternes. La composition est pauvre et ne met pas en valeur un sujet principale (l'arbre, la voiture ?). L'ensemble est plat. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, probably someone can translate it into English or German?! --Tuxyso (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Tuxyso: If you look at the histogram you will see that the exhibition is not good. The colors are dull. The composition is poor and does not value a main topic (the tree, the car?). The whole is flat. --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (The response was translated by —Blurred Lines 17:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]
      - @Tuxyso: You can actually try Google Translate first, unless they give you a really bad translation then you can ask for someone to translate. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:TOBURAILWAY SERIES6050 6151F SECRAPID6R.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 07:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ohtsuka Makoto - uploaded by Ohtsuka Makoto - nominated by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a very pleasant angle, interessting object, technical perfect, enough "wow" for me. -- Wladyslaw (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it.--ArildV (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really like it, but there is no "WOW". --XRay ^talk 16:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the subject, BUT: 4.7MP out of a 24MP camera (downsampled? or 5 times digital zoom?), ISO 800 in bright daylight? Unsharp foreground, unsharp tail of the train. Burnt out (and brought back to grey) sky on the upper right. Strange looking background. --P e z i (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) What's the problem with the downsampling? It's just the decision of the photographer. The minimum requirement is given! Maybe the photographer wants to sell a version of higher resolution and gives us this one. This is his right to do so if he wants.

(2) All important parts of this train are in focus and sharp. For sure neither the tail nor the bottom part is important. So we have perfect focus here.

(3) We can't judge how the lightning situation was in fact. So the ISO 800 may be a good decision. First: for me it does not look like a very shiny day, more like a cloudy one. Second: we have here a moving object and not a fixed. So ISO 800 isn't very wrong to ensure a short exposure time. I don't see an adverse effect of noise in this picture, are you?

(4) I don't see anything strange about this background. Did I miss s.th.? --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, offering low-resolution with a CC licence while thinking you one can sell the high-resolution version is no longer wise since CC have warned they may be considered legally the same "work of copyright" and so both under CC. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an assumption and is absolutely not relevant why the photographer did resize the original. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well-composed, good exposure. No problems with size either. --DAJF (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tax, a couple of real good ones like this just popped into QI. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I'm really picky about rule-of-thirds, and the picture also isn't sharp enough. Good capture nonetheless. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow and technically nothing special. -- Colin (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kapsuglan (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 17:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dornas no porto de Aguiño. Ribeira. Galiza R31.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 17:42:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I had already nominated this in a Set, but it did not work. Set: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Aguiño, Ribeira, Galicia (Spain); One day after withdraw. Created and uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (Lmbuga) - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Good picture! -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Both are nice but somehow similar. I prefer this one. I enjoy the calmness of the scene and the colors. A bit more of sky could help IMO Poc o² 10:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, a bit more of sky, you're right--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 10:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 10:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (Lmbuga): Cyan line. See notes. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 11:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cyan lines are produced by rocks of the seabed when they are near the surface. A Cyan line (or stain) can also be produced by a brown alga that is very common in these waters and can cover large areas. There are this lines in the RAW file--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The path of the bridge is one of the lines of rocks. It was rebuilt because the rocks were emerging from the waters--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:3, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Support —Blurred Lines 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - saturation of the color red --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmbuga: isto é solucionável? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to desaturate more. At one time I upload another version, but the red color has been desaturated previously. The red color is very vivid to better see the boats at sea. If the boats were painted in the summer, as usual (the picture was taken on August 9), the color is very vivid. I'll try to desaturate more. At one time I upload another version -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Você terá que fazer antes das 17 horas e 42 minutos do dia 1 de Março, pois é a hora do fechamento da nomeação. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Red colors desaturated. I can desaturate more -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@S. DÉNIEL: Is good for you now? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Male Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Parc du Rouge-Cloître, Brussels.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 18:07:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Vassen - uploaded by Ariefrahman - nominated by Ariefrahman -- Ariefrahman (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ariefrahman (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle and sharpness problems. Head is especially blur. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Arctic Kangeroo's comment regarding sharpness and I'd add that it is over the acceptable noise thershold (including chromatic noise). For this kind of picture I just expect a crispy head Poc o² 10:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - composition --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Mar 2014 at 17:31:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info I had already nominated this, but I withdraw, did a set and it did not work. First nomination: Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Porto e o Carreiro de Aguiño coa súa ponte. Ribeira. Galiza R32.jpg; Two days after withdraw. Set: Commons:Featured picture candidates/Set/Aguiño, Ribeira, Galicia (Spain); One day after withdraw. Forgive me please. Created and uploaded by Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (Lmbuga) - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! The montains are fabulous. I like the image. Good composition, good quality and good subject. Congratulations Lmbuga! I wish you good pictures! Regards -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful scenery, IMO. --DXR (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 10:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Luis Miguel Bugallo Sánchez (Lmbuga): Cyan line. See notes. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 11:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cyan lines are produced by rocks of the seabed when they are near the surface. A Cyan line (or stain) can also be produced by a brown alga that is very common in these waters and can cover large areas. There are this lines in the RAW file--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The path of the bridge is one of the lines of rocks. It was rebuilt because the rocks were emerging from the waters--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 13:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 17:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - saturation of the color red --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmbuga: isto é solucionável? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Red colors desaturated -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@S. DÉNIEL: Is good for you now? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:205kei train in JR Nikko line 02.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 04:39:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fortew F - uploaded by Fortew F - nominated by DAJF -- DAJF (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- DAJF (talk) 04:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dust spots should be removed. Geocoding would be appreciated. --P e z i (talk) 12:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Dust spots removed (2 highlighted plus 2 other faint ones). --DAJF (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful image complete with nice snowy mountains. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good reflection and compo, but more than a half of a picture is empty.--Jebulon (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quite like this but I am wondering about the colour banding in the sky. Is that an artefact? Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The quality is not really high and the crop can be improved (agree with Jebulon here) but the scenery is overall FP to me. I know that spot, the temples and natural park of Nikko are amazing Poc o² 10:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The composition is intelligent and very good (although a tighter cropping of the sky and water are possible).--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tamba52 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I cannot bring it about the heart to vote with oppose because the scenery and the reflections are very nice. But the important train is nearly completely in shadow which looks quite unfortunate. Probably one could try to selectively brighten the train. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Frame is not filled. --Rutake (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Le ito xx 13:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 09:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Maly Krashokholmsky bridge 4exp Oloneo.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Mar 2014 at 10:18:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Kaluga.2012 - nominated by A.Savin 10:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 10:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DAJF (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 19:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 06:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose I like the colors and the quality is good but a centered composition without any extraordinary elements in it makes me decline. I just cannot see anything featurable in that bridge and the lights are also a bit distracting, sorry. Poc o² 10:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Chmee2 (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, per Poco.--Claus (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Quality, light and colors are nice, but the composition is completely disorganized. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither composition nor subject convince me. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support the weak is for the saturation, a bit too much for my tastes, but however nice. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Background is too busy, foreground is too busy, the main object just doesn't stand out. --Rutake (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Claus. --Mile (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That seems odd. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 19:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sarah Bernhardt, par Nadar, 1864.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 08:53:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Félix Nadar, uploaded, restored and nominated by Yann (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Portrait of French stage actress Sarah Bernhardt (1844-1923), around 1864, by Félix Nadar (1820-1910). This picture is exactly 150 years now.
Support -- Yann (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support iconic! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Yes, please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be a stunning portrait even today. Wonderful light. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Avenue (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO, the restoration should be more carefuly done. Many and many scratches, tears and spots could be removed. and you cannot say around 1864, and exactly 150 years... --Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 18:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Historical

File:Fuchsia 'Land van Beveren'.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 06:34:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Fuchsia 'Land van Beveren'. Rich flowering hanging fuchsia. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose background is disturbing. --Rutake (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Émilion and Vineyards.jpg, not featured

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

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- TigrouMeow (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TigrouMeow (talk) 06:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong perspective distortion. --Rutake (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. I have no corrections profile for this lens but I can do it manually. Would that do it for you? --TigrouMeow (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The distortion originates in the angle of the camera (horizon not centered vertically) and isn't a fault of the lens. So no lens profile would fix it. I personally don't find it too annoying because it's not a strictly architectural shot. However, I do find the composition to be somewhat lacking in wow or a clear structure in the image. There is also some overexposure on the sunlit walls. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 20:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rutake/Julian -- Colin (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woody Guthrie 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Mar 2014 at 09:36:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Al Aumuller/New York World-Telegram and the Sun - uploaded by Urban, edited by Durova - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I like it. Illustrative for artist and era. Kleuske (talk) 11:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 16:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beach in Tropea - Calabria - Italy - July 25th 2013 - 01-cropped.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 22:47:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Norbert Nagel - uploaded and cropped by Lmbuga - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry. It's a good image, but there is nothing like "Wow".--XRay ^talk 10:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per XRay. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination because Wow factor. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lagoon Nebula.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 22:40:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Gas and dust condense, beginning the process of creating new stars in this image of Messier 8, also known as the Lagoon Nebula. Original nomination. Created by ESO - uploaded by EricHS211 - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good angle of the Lagoon Nebula -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nebula is not centralized enough. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:St Wilfrid's RC Church.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 16:28:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Mdbeckwith - uploaded by Mdbeckwith - nominated by Mdbeckwith -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Mdbeckwith (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would, in my opinion, benefit from perspective correction, less HDR editing, more sharpness and better categorization. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 17:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but overprocessed to my eyes, not very sharp and contaminated with random black dots on the benches. Not FP quality to me. --DXR (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the previous comment. --Rutake (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose fine perspective but too much HDR --Ralf Roleček 11:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DXR. —Blurred Lines 16:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose random hot & dead pixels, needs perspective straightening, creepy hdr exposure—Love, Kelvinsong talk 04:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks not natural. Additional noise. Sorry. --XRay ^talk 10:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral of Albi - Nave and Organ - 7029.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 07:21:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by PierreSelim - uploaded by PierreSelim - nominated by PierreSelim -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Nave of the Cathedral of Saint Cecilia in Albi, with its organ. Below the organ we can see a fresco displaying the Last judgement.
Support -- PierreSelim (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 08:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 15:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not too bad. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 21:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice subject and execution Poc o² 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. Nikhil (talk) 02:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superbe ! Et pas seulement parce que ma fille aînée s'appelle Cécile ! --Jebulon (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Motive is intersting, quality is very good. But why have you choosen such a tight left/right crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the pixels lost are due to correction of perspective distortion. --PierreSelim (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the information. Currently I leave my vote to Neutral, but I think you have got enough supporters :) Nonetheless a great photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for your review (you know I consider FPC as a tool to improve, so all advices are welcome). --PierreSelim (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 05:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pygocentrus nattereri Palais de la Porte Dorée.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 12:40:20 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness issues, evident on the entire piranha, and especially on some of the spots near the tail. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arctic Kangaroo. —Blurred Lines 16:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 15:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steirapollen, 2010 September.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 08:42:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Sjokolade -- Sjokolade (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sjokolade (talk) 08:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 11:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it very much! Halavar (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice photo, I like colors. --Paralacre (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral very nice, but imo a bit too centered --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This is one of my ”early” entries in dslr photography. To be honest, i'm not the biggest fan of the composition in this picture anymore. There are some things I would have done other way if it was now. I still appreciate the nomination and, most of all, hope that even these pictures get useful for Wikipedia etc. Thanks! :) --Ximonic (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Composition might be average, but the colors are beautiful. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice colors, composition is fine. Yann (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strongly over-saturated. --Rutake (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Rutake. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 15:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Charvet Place Vendôme third floor 08.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 06:00:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ctruongngoc - uploaded by Ctruongngoc - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, nothing special, bad light. -- -donald- (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad light. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 10:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentJe ne comprends pas pourquoi cette photo a été présentée. Il y en a d’autres dans la série qui sont bien plus intéressantes. Une volonté de se dénigrer mon travail ? --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As Donald, nothing special. --Karelj (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Paris 16 (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Church of St. Laurence, Seale front.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 12:02:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by Lewis Hulbert -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @S. DÉNIEL, It's a courtesy to give reasons for a decline. Probably the photographer has spent a lot of effort into the photo and wants to know what's wrong with it. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:James "Midge" Ure of Ultravox 2012 at the E-Werk Cologne.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 16:15:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MHPhoto - uploaded by MHPhoto - nominated by MHPhoto -- MHPhoto (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MHPhoto (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To give some feedback: The resolution is pretty low but that's not too bad in a concert scenario, I think. I like the composition and general quality, but the photo seems to have a strong tint. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian H. —Blurred Lines 17:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent composition. Great concert shot taken under difficult conditions. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Frank --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Purekkari neemel.jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 13:36:35

Info Picture is flipped, does not represent reality, reduced educational value. (Original nomination)
Delist -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --G Furtado (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because "No reason to delist" must be a joke - if landscape pictures are allowed to be flipped and biased any possible way, then what comes next? Maybe a flipped version of this picture as a POTY? Besides, I find this whole show with mass-nominating and then mass-delisting of own pictures kind of community time wasting, for which the account "Urmas83" imo deserves a fat block. Enough is enough, really. --A.Savin 14:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urmas, please have some pride in your photography. Anyways, it's very interesting to see how the waves look like mist when exposure is increased to a few seconds under strong wind conditions. Like Yann, I find there's absolutely no reason to delist. Urmas is gone. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is flipping anyway? I still can't get it after reading the Wikipedia article. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Flippind is the inversion of the left and the right. FP have to be the most exact reflection of the reality --Christian Ferrer 14:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will change my vote to "keep" if you flip it back --Christian Ferrer 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral I prefer to wait without pronouncing me --Christian Ferrer 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, a flipped image is the same as a horizontal mirror image. May be OK e.g. for certain objects or animals, but never ever for landscapes, cityscapes, buildings,... except of course for special educational purposes which yet isn't the case here. --A.Savin 14:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I hope that you will not nominated the unflipped picture later on, if you are planning to do that, it should be a replace and delist and not just a delist Poc o² 14:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nothing against the pictures otherwise but I do agree about the flipping. Photographs like these are likely to be used in Wikipedia and That's where the educational value of the picture is important. A flipped landscape doesn't represent the reality and so the educational value is kind of lost because it's misleading for someone who tries to study the places by the photographs for example. --Ximonic (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Savin.--Claus (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just flip it back. I consider that an uncontroversial edit that should not affect FP status. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume from these edits ([1], [2], [3]) that Urmas83 is now in a pressure and has a difficulty to understand the points. Urmas83, please read the policies and guidelines, especially COM:SCOPE and COM:IG and discuss on the FPC:Talk if you have any doubts. Note that your contributions are irrevocable and any other user can and create an unflipped image from it as the license you granted allows "to adapt". Please stay calm to constructive criticisms that will be good for you in long time. J e e 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best.
I didn't say any of your images is flipped. I only made a reference of your previous FP, one user asked whether they are flipped and you answered "yes". We have a policy COM:AGF, so we are committed to believe you unless it can be proved otherwise. You can clearly see what I said later. COM:SCOPE demands realistic pictures for architectures and landscapes as they can't be flipped in real life. I am not bothered about animals or objects that can be turned. Plants can be turned easily; but that also not a big problem. All I see is some pointy attempts from your side, which are very premature IMHO. Your works are wonderful; stay calm and come back when you feel comfortable. J e e 10:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We don't even know if the image is actually flipped, or just the uploader venting his frustration. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With King: Seems to me that this is a "political" delist nom. Should be kept until proof is given that the image is really flipped. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for delist. Artistically the picture works either way though it is different. So either we believe it is flipped in which case someone should just flip it back, or we think nominator is lying. -- Colin (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest a speedy closing ("kept") and moving to log as the user already showed some discomfort. I think further discussion will do more harm to him. J e e 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flip is uncontroversial to the subject. Add a retouched template as suggested by Colin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Pudelek (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saffron Blaze. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently in finals at POTY. Defeaturing it now, and over this issue, would be embarassing. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Blurred Lines 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --P e z i (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 5 delist, 13 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 15:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kakerdaja raba talvine maastik.jpg (delist), not delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Mar 2014 at 13:10:32

Info Image is flipped, does not represent reality, reduced educational value (Original nomination)
Delist -- Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why you flipped those pictures? Here we need "realistic pictures" as per our scope, especially for landscapes, architectures and other static objects. Flipping an animal or object will not hurt that much as they can also turn themselves. ;) J e e 13:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the rising diagonals from left to right. They add some tension to the image and make them pleasant somehow. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 13:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is flipping anyway? I still can't get it after reading the Wikipedia article. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delist. Yann (talk) 13:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --G Furtado (talk) 13:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist same reason as above, flipping landscape/building pictures is a no-go --A.Savin 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Urmas is gone anyway. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist FP have to be the most exact reflection of the reality --Christian Ferrer 14:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will change my vote to "keep" if you flip it back --Christian Ferrer 18:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Neutral I prefer to wait without pronouncing me --Christian Ferrer 17:30, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I don't undestand though what is the motivation to flip a picture and so deceive the viewer Poc o² 14:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Savin.--Claus (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tomer T (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume from these edits ([4], [5], [6]) that Urmas83 is now in a pressure and has a difficulty to understand the points. Urmas83, please read the policies and guidelines, especially COM:SCOPE and COM:IG and discuss on the FPC:Talk if you have any doubts. Note that your contributions are irrevocable and any other user can and create an unflipped image from it as the license you granted allows "to adapt". Please stay calm to constructive criticisms that will be good for you in long time. J e e 02:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, any other user can unflip them but can you be sure the images really are flipped? Even if you tried to locate the places you probably would not be able to recognize the views in nature. This shows how absurd the discussion really is. The sequence of trees or stones doesn't matter. It is not a deception. There are no heritage protection object in these pictures. The flip does not change the nature, the atmosphere nor the quality of the site. I don't know about you but I'm not a google street-view photographer and I'm not environmental copyist. Since my work doesn't fit yours standard, I will not contribute anymore. It must be a relief to many of you. Wish you all the best.
Keep We don't even know if the image is actually flipped, or just the uploader venting his frustration. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With King: Seems to me that this is a "political" delist nom. Should be kept until proof is given that the image is really flipped. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for delist. Artistically the picture works either way. So either we believe it is flipped in which case someone should flip it back, or we think nominator is lying. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest a speedy closing ("kept") and moving to log as the user already showed some discomfort. I think further discussion will do more harm to him. J e e 12:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flip is uncontroversial to the subject. Add a retouched template as suggested by Colin. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image works both ways. "Retouched" template may be all that's needed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Saffron Blaze. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per everyone else. Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Blurred Lines 17:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --P e z i (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 delist, 13 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. --A.Savin 15:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pont de Bir-Hakeim and view on the 16th Arrondissement of Paris 140124 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 19:20:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me, -- DXR (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although this bridge is fairly well known, and imo one of Paris' nicest bridges, few images are around that manage to show its character well at night. Especially the metal construction at the bottom often gets lost in images that capture the entire bridge since it is very dark. The image presented here is not an HDR, but has been reworked in LR to an extent that I would consider appropriate to its actual appearance. The color of the sky is true to the reality of the evening, the light line above is a metro train crossing the bridge. -- DXR (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 20:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Brilliant bit of work. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mega Support Woaaeiuoiaeaeoiow Superb! ;D ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, still I'd do some denosing in the darker areas below the bridge Poc o² 21:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks a lot for the nice reviews! I have tried to address Poco's comment and done a bit of selective denoising --DXR (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Excellent, except the blurry water at right, which is a bit disturbing, in comparison of the rest of the water. Is it improvable ? -Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, it is a 13 second exposure and the river is flowing, so no, I guess, sorry. I have no clue why it would be different for the different parts of the river, though, but it is consistent for all images I took there. Not an expert on fluid dynamics, unfortunately ;-) --DXR (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably due to the retouche you mentionned. Anyway, no matter.--Jebulon (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I swear not! I only retouched a mini bit at the very right. It must be due to moving waves. --DXR (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Superbe. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. You could try to further denoise the sky, but nonetheless FP for me. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A great one.--Jebulon (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jebulon! --mathias K 05:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great image! Halavar (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me it doesn't work, the sky is ugly. This happens with night long exposure when you missed the blue hours. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sky is offset by the light on the bridge and buildings. For me, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Relief CoA Pius V ceiling Santa Maria in Aracoeli, Rome, Italy.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 19:18:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Detail of the sculpted ceiling of the church Santa Maria in Aracoeli, on the Capitole Hill. Here, the relief of the coat of arms of pope Saint Pius V (1504 - 1566 -1572), of the House of Ghislieri. Rome, Italy.-- Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think, I'd increase contrast a bit Poco² 21:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think, you are right (as often). I've increased the contrast a little, and desaturated a bit too.--Jebulon (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @ Poco²: Thanks for helpful comment. Do you think it works better ?--Jebulon (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support Indeed :) Poc o² 19:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I have difficulties with such art nominations. The motive has definitely Wow potential but isn't it the wow coming from the original artist and not from the way is is photographed? For me as a person who is mainly interested in photographic aspects of Commons it is difficult to assess how much work is by Jebulon and how much work is from the original artist. If there was special effort necessary in order to photograph the motive in the way as it is done here I can warmy encourage the photographer to provide these information with together with nomnination. --Tuxyso (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you enjoy ? Then support is the last word. Do you think a FP needs to be difficult to be taken ? IMO you are basically wrong, but in this case, be sure that it is difficult. To photograph anything inside, without tripod, among tourists, is very hard. Do you think that post-processing work must be hard and must take time ? Again, you are wrong IMO. But be sure that it was hard and took a lot of my time. Anyway, you can compare with other similar works, like (no offense to the photographer) this one... I don't see any difference with a garden perspective photograph or a nice building picture or a wonderful mountain landscape (What is feature-able in Versailles ? The Le Nôtre gardens, or a very good picture of Le Nôtre gardens ? A nice old building is feature-able because of the photographer, or because of the architect ? Idem for anything). I've nominated this picture, simply because it is different, because I think the technical quality is up to the FP standards, and because I find this beau-ti-ful. And, more than any support vote or any FP star (I've got enough), I'm happy to share, from time to time, my vision of beauty with high level other photographers, better photographer than me. But at the end, once FP technical standards checked, let your heart speak. If you hear nothing, then ignore, and assess another picture. Long explanations in nominations has never made a picture better... Have you ever seen that kind of ceilings before ? This is the best relief of the CoA of pope Saint Pius V we have, and remember: this is not a wall, but a ceiling...
- About pictures of works of art in general, as for me I just abstain for paintings (especially when famous), because I'm never sure of the colors (remember the last "Van Gogh", recently nominated with a very different alternative). But I think all other works of art are welcome here. When I nominate the Pietà of Michelangelo as FP candidate, be sure that I chose a masterpiece, and a ++ very good (IMO) version, very "worked", and deserving at least the nomination. That's an interesting discussion, and I'd be happy to continue it with you, dear Tuxyso. But it is not the place, and the "Babel" problem is still here...--Jebulon (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much for the circumstantial answer. No need to add anything. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I honestly believe that the vertical lines on the right side needs perspective correction because they are not straight -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no doubt about your honesty, but as already answered in QIC page, the line is so in real, because it is a 1550 wooden ceiling. Try a correction by yourself, and you will see that straightness is impossible, because it is NOT a deformation due to the lens.--Jebulon (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nice but a little bit noisy and a very little too much of clarity for my tastes --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support in case of correction ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course I will, in measure where the correction will be correctly made and will improve the picture or not. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done--Jebulon (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok, thanks, it's better IMO Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 05:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Island of Prvić (Krk).jpg (delist)

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 08:27:49

Info see the discussion page (Original nomination)
Delist -- Rutake (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist We can't be even sure who's the author of this photo. Who is Ruta? Who am I? In addition, this image could be flipped. Is it really a photograhp? --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I verified on google, and this image is not flipped, and as for me Rutake and Urmas are at the moment two different people until proved otherwise in an official procedure --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More never-ending shit. On a side note, this looks highly suspicious like socking. It is sad that such a talented photographer (both Urmas and Rutake) is embroiled in this sort of thing. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Request Rutake, please withdraw this nomination and stay away from this topic. This is my last attempt to cool down the situation. J e e 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This image just got promoted last week, and someone already wants to delist it? Man, this is a waste of time. —Blurred Lines 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Iglesia de San Pedro, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 10.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 19:43:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior view of St Peter's church in Teruel, Aragón, Spain. The church, of mudéjar style was built in the 14th century and was declared World Heritage in 1986. The decoration, performed between 1896-1902, is a neo-mudéjar style. All by me, Poc o² 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, at the moment. Strong Wow for me, but I think perspective correction could be improved a bit. --DXR (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded addressing (I hope) the perspective issues you talked about, along with a better crop and some selective denoising Poc o² 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, now it's very nice. --DXR (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nice work not clipping the highlights with the windows. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Lmbuga Did'nt you notice that it is not straight at right because the perspective correction is not perfect (and I'm serious)?--Jebulon (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jebulon, what can be improved in your opinion? I haven't seen anything on the right that I should fix Poc o² 08:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jebulon (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. I am wondering if I like the very dark shadow parts of the wooden banks, but that is a good contrast to the nice and brighter interior of the church. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very special.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—nice comp & impressive size. Regarding the bend on the right I think it's probably that the actual support arch in the church is curved & not the camera bc the tan stripe to the right of it is straight to the ruler.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 04:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well done! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support +1 --mathias K 05:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 20:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Uferensemble RWW Stadthalle Schlossbrücke Mülheim 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 08:13:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Bank buildings at the river Ruhr river with Castle Bridge ("Schlossbrücke") and Town Event Hall ("Stadthalle"), Mülheim an der Ruhr
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good technical quality but not entirely convincing composition. The right part of the photo (the bridge) is not very interesting, have you considered a different crop?--ArildV (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- From an encyclopedic viewpoint the bridge is very important thus cropping out or massively reducing its visual importance is no good idea. From a compositional point I like the crossing of the two bridge structures at the golden-ratio position. I also tried to include some elements from the river bank at the right to give the photo some depth. Have you got a concrete suggestion for a better crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a suggestion. I dont think you lose any encyclopaedic value, the bridge is still there and the original image did not show the entire bridge either). IMO more focus on the buildings and a better and stronger composition. I think I'm Neutral right now, good QI but lacks something making it worthy FP.--ArildV (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It work for me -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are there other opinions on the crop? --Tuxyso (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The problem I see is not the right crop, that would be acceptable IMO since it is softy hidden by the tree. I can repeat in this candidate my comment from the Mülheim nomination. The quality is top but there is nothing spectacular here. The item drawing the attention is the bridge and it is not really appealing. Sorry to oppose once more, nothing personal, you know that. Poco² 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem Diego, but also give non world travelers a chance :) --Tuxyso (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Info ArildV and others: I made an alternative with a tighter crop at the right. Probably some people prefer this one. Let the crowd decide :) If you ask for the reason for nomination (valid for both cases): I think the light is quite good, level of detail is impressive and composition is interesting, especially the intersecting bridges in combination with the river and old buildings. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support --ArildV (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support I have been coming back to this several times in the last few days and I actually think this is a very good panorama with well-balanced composition and undoubted excellent technical quality. Really, the only issue for me is that the buildings are a bit boring. --DXR (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vasaparken 1944.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 12:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Figure skating in Vasaparken, Stockholm during school holiday February 21-26 1944. Good resolution and quality, consider that it is sport photo from 1940s. Created by Studio Gullers - uploaded by Holger.Ellgaard - nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could be FP, but it needs more restoration. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Restoration version

Comment I uploaded another version restorated --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Much better. Some more cleaning could be done, see notes. Yann (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you Wilfredo! --ArildV (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 14:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virla Bridge, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Mar 2014 at 18:08:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Virla Bridge. Sète, Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 24 february 2014 (UTC)
Support I adore the division of this photo because of the rounding of the bridge. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 24 february 2014 (UTC)
weak Support. The crop could be more radical imo - a bit too much concrete on the right side. Still, I do like the colors and the calm, almost serene atmosphere. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but no wow. The sweep of the handrail has potential but it doesn't stand out, being the same colour as the empty road, which dominates the right hand side. The flower boxes are all empty -- how much better this would be if they were full of colourful flowers. The pedestrian on the bridge looks glum, carrying her shopping bag. The road and boats all point towards a subject, which is good, but it is just a streetlamp, which isn't switched on. So the eye isn't rewarded. It is a lovely day, but the scene isn't really making me want to be there. If only we had an attractive couple walking towards the camera, with a riot of flowers in the boxes, and some attractive lighting... -- Colin (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will be back, deeply the spring. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 25 february 2014 (UTC)
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Geneva Panorama from St. Pierre.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 17:27:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by MarsPF2 - uploaded by MarsPF2 - nominated by MarsPF2 -- MarsPF2 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MarsPF2 (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose The picture is very, very blur. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, MarsPF2, but the image is currently well below the quality level expected from featured pictures. I assume that you are new here: To get a better understanding of the expectations we have you should first nominate some images at Quality Images to get a feeling what is necessary at a somewhat less harsh threshold of requirement. Please make also sure that you read the guidelines carefully before nominating. The image you have nominated here has fairly poor detail and not corrected white borders from the panorama stiching process. Furthermore the composition is not very convincing, showing some part of the tower. --DXR (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is stuffy when zoomed in, not good. —Blurred Lines 18:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informations! I'm new here! I tried, and now I understand more about the procedure. Surely a less quality image respect with the other images proposed here. Thanks for consideration. Goodbye --MarsPF2 (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't link the right side. --Villy Fink Isaksen (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cumulus Clouds over Yellow Prairie2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 04:40:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Wingchi Poon - uploaded by Kjetil Ree - nominated by Wingchi Poon -- Wingchi (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wingchi (talk) 04:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not seeing any wow. Resolution is quite low. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Crisco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me there is definitely a wow (there just isn't a landscape in Estonia where you can't see forest somewhere), but the image resolution and quality just ain't there. Kruusamägi (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's pretty standard as it is, but as what Crisco said, not much WOW. Sorry. —Blurred Lines 17:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 12:59:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kapsuglan (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't get why this is here. The stained glass is not a wonder and the picture is just of an average quality... --Selbymay (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. The resolution is quite low and the window really doesn't stand out as far as stained glass windows go, imo. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per above. And no sufficient description and categorization (I've had add the "St Peter St Paul" cat myself). We don't know who are represented, who made this work, and when. Lack of EV.--Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2014-02-19 15-51-35 graffitis-fort-du-salbert.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 16:12:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 05:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pleasant Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fv55 road at Sognefjellet, 2013 June.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 19:40:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Today's favourite. --Rutake (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --///EuroCarGT 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. Jianhui67^{talk★contribs} 13:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As soon as I saw it I knew it was one of Ximonic's. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cool! Poc o² 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Definitely a very interesting (and seldom) motive. But the composition is really boring. --Tuxyso (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B.p. 14:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Biopics: Could you add a reason(s) for your oppose? It's not very nice for the photographer or nominator to see the oppose vote without any reason stated. Thanks. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your concern. Can you add a reason for your support, then I'll reciprocate. B.p. 20:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You apparently (pretending?) don't get it if you say that. It's not very nice for the photographer or nominator to see the oppose vote without any reason stated. I'm sure both the nominator and photographer will be more than happy to see a support vote, whether or not a reason is given. If you oppose, you feel there's room for improvement, and surely the photographer will be curious about that, and it's a courtesy to explain as well. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Michelangelo's Pietà Saint Peter's Basilica Vatican City.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 18:28:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Michelangelo - Photographied, uploaded and nominated by me--Jebulon (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renomination after rework of this Michelangelo's Pietà, one of the marvels on the human genius IMO, and one of the great masterpieces of all times. This work has his own article in many wikipedias.I know that we already have a FP of the same subject, but it is now a bit old (2008), and a bit small. The nominated version has double size. It seems to have a sufficient quality (better than the already feaured version IMO - chromatic noise etc-). Those who know the place know also how it is difficult to take such a photograph, without tripod nor flash, and through a glass...-- Jebulon (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not really easy for me right now. I have never witnessed a delist and replace during my short time here, but wouldn't that be the right place for doing one with the FP you have mentioned? Both images show the same subject with approx. 30° difference in viewing angle while having a very comparable crop. That seems pretty similar to me. --DXR (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked myself the same question, but 1)We already have at least 3 FP of the Neuschwanstein castle taken from the same place (the bridge), 2) I'm not a fan of delisting old FP, and 3) as you noticed, my candidate is different, because not taken from the front. And there is no way to have another crop, due to the nature of the composition of the sculpture. Thoughts ? Supports ? --Jebulon (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support D&Rs make more sense on en:WP. I think it is wrong to force a contributor to make D&Rs when offering candidates to this project. BTW, a well executed image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Okay, given that two FPs of one subject appears to be accepted, I can well support as the quality is certainly good. However, may I suggest cropping a tiny bit to remove the right yellow part of the wall? Not a big deal, but I find it a bit distracting. --DXR (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support tbh I didn't actually see the sliver of yellow wall until DXR pointed it out but it is actually annoying. But not really at all a dealbreakerr—Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I personally prefer the viewing angle of the current fp, but with it´s better quality this one is still fp-worthy. --mathias K 05:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Classic, but very good:) Halavar (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Food for the mind in the lent. J e e 06:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Altstädtisches Rathaus nachts (MK).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Mar 2014 at 23:50:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Altstädtische Rathaus ("Old Townhall") in Brandenburg an der Havel (Germany) at night. c/u/n by me. -- mathias K 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 23:50, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perspective distortion. Or is the building just leaning?--Rutake (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I´ve uploaded a new, perspective corrected version. --mathias K 09:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support FP to me Poc o² 21:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 07:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Capri BW 2013-05-14 15-13-38 2 DxO.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 11:48:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Picture is not very well focused. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Would love to be there right now but User:Arctic Kangaroo is correct. This is much too soft and even blurry. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unsharp even at 50%—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 14:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Собор Воскресения Христова 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 09:31:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by AndreyWi - nominated by A.Savin 09:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 09:31, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support No wow. --Mile (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like the style. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support On this tablet this is perfect. Wonderful composition. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The church is nice, the boat is nice, but the crop is too tight and the tree is hiding the right side of the church. Not outstanding. --Rutake (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Halavar (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 11:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ralf Roleček 11:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 11:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak oppose Great picture, but imo the railing is rather distracting. Perhaps someone wants to remove it? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 17:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I dislike the crop. --Yikrazuul (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good subject but poor crop and those wires ruin it. -- Colin (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above, sorry. --Ivar (talk) 07:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too tight crop. --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 09:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not mind the railings as they close off the canal bottom left. Regarding the wires, one could have taken a second photo with the camera some 4-5cm vertically shifted and then suitably merged the two photos. On balance ok as wires are reality. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Crop. --Karelj (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Catedral de Puebla, México, 2013-10-11, DD 17.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 20:51:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info In the foreground the baroque style St Michael fountain, located in the Main Square of Puebla, dates from 1777. In the background the spectacular Cathedral, build in 1649 and of Herrerian style, Puebla, Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support impressive colors and excellent composition - "ghosts" not really disturbing --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 16:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not really convinced. The composition is imho a bit disorganized. I would suggest a tighter crop at the top (see note). IMHO the crop at the left is unfortunate because the socket of the fountain is cropped. The leafs at the top left should be copied out. A QI nightshot, but an FP? --Tuxyso (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully you like the last version better, I adapted the crop on the left and top. Please, let me know what you think. Poc o² 19:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely an improvement, but I am not fully convinced of the composition and perspective (looks somehow compressed due to perspective correction?) --Tuxyso (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Grey highlight clipping and generally very chaotic. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 12:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian and Tuxyso. -- Colin (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Black Phoebe at Las Gallinas Wildlife Ponds.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 22:13:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Frank Schulenburg – uploaded by Frank Schulenburg – nominated by Frank Schulenburg --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent profile portrait. Sharp all the way across. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support beautiful! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 08:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kostel svatého Bartoloměje v Pardubicích - vitráž.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2014 at 22:28:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think cropping some of the negative space at the top and adding a bit at the bottom would improve the compositional balance. Jonathunder (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Endzeit LARP.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 11:22:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by RalfHuels - uploaded by RalfHuels - nominated by RalfHuels -- RalfHuels (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- RalfHuels (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! Very nice and impressive work. It would be nice to provide some background information how the photo was created. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The foreground is lit with off-camera flash with a CTB gel. Custom white balance is set to the gel color to create the complementary tint to the sky and background. And the interior of the shed is lit with a mini softbox with a green cover. Should this go in the image description? --RalfHuels (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW I had a bit of a struggle whether this would be seen as an image manipulation under the guidelines. As the manipulation was done with lighting and in camera and showing the reality of the background location is clearly not the main purpose of the image, I chose not to flag the image as retouched, even though the colors are not what a human would have perceived at the scene. If consensus is otherwise, I'll add the template. --RalfHuels (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I know the lighting/PP will not be to everyone's taste but I admire the effort and the result. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. PP consists of standard Raw conversion, rotation by 1°, adjustment of exposure by half a stop downwards and a slight raising of the black level. RalfHuels (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron -- Colin (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Long Lonely Road.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 07:05:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info - For context cf. this CC blog entry; link in annotation didn't work: –Be..anyone (talk) 07:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ~~Resolution~~, but now I see much noise and it is very unsharp. --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info - My bad, not the fault of the photographer: Flickr has a better resolution, I uploaded it about a day after @DXR's and @Yikrazuul's comments. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the higher resolution version I have removed the FPX. --DXR (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh colors. DimiTalen 16:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Serious quality issues: Massive Oversharpening, remarkable sensor dust, overdone colors. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per above. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A long empty road is a common and good theme but this one isn't technically up to standard. -- Colin (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:A sheep with a couple of lambs in Breidsæterdalen, 2013 June.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 18:59:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ximonic - uploaded by Ximonic - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak pro Only a small "Wow". --XRay ^talk 10:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good capture and quality, but the composition and lighting is not convicing, Poc o² 21:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice but not strong enough to be FP. -- Colin (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think you accidentally used the wrong template. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 10:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gustav IIIs maskeraddräkt - Livrustkammaren - 24373.tif, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 14:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Livrustkammaren / Göran Schmidt - uploaded by LSHuploadBot - nominated by Lokal_Profil -- Lokal _Profil 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The masquerade dress worn by Gustav III of Sweden during his assassination in 1792.
Support -- Lokal _Profil 14:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very high HV, and technicaly good quality. FP to me.--Jebulon (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Portrait de madame de Verninac by David Louvre RF1942-16 n3.ogg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 20:06:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Coyau after a painting by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded and nominated by Coyau. Animation of the Portrait of Madame de Verninac by Jacques-Louis David. -- Coyau (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Coyau (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question What's the benefit of this video compared to the painting itself? --Martin Kraft (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why a video? -- -donald- (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Animated parallax are quite commun and successfull ([7], [8], [9], etc.). The point of this is the video. --Coyau (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 14.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Mar 2014 at 17:39:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Christian Ferrer - uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 1) Not enough wow. 2) The main object as stated in the image desccription is the pine forest, but that occupies a minority of the image, so I don't see the full picture of the "pine forest". 3) Urbanisation in the background. Makes the picture unnatural, when talking about "forests". (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 18:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arctic Kangaroo: Well, Christian said below that it changed the description to make it a better point for the picture. So, are you staying with your vote, or changing it? —Blurred Lines 19:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for the nomination, I improved the description. The place is protected by the Conservatoire du littoral. This pine forest have the particularity to to be one of the closest of the coast in the southern France. In this picture you see also two important things : the omnipresent silhouette in the region of the Mount Saint-Clair and the vegetable carpet of Salicornia europaea which have the particularity to to grow on salty ground. --Christian Ferrer 19:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the way the bridge runs very much and point 3 mentioned by AK (in the oppose vote) actually makes the image more valuable to me. --DXR (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Caecilius Mauß (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong clockwise rotation. No description. --Kikos (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos. That bridge should have started in the corner. I think this is correctable though. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just out of interest, I have examined the image in LR and with lines etc. and I do not find any convincing evidence for "strong tilts" when looking at verticals (there might be a minimal one, but a straight oppose based only on that is pretty harsh, imo). Surely the coastline is not reliable as indicator and I see a lot of pretty vertical lines. --DXR (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced on your argument that this isn't titled. Must be an illusion created by the landscape. Also, I tried a couple of different crops and could not improve on this composition. What I would have liked would have required a higher perspective. Removing the oppose. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DXR, indeed I've tried to put the verticals straight. And if there is a tilt it is not obvious IMO, and I don't see it. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given DXR's comment I opened the image in an editor and at full resolution it was very apparent there is no tilt with every vertical object perfectly perpendicular to the horizon. This is why I removed the oppose. I ask that Kikos consider doing the same. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose B.p. 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --mathias K 05:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom half is good with the clean wooden path, regular patterns, lovely still reflection, but then the eye is carried up to the top and things peter out. The centre has a few trees, a hazy hill and then further over some kind of oil refinery. The scrub land and trees which occupy so much of the image don't in themselves make a strong enough subject -- perhaps the bog has flowering plants another time of the year. Possibly a better photo could have concentrated only on the path and its reflection closer up. Or have a group or couple walking on the path. -- Colin (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 18 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Pulpit Rock Preikestolen Norway.jpeg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:03:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Preikestolen (Pulpit Rock) Norway.

Info all by -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose Sorry, its a amazing place but I dont think the composition do justice to Preikestolen. I think we have compositions that capture the dramatic landscape better (for example 1, 2 and 3.--ArildV (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very nice indeed. Do you think this version would stand up better or this? Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imo both are better. The first one is a more dramatic version of this image and the second picture gives a good overview . Assuming that both of them have the same high quality in higher resolution, I believe that both have a good chances. Both gives (imo) a better understanding for the landscape and height difference.--ArildV (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Arild. --Ivar (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Münster, Liudgerhaus und Diözesanbibliothek -- 2014 -- 2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 09:35:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 09:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Could be really good but there are some flaws. The people aren't posed helpfully and the white sign is unfortunate -- all the leading lines go down to them so they need to work. The crop at the top is a bit tight and the building on the right is leaning a little on its far edge. There's a bit of CA round the old building. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose X-Ray, I have to agree with Colin on this one. Lots of good ideas in here but the execution leaves something to be desired. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. I'll try to take another photo without the disturbing elements (and nominate the new one).--XRay ^talk 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Edificio principal, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 01.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 20:51:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Pond of the Schmuckhof (Jewel Courtyard) with the main building in the background, Botanical Garden, Munich, Germany. Although the Botanical Garden in Munich as institution exists since 1809 it moved to the current location exactly 100 years ago. All by me, Poc o² 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. The overcast sky and random visitors spoil it. Not sure about the crop either (the label in pond nearby is distracting). -- Colin (talk) 12:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As per Colin. While the world is not always a sunny place, drab skies rarely make for a stunning picture. That said this was a very interesting composition and it would be equally interesting to see this re-done under better lighting conditions. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy Saffron Blaze: sunny, snowy, heavily cloudy,...Poc o² 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great response :-) That first one is deservedly FP and I think it illustrates the point I was trying to make. I think the perspective of this image with that light would have been stunning. It would also be very cool to get the four seasons all taken from the exact same spot! Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Well, that's it, I guess Poc o² 16:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sant Maurici lake, Aigüestortes i Estany de Sant Maurici National Park, Spain - Diliff.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:54:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The photo is truly stunning, but unfortunately there's a lot of blurring and distortion at the edges... DimiTalen 21:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is a striking image (lots of wow) but the technical issues hardly qualify as one of our finest works. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice view, but sadly per Saffron. --mathias K 06:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I noticed this a little too late. The distortion is unfortunately due to the extremely wide angle lens used - 14mm (full frame). The distortion is unavoidable but I accept that it does make it a little flawed for a FPC. Diliff (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 17.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 20:29:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Khmer-style Prang (spire) of the Wat Arun Temple, Bangkok, Thailand. The temple itself exists since the 17th century, but the prangs, decorated with rows of demons and monkeys, were built during the reign of King Rama II (1809-1824). All by me, Poc o² 20:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 20:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Yeah, thats the place where I took this this, just the other direction. ;-) I like the view and the given quality, even the distortion with this large FOV is managed very well. I would really like to support this one, but I don´t like the two long tail boats driving exactly "into" the prang. Diego, don`t you have a version captured just a few seconds earlier or later? That would be great! --mathias K 05:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mathias, I got your point and uploaded a new version without those 2 boats. Please, let me know what do you think Poc o² 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Now, Support. --mathias K 05:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, but it's not a good work. There are signs of cloning (this is obviously not an easy task) and among the boats you have cloned out one element of the temple. Overall quality is ok, but not outstanding (bottom part of the temple is not sharp) and the light is not amiable. --Ivar (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, New version uploaded, I gave it a new try, better work now? Poco² 21:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment better cloning quality, but you still cloned out one golden element of the temple. --Ivar (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, Ivar, now I saw what you were talking about, the golden element is back there Poc o² 09:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ivar -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Interesting subject, and good ev for the subject, but seems more composed to get everything in for an encyclopaedic image than to achieve something artistic. Quite distracting backgrounds. -- Colin (talk) 11:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, that's it folks, Poc o² 16:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lawson Cypress seed cones.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 14:14:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- MrPanyGoff 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, sorry --DXR (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose. Could have been better. --DimiTalen 08:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --MrPanyGoff 21:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castello di Amorosa.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 16:03:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Quality and Valued. Created, uploaded, and nominated by DimiTalen. --DimiTalen 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is really perfekt for QI and VI! But this is also the perfect example for my personal "dilemma" here on fpc! I see many, many nominations of pictures like this one here, perfect QI´s and maybe VI´s. But I ask myself, Is this really one of the best pictures commons has to offer?? I think no. It´s not really the wow-thing that I´m missing (I don´t like: no WOW!), but that little special what makes the difference between QI and FP is what I miss very often. --mathias K 17:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak): The light is very nice, composition convincing but the detail quality is only average (I guess due to D70 sensor). Nonetheless you made a very good photo with regard to the given equipment. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I am surprised this passed QI. It is quite soft. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Relatively bland composition in my opinion, a little more context would be good and the quality is good but not outstanding. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Mathias and Julian, sorry. --DXR (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my comment to an opposed, as Mathias put into good words my other concerns with this image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination. Thank you very much for your feedback! DimiTalen 08:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dülmen, Feldweg -- 2014 -- 1.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 05:38:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by XRay - uploaded by XRay - nominated by XRay -- XRay ^talk 05:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- XRay ^talk 05:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support. Composition is not ideal but I like the colors and theme. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Again, I fail to see anything special here. Nice evening sky, but that's it. --A.Savin 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for A.Savin --Pava (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice try for something different but the pothole in the path doesn't make the image attractive enough. -- Colin (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erithacus rubecula with cocked head.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 00:21:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Baresi franco - uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very nice --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great photograph. --DAJF (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind adding comments with your rather large oppose spree? Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice composition. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Baresi, thank you for contributing so many great bird photos to Commons. :D (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great photo! Also very surprised that the template takes French assessments... --DXR (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice technique and composition. Great shot, --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 05:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Back not is in focus. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Can't expect the entire bird to be in focus—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very well done! Exif says you use a 60mm lens, how do you get so close to get this picture? Good job! --mathias K 05:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info Thanks. Yeah, tricky to get this close - even garden birds are easily spooked. I used a remote shutter, camouflage, and hours of trial and error :) --Baresi franco (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Poc o² 20:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Halavar (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The standard needs to be high for such a common bird. Compared to File:Erithacus rubecula -Netherlands-8.jpg and File:Petirrojo europeo (Erithacus rubecula), Tierpark Hellabrunn, Múnich, Alemania, 2012-06-17, DD 02 Crop.JPG this does well. -- Colin (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Koch – Mayor of the City of New York.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 05:27:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by DmitryBorshch - uploaded by DmitryBorshch - nominated by DmitryBorshch -- DmitryBorshch (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Ed Koch posed for this portrait in May of 2011 at his law office, Bryan Cave LLP:

In memory of Ed Koch (December 12, 1924 — February 1, 2013)

ARTstor, Happy birthday to Mayor Ed Koch!

Dmitry Borshch, Catalog of American Portraits (CAP), National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution

Support -- DmitryBorshch (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the sake of transparency, you shouldn't support your own images.--Jetstreamer (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jetstreamer How much more transparent can he be with the big support next to his name? Voting for one's image not is just a matter of personal taste here at FPC and no one is concerned about any conflict of interest. You would know that if you had taken the time to review a few other files under nomination or even the guidelines. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - What is not forbidden is allowed? Say whatever you want. I wouldn't vote for my own images.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Jetstreamer Supporting your own images is automatic on English Wikipedia, where this was submitted for consideration as an FP a few weeks ago. It was unsuccessful because there was no good place to put it, and EnWiki's FP process requires that FPs have prominent usage in one or more articles. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well, honestly I can't say much about the artistic qualities of this portrait - I'm no expert at all on contemporary drawings. But I certainly do appreciate that prominent artists voluntarily provide their work under a free license, thus supporting this project significantly. Featuring such a fine example would further promote "our cause". --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin Falbisoner. -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- because it is so different from what usually gets featured and as per Martin Falbisoner, promoting "the cause" Lotje (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godhulii 1985 (talk) 10:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Martin. J e e 10:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Info FP star removed for now, as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&oldid=123212392#Invalid_vote --A.Savin 16:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 3.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 05:10:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Impression of Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord at blue hour. Illumination of blast furnace. All by -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Qui tacet dissentire videtur, I suppose. ;-) But you're right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny. In French we have a short sentence, which says exactly the contrary: "Qui ne dit mot, consent". --Jebulon (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ;-) Don't be confused Jebulon. Your version is the correct (and classic) one, also in Latin. I just hoped to be funny and made up this pun... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah ! I did not know this one and fall in the trap ! Excellent ! Thanks ! I think speaking Latin should be a mandatory here in "Commons"...--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- because quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur, don't you think so, Martin Falbisoner ? --Jebulon (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - exactly Jebulon. Latin should be our lingua franca on Commons --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ganymede diagram.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 03:54:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Diagram of Jupiter's moon Ganymede. All by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is ice-six and how does that relate to tetragonal crystals? Why is the normal ice annotated as 1h? Is groves a scientific term? Shouldn't ganymede be Ganymede given it is a proper name? Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally like 15 kinds of ice in the universe, including Ice six & Ice one-h. Ice six for whatever reason has tetragonal crystals, Ice 1h is the snowflake-kind we all know and love (the h stands for hexagonal crystals). Take a look at the w:Ice article. I didn't note "hexagonal crystals" cause everyone knows normal ice is hexagonal. Idk if grooves is a scientific term but that's what the wikipedia Ganymede article uses. && I usually don't capitalize headings, it's stylistic.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 05:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff. In reading that I would suggest you clean up how you present the ice information. In one you use the official ice designation first yet in the other it is bracketed. I get you are assuming people know normal ice is hexagonal but I am certain you are mistaken. I would suggest naming the layers after their shape (hexagonal and tetragonal) and bracketing the official name (Ice 1h and Ice VI) for consitency. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Ganymede" text looks nicer when bolded. Not visually pleasing enough. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better now. Interesting graphics and good information as well. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Why has everyone suddenly been on a capitals crusade lately… I've never capitalized a title on any of my pictures before. Headings don't have to follow the same rules that body text has to. Even the Wikimedia grants page drops the capitals. && I should also note that the Wikivoyage logo is set in all lowercase too.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 15:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Celestial_bodies Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Saffron Note: Wikipedia and Commons are unrelated. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Perhaps you should read what is considered in scope. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong: Initially I thought something was wrong without capitals. But when I saw all your other graphics afterwards I decided to revert my decision. NO CAPS is better in this situation.

(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wong again. This image should be suitable for use on en:WP as it is in English. The MOS indicates capitals for celestial bodies as a proper name. This convention is not limited to Wikipedia. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done This isn't worth fighting over. I capitalized the g. Been trying to move away from that Windows 8 style anyway.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong: Hmm...why is the text unbolded. I'm afraid I will change my vote if the issue is not fixed soon. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why?¿ Larger text is generally supposed to take a lighter fontweight & we are rapidly moving into the iOS 7 age where bold text is so last year—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing it to your other graphics of the Sun, Earth, Moon, etc, the bold text is nicer. And well, I don't really bother whether it's the iOS 7 age or not, as long as Macs don't rule the world (and Windows does). I'm changing the vote to oppose, but you can (of course) choose whether it should remain unbolded or not. Cheers. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Display type is almost always thinner and more delicate than body type, but in the intrest of avoiding conflict I bolded the Ganymede text one level to 25. && What's wrong with Apple? They're far ahead of Windows when it comes to design. (but ofc Ubuntu beats them all bc you can customize it to whatever you likee)—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...better now. I'm not sure what's Ubuntu, but I have nothing against Apple, except the damn Macs and iPods. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'd be a monumental ass if I didn't support now :-) Interesting image. I was drawn to immediately and it made me want to learn more. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksss!!—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong: Me too...astronomy is great stuff. I have been interested in it for a long time. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 18:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A really attractive and informative diagram --Baresi franco (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 10:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Krim 2014 de.svg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 07:53:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Furfur, Martin Kraft (based on works of Urutseg & PANONIAN) - uploaded by Furfur, Martin Kraft - nominated by Excolis -- Excolis (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Excolis (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose bad cartography, Daleke with 1031 inhabitants does not belong onto this map. --Schwarzorange (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Mistake corrected. --Schwarzorange (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Oppose—extremely inefficient path quality—is this a bitmap trace? Other than that this is certainly a decent quality and useful image but not quite detailed or complex enough for FP.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

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

File:Janine Flock - Team Austria Winter Olympics 2014 a.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 19:34:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Tsui - uploaded by Tsui - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alborzagros (talk) 07:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unquestionable a high quality shot but no FP for me. The light is relateively harsh, according to the centered point reflection in the eyes I guess it was a centered direct on-camera flash. There are a lot of hightlights on the skin (imho not favorable for an FP portrayal), e.g. the chin shadow is very harsh and unfortunate. A typical newspaper shot (Janine Flock in front of an disturbing ad wall) but nothing outstanding. --Tuxyso (talk) 11:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso -- Colin (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:LucerneCLWyssI.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Mar 2014 at 17:44:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:Abderitestatos - uploaded by User:Abderitestatos - nominated by User:Abderitestatos -- Abderitestatos (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Abderitestatos (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality, interesting image. DimiTalen 16:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duisburger Innenhafen Five Boats Abend 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 09:38:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me
Another Duisburg nomination :) -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Wow and scene nice, technical quality could be just a bit better, but still FP imo. --DXR (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review and support. What do you mean by "technical quality"? Do you mean "image quality" or compositional aspects? Note that this is a single shot (no HDR) - developed from one RAW file. Unfortunately I do not own a full frame camera or a camera with higher resolution :) --Tuxyso (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not talking about size, just have the feeling that the sharpness on both sides' buildings is just a bit low, but as I said not a huge issue. --DXR (talk) 10:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support wow for Duisburg here! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I´m thinking the same as DXR. The composition with the nice reflection and colours looks pretty great. But the overall image quality could be better. Looks a little noisy and not 100% sharp. But as DXR said, it´s not a huge issue. ;-) --mathias K 10:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DXR, Leviathan1983: I've worked on sharpness and noise and uploaded a new version. Please let me know if you think that this is an improvement. --Tuxyso (talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, sorry. It wasn't that sort of unsharpness that would be solved by sharpening, so I'm not changing from weak. --DXR (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that´s strange. Dit you purge your cache? Cause now I´m home and looking at both versions in LR, and for my taste this was a big improvement for the picture. The noise is way better and the sharpness looks better to. Good job! --mathias K 16:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC) @:Tuxyso Aber als Hausaufgabe kannst du dir dieses Motiv, mit genau der Komp als high-res-belichtungsfusionspano ins Heft schreiben! Mein pro haste schon... ;-) [reply]

@mathias: Die Hausaufgabe nehme ich gerne an :) Weit ist der Innenhafen von meiner Home Base zum Glück nicht entfernt. Wobei ich die richtige "Hardware" (Nodal Ninja) für ein solches Pano sogar dabei hatte. Allerdings hätte der Umbau vom Kugelkopf zum Nodalpunkt-Adapter wohl solange gedauert, dass das schöne Licht dahin gewesen wäre. Ich war auch so ganz zufrieden mit dem Resultat. Klar, D800-Qualität ist es natürlich nicht... ---Tuxyso (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@:Tuxyso Na dann bin ich mal gespannt wie´s wird... Das jetzige Resultat is aber definitiv schon mal zufriedenstellend! Grüße, mathias K 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso, ich möchte nicht überkleinlich sein und ein Weak support ist ja immer noch vor allem ein Support, aber ich finde die Schärfe der rechten Häuserzeile für ein Bild vom Stativ einfach ein bisschen zu gering, vor allem am zweiten von links, und ich persönlich habe lieber ein wenig mehr Rauschen als eine doch relativ starke Weichzeichnung. Die Atmosphäre usw. ist natürlich super, und das ist auch das, was am Ende am meisten zählt. Ich hoffe, das nimmt mir hier keiner übel ;-). (Welches Objektiv war das denn, wenn man fragen darf?)--DXR (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

ich meine das af-s 10-24 bei 24mm., da ist es nicht besonders stark. Kann leider nicht nachschauen, da ich einige Tage unterwegs bin.--Tuxyso (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kein Stress! Ja, das deckt sich ungefähr mit meiner Erfahrung mit dem Objektiv, danke für die Info! --DXR (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 14:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 08:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Buildings lack sharpness against the sky but it's not serious enough to detract a lott—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! Still, there is room for improvement; the right side is leaning out Poco² 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's subtle, but you're right. Currently I cannot correct it (currently on a journey), but after the nomination the correction should be not big deal. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great one! Halavar (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- It is only when you open this to full res to you really get a chance to appreciate it. My background for the day. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quite dark and unassuming/uninteresting motif. WLMBP (talk) 19:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 20 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 21:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frontignan, Hérault 10.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 18:05:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The "Château de Six Terres" (wine-producing farm, 1880) and its adjacent vineyards in Frontignan, in background a part of the harbour of Sète and the Mediterranean Sea. Hérault, France. All by Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What exactly on this picture is now the part of interest? --Yikrazuul (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole photo? or maybe I'm not rather objective concerning my photos, am I? -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not particularly eye-catching, composition is too flat. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per King of Hearts. Although the light is very, very nice! --mathias K 05:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose landscape that does not say anything, you do not understand the significance of this photo (and all others similar) --Pava (talk) 18:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The long focal length, together with the flat topology, makes everything in the photo equally important. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Julian H., Yes, good eyes! and it is stressed by my edition, the will to put the background equally with the foreground, matter of tastes! Thanks. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias K -- Colin (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint-Émilion, Aquitaine.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Mar 2014 at 15:08:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- Jordy Meow (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jordy Meow (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There isn't by any chance some room on the right for a crop placing the church according to the golden ratio or rule of thirds? — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 13:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I made some attempts and could not improve the crop. After some hestitation I think the crop is good as it is. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After a bit of hesitation (regarding composition) I guess that this one can become FP. At the moment I am neutral, because a lot of details on the bright fassades are not yet visible (see note). The bright areas are not burnt out but could be brought out much better if you (selectively) reduce the highlights of the photo. If you make a test and reduce overall brightness of -1 EV you see how many details are still there. --Tuxyso (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both sides are leaning out (it needs perspective correction). The composition is also tricky, it looks a bit cluttered Poc o² 20:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. The perspective distortion and the highlights (already mentioned by Poco & Tuxyso) need to be corrected. Also the overall sharpness could be better. Composition is very nice. --mathias K 05:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the image is totally distorted --Pava (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Poco and opposers. I don't understand the composition. To take a picture from a high point is not enough, I'm afraid.--Jebulon (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jebulon -- Colin (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whitehall Court Mars 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 21:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Whitehall Court in London is one contiguous building but consists of two separate constructions built in the 1880s. The right part occupied by the National Liberal Club was designed by Alfred Waterhouse, the major part (including the Royal Horseguards Hotel) was designed by Archer & Green. Well-known residents have included George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells, Sarah Caudwell, and Stafford Cripps. Panorama with high level of detail to capture all of the interesting features of the building.
Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice quality and light! Maybe the highlights on the right side of the building can be reduced at bit more, but anyhow a good picture! --mathias K 05:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Great quality, nice subject but distracting ships in the foreground. They don't really help in the composition (esp. the one with the big chimney) Poco² 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review and support. It was impossible to avoid the ship. The good thing is that the ship is notable (see en:PS_Tattershall_Castle), and a permanent part of the urban landscape.--ArildV (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree the ships are distracting (but unavoidable I guess). The building's horizontals aren't horizontal. I wonder if any tweaks with Lightroom's horizontal perspective adjustment might fix this without upsetting the verticals -- sometimes I find you have to tweak several values iteratively to get the result. -- Colin (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Phos senticosus 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 07:50:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 07:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 11:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Arcalino (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals/Bones, shells and fossils

File:Texas Park Road 4 CCC Map 1.png, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 07:06:31 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info An official draft for the construction of a parkway connecting Longhorn Caverns State Park to Texas State Highway 66. Drawn by the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1934, while they were working on the park. This is an unusual image because usually these documents are made by state highway departments, which copyright them, and the Texas State Library has also produced a high-quality scan.
Created by C.T. Fohl, CCC - uploaded and nominated by Awardgive -- Awardgive (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Awardgive (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice, valuable image of course, but otherwise very bland... DimiTalen 08:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per DimiTalen. —Blurred Lines 13:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haukelitunellen ved Dyrskar.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 19:29:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:TommyG - uploaded by User:TommyG - nominated by User:TommyG -- TommyG (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- TommyG (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No thank you. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Amazing, 2,2mpx out of a D800, great!! But anyway, neither the quality nor the composition really convince me. --mathias K 21:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image. Good composition, and the dark clouds add to the image. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you seriously think the other three experienced reviewers are just incompetent morons out to antagonize people? Your overturning an FPX and calling this a great image is absolutely infuriating, as it is so very unbelievable anyone would consider this a great picture. This image fails virtually every single criteria we seek in FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, why are you attacking my opinion when I did not attack anyone's opinion? I only voiced my own opinion as I find it meets the FP criteria, that's all. So this only enforces everyone's fear that there is no "free speech" to oppose when everyone else supports, just that in this case, it's the opposite situation. You are free to oppose, but please do not attack others' opinions. Thank you very much. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI my policy is this. I respect your opinion(s) and I expect you to respect mine as well. But if you choose not to respect my opinion, or attack it, I may choose not to respect your opinion and/or attack yours as well. However, clarification and asking for more details of my opinion is fine. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is impossible to respect an opinion that has no foundation in reality. I have cordially discussed this penchant you have to make out of step arbitrary assessments based on personal preferences and this apparent need to assert your opinion against reasoned consensus. I am not the only one who has mentioned this either. Yet you persist despite our attempts to provide friendly counsel. The fact of the matter this image fails every criteria we set out for FPC yet you think it should be featured as one of our finest works. This opinion of yours was offered despite very obvious opposition from seasoned reviewers. That is why I cannot respect this vote of support. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Saffron. I just thought about it and I think probably it isn't really top-class, "our best work", and suitable for FP. So I shall withdraw my vote. Earlier on, I promoted it to QI, and I think that's probably more suitable for this photo, compared to FP. If you have any opposition, you can open a discussion at the QI nomination. If no discussion is opened, I think it would be promoted tomorrow at 04:58 UTC. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1823x1212px for a landscape is no go unless defended with proper reasoning. We must discourage heavy down sampling. J e e 03:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 2.2 MP might be alright for images necessarily shot above Iso 12800, here it is absolutely insufficient, the clouds are pulled back in a poor way that results in a gray nothing, the haloing is far too strong, was a fair FPX, imo. --DXR (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. —Blurred Lines 12:42, 11 March 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 flaws (too dark, vignetting, haloes, no subject), lack of minimum quality, far under the FP standars, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 22:51, 10 March 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:Rethymno - Venezianischer Hafen2.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 19:03:54 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing distinguishes this from a tourist snapshot. The lighthouse has seen better days. Subject isn't well isolated from background. -- Colin (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm sorry but the light is not good and coming from the wrong direction imo, the sky is a bit hazy and the subject is not extraordinary enough to make up for that. --DXR (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Wladyslaw (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saturn with auroras.jpg (delist), kept

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 22:42:03

Info What the original reviewers apparently didn't know (because the file description[s] didn't have this information): It is a composite image. And a deceiving one at that: We see a normal, colour image of Saturn with ultraviolet aurora in false-colour overlaid on it. The colourful, nice-looking image conceals the fact that we don't know colours of aurorae on Saturn yet. (Original nomination) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scanmap (talk • contribs) --DXR (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am by no means an expert on astronomy, but your exact complaint is disclosed in the, admittedly German, description. --DXR (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It states, loosely translated : Composite image of an shot of Saturn taken on March 22, 2004 with a false color image of UV polarlight taken January 24, overlaid. --DXR (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC) Edit: It actually has an English description that states that, so I honestly do not see how that would be deceiving. --DXR (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAt the time of FP candidacy the description read:

English: Auroras on Saturn.

Comment First, please don't forget to sign your comments. Second, I highly doubt that many people here are motivated to delist a photo due to issues that do no longer exist. --DXR (talk) 20:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Don't you think it is important to know what you're looking at in order to do a valid review of an image? I think especially with this picture knowledge is important to get anything from it. So the question im asking here is: Do people still think it is a worthy featured picture when they have the facts in mind? Imagine it was "just" a painting? Or would we rather prefer something more honest - that arguably even uses the false colours for some useful purpose like the one to the right? - I'm not trying to lobby against the picture. If the standards for FP still cover this I'm fine with that.

Issues that might still exist in my opinion are: You have to be told beforehand what you are looking at in order to not be fooled. And then it's more or less just nice-looking.--Scanmap (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, yet this is the FP section of Commons (and not en.wiki and not COM:VIC) where the relationship between encyclopedia and esthetics is rather skewed towards the second. While I agree that it wasn't ideal to nominate an image that wasn't described well enough, I do not think that the image in its current form including a decent description is unworthy of FP status. I do indeed think that viewers can be expected to read a description, that's why they are there after all.

It is unfortunate that the image linked here is slightly small and unsharp, otherwise I would have suggested a nomination here. You are obviously very free to nominate an image you consider better or more suited, but I personally feel that an current FP must have larger flaws than the ones pointed out by you in order to be delisted. --DXR (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --P e z i (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 delist, 3 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted. Jee 03:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:South Bank Mars 2014 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 10:57:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Women playing with dogs at South Bank, London. I decided to nominate something different. I like how this woman plays with her dogs in the middle of the city, with one of the world's most famous cityscapes in the background. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 15:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too much gap between woman and buildings resulting in a tall vertical crop. The arrangement of the woman and dogs really needs to be better than this for it to work. -- Colin (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colin may have a point. I should maybe have climbed down to the beach and get closer to the women.--ArildV (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ArildV (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:" 13 - ITALY - Street light in Rome near Fontana di Trevi - urban design.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:07:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Dietmar Rabich - uploaded by XRay - nominated by Pava -- Pava (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Not an aesthetically pleasing composition, a bit of colour noise, blown highlights in the lamps. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice mood, but nothing featurable here. --mathias K 06:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pava: Just to centralise: Here you massively flame against the author with: "...ugly landscape, the photo does not say anything". Now I ask myself, what were your intentions to nominate this picture? (Nothing against this pic or the author, just like to know...) Regards mathias K 06:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the utility encyclopedic photo of the subject, the definition and image stability by night, in fact the picture is very good. Then here is a lamp, the subject itself is not to be emotional, can be emotional photography. --Pava (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS: no fury, my "jamming" is on continual kind of pictures do not understand why are proposed. I voted photos of that author also positively in the past. I have nothing personal, but sometimes I can not understand certain things. (You do not see evil where there is not, contribute to the commons is not making personal interests and suppose this is not very fair to me) --Pava (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per mathias k. —Blurred Lines 13:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you very much for nominating this picture. Sorry, it's my picture, but IMO it's not a featured picture.--XRay ^talk 09:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Multicolour moccasins for sale in Positano, Italy.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 19:11:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by momo (from Hong Kong) - uploaded by Threecharlie - nominated by Pava -- Pava (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pava (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just a very small picture of colourful shoes. Sorry but not much more for me here. --mathias K 05:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing special here for me to get convinced to support this. —Blurred Lines 13:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Small resolution, clipped whites, black border. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough shoes! If there were dozens of shoe pairs, not just a few, it might be more interesting, perhaps even texture like, but this lacks wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cornflowers Centaurea cyanus.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 00:09:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Petr Vodička - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Oversaturation and sharpness problems. The whole photo just looks really unnatural. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I don't think the picture is great enough for FP, I'm puzzled about AK's oppose. The colours look within the range of natural to me and there is no sharpness problem with the image for the region that is in focus. There is quite a narrow depth of focus, but it includes all of one flower and most of another. According to the EXIF data, the image has had the contrast boosted but not saturation. -- Colin (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gunkanjima.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 12:28:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The abandoned island of Gunkanjima in Japan. Former coal-mine + city. Used to be the highest concentration of people in the world.

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- Jordy Meow (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jordy Meow (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteressting composition (centered vertically and horizontally + non appealing subject), visible green CA, tilted (see sea level). It would also help to spend a few words about the subject, is it somehow special? Poc o² 20:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are the FP supposed to be always appealing? I think - and I am probably biased since it is mine - that this scene represents very well this island. If you don't know what it is you should absolutely check the article, this place has a very interesting history. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Nothing special, good image, but not for FP. --Karelj (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The composition is relatively boring (imho too wide at the top). I am also not convinced of the flat perspective. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pava (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Try cropping it 3:1 with the centre of the island buildings on the rule-of-thirds vertically. That to me works much better and being closer up I can see the ruined buildings better. However, the photo has technical flaws - too much clarity boost and some significant CA on the buildings. -- Colin (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image is really nice, but when looking closer, some technical flaws stick out. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 14:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Laanemaa järv Orkjärve looduskaitsealal.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 00:35:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Heino Ruiso - uploaded and nominated by Kruusamägi (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kruusamägi (talk) 00:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That is exceptionally beautiful. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above! --mathias K 05:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support marvellous! --Ivar (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 10:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Urmas Haljaste (talk) 12:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rutake (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Poc o² 20:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Though I would prefer slightly less black clipping. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 21:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very, very good. --Karelj (talk) 22:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fantastic! Halavar (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- -donald- (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Julian. --DXR (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Arcalino (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - - Alborzagros (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Colors and motive are impressive, but there are stiching errors (?) / HDR fusing errors of the blade of grass in the foreground, I guess easily fixable via stamping. Although it is a very nice photo, the composition is imho only average. The three compositional elements (trees / bushes) are placed somehow random on the photo. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A very nice sunset, but not very illustrative. Kleuske (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very nice is a commodity in short supply around here and something we celebrate @ COM:FPC. This isn't WP, but even there this would be quite illustrative of a sunset :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The sky/reflection are nice but the trees and bushes in the lake are dark and not interesting enough in silhouette. I think it would have worked better with a clearer uninterrupted patch of water or with a more interesting foreground to the sunset. -- Colin (talk) 10:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Taken in the right moment of the day. However, it lacks a subject that catches the eye. Barcex (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 24 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tren na praza de Fefiñáns. Cambados- Galiza. CBD26.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Mar 2014 at 23:28:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Train at Fefiñáns square, Cambados, Galicia, Spain. Created and uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 12:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A bit too much space at the left, I feel. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts: I think it's good because the front of the train is well-centered in the picture. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A centered composition is generally not a good thing (unless it's something like a perfectly symmetric building). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, the space acts like lead room. J e e 07:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No offense to Lmbuga, nothing wrong with the photo to illustrate, but I think the subject is not featurable in that form, sorry. --DXR (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose High quality technically, but the background wall is distracting and some passengers and a driver would make it much more interesting. -- Colin (talk) 10:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunset over Century City as viewed from the Griffith Observatory, Los Angeles, 2013-12-14.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 18:55:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by StefanSundin - uploaded by StefanSundin - nominated by StefanSundin -- StefanSundin (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- StefanSundin (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /Kalleo (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC) Editors whose accounts have less than 50 edits can't vote. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing featurable. Kruusamägi (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose boring foreground. -- -donald- (talk) 08:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Boring foreground, and no features in the sky (eg. clouds) to compensate. In a nutshell, no wow. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it: transmits just the intensity of the sun, there is no building that takes! --Pava (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Arctic Cangoroo. --Karelj (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Works better as a panorama crop (3:1) but even then not FP level. -- Colin (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elfbergen Gaasterland. Brug over de vijver 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 16:47:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Elfbergen Gaasterland. Bridge over the pond. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. --DimiTalen 16:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 14:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 20:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Remembers me Claude Monet in some way. Very good ! --Jebulon (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~I don't think you need they sky bits on top.~~ Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You want me to trim? --Famberhorst (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but unexceptional. -- Colin (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. And I would also recommend cropping the image. Specially from the top. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Kruusamägi (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Cropped. --Famberhorst (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amanita citrina - false death cap - Citron Amanita

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 23:54:06 (UTC)

False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Mörfelden-Walldorf, Hesse, Germany.
False death cap (Amanita citrina) in Mörfelden-Walldorf, Hesse, Germany.

Info Original nomination. Both images show the same mushroom. Both images were created and uploaded by Norbert Nagel - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, the images have "Wow effect". Both show the details of the mushroom. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 00:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI but not FP. -- Colin (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blassenstein Kreuz mit Nebel 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 Mar 2014 at 19:03:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Uoaei1 - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support In memeoriam Caspar David Friedrich --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the horizon cuts the main object, it better cut it a lot, not just a little. It is not nice that the tip of the cross runs into the horizon. This could have been avoided easily. Small thing but quite annoying.--195.69.53.244 18:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree the arrangement of cross and background is unfortunate. If the fog was more extensive this might have been ok. Also would prefer better light on cross. -- Colin (talk) 11:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I would much prefer a photo from a lower point, using the sky as a background instead of the busy landscape. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Not too exciting but it works for me. Barcex (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concept was great, execution was lacking. Having the cross backgrounded by the land and sky is distracting. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Dettelbach BW 2014-01-14 16-28-08.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 11:36:15 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created - uploaded - nominated by -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Berthold Werner (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The only portion of the image that has favorable lighting is the painting on the right. Much of the main aspect of the image is rather subdued by the lesser light on the left. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall composition not convincing, sorry. --DXR (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow. Daniel Case (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Composition is not that great. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aguiño e a praia do Castro. Ribeira. Galiza R45.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 14:45:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, here it is the same as above. Good quality but not much more for me. --mathias K 17:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose With mathias K: Not spectacular, the motive is relatively boring, light is average, not really interesting, composition is average. --Tuxyso (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per mathias. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso -- Colin (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albarracín, Teruel, España, 2014-01-10, DD 022-025 PAN.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:28:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view (4 frames) of the middle-age town of Albarracín, Teruel, Aragón, Spain. All by me, Poc o² 16:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great place for a panorama. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks nice and natural. However, minor sharpening wouldn't hurt and some dust spots are waiting to be cleaned off (notes added). --Ivar (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks Ivar, Poc o² 07:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great! --Alurín (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice now after sharpening. --DXR (talk) 09:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very impressive --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support If I'm being picky, which I usually am with panoramas, the verticals aren't all as true as they could be. I know many of the buildings are old but even so, and especially the far bottom right one. What software did you use to stitch it? Still, it is an amazing view. -- Colin (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agree with you the building in the bottom right corner didn't look that good, I fixed that. I also improved one of the bell towers (at the left end of the city walls). I used Photoshop CC for the stitching and rework Poc o² 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Woaaeiuoiaeaeoiow! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great view with very nice light! --mathias K 10:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support —Blurred Lines 12:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Come visit Spain ;) --Kadellar (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need as far as we can see her through your eyes. :) J e e 06:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support J e e 06:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are so many things to see in this image! Thanks. Jordy Meow (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Embarcacións. O Grove. Galiza GR9.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 14:52:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) - uploaded by Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) - nominated by Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 14:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 18:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but this one don`t get me. The quality is good but the composition doesn´t work for me. Don`t get me wrong, but the picture seems like a "random snapshot". I´m missing something special for fp. --mathias K 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Surprising, "random snapshot" when one second before or two seconds after, the boats would be one behind the other. Sorry, what a lucky I have, to shoot random at the right time! --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Mathias K. -- Colin (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias K. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /Poc o² 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio de Bellas Artes, México D.F., México, 2013-10-13, DD 40.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 16:43:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Interior view of the dome of the Palacio de Bellas Artes (Palace of Fine Arts) of Mexico City. The building, located in the historic center of the mexican capital, required 30 years (1904-1934) to be constructed and is the most important cultural center in the country of Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 16:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Me encanta esta vista, pero ¿no crees que le sobra un trozo por arriba para ser más simétrico?--Alurín (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, crop adjusted to increase symmetry, thanks, Poc o² 08:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Alurín (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Woaaeiuoiaeaeoiow! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good quality! Diego, there`s still one dustspot down right (in the green stripe) which wants to be cloned out. ;-) --mathias K 10:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gone, thanks, Poc o² 18:49, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! —Blurred Lines 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OMG! You took this picture in the future. I suggest to rename it. Barcex (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I overlooked that, thanks, Poc o² 20:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Poc o² 18:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Państwowe Muzeum Historyczne w Moskwie 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 12:15:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm always grateful for FP suggestions from Moscow, but we have certain quality standards and there are notable flaws: chromatic aberrations, detail loss on highlights, noise on shadows, overall lacking crispness. I'm sorry, --A.Savin 13:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I knew that as always with my images, you will be opposed. Even so, thanks for the review. Halavar (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel misunderstood. --A.Savin 14:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halavar, The question you might want to ask yourself is whether his comments have merit. I haven't checked to see if they do, but wouldn't it be better to know and then you can complain from a stronger position? For me I love the building but not sure you captured it from its most flattering angle. The angle chosen also resulted in some complex perspective issues that are yet to be addressed. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info New version uploaded. Halavar (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info Oversaturated. --Mile (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Dear Halavar, I've no personal conflict with you, as you know, but I'm afraid I agree with A.Savin...--Jebulon (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Overstaurated, overpolarized sky. Daniel Case (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vicence, Jardin du Théâtre Olympique.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 13 Mar 2014 at 13:50:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Armagnac - uploaded by Armagnac - nominated by Pottercomuneo -- Pottercomuneo (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pottercomuneo (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people in the back are a little distracting. —Blurred Lines 18:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think they are really distracting, on the the contrary: imo they create some kind of interesting tension. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think if that concept had been fully realised this would have been brilliant. Given the relative positioning, her gaze is not cast towards the intruders and they are too close to her to be seperate entities. Taken one to two seconds earlier would have been perfect I suspect. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I agree to Martin Falbisoner --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For me thous persons in the back are distracting and image is bit small as well. Kruusamägi (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pava (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I see nothing wow --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per Saffron Blaze. It also doesn't seem that sharp for the resolution. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Saffron. -- Colin (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lámparas, Djemaa el Fna -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 21:03:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Top left corner a bit distracting --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support... but not enough not to support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is ordinarily the sort of thing I'd complain about as too cluttered, but the light gives it something magical here. Something magical enough that I'm not at all distracted by that corner—in fact I barely noticed there might be something distracting there. This would make a nice desktop image. Daniel Case (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice lighting and composition. Kleuske (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support original and acceptable quality, but the crop everywhere is tricky Poc o² 19:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Magical, yes. Parabolooidal (talk) 15:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Alurín (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 4.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 09:19:42 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Impression of Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord at blue hour. Taking this picture was quite demanding, considering I was standing in a relatively tiny courtyard surrounded by industrial buidlings. An UWA lense was essential, plus some perspective correction. All the different sources of light made it difficult to correctly adjust the WB. What is more: The red light was kind of flickering, resulting in the impression that the "red tower" is somewhat lacking sharpness, although both objects in front of and behind it are in fact in focus. All by Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry but I´m not so happy with the composition and quality. The very wide field of view makes a perspective correction necessary, so far so good. But the result is a little bit too much for my taste. Now it looks like Penrose stairs to me... ;-) --mathias K 10:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The light there is very challenging (as I know from my own experience). You managed it very well - congrats. The quality of the shot is also very good. The reason for my neutral vote is that the composition is not fully convincing. There are limited photo positions but the building is directed away from the viewer and looks somehow imbalanced. As far as I can remember the atrium where you are standing is very tight and the usage of ultra WW obligatory and the perspective rather extereme. --Tuxyso (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you Tuxyso for your friendly and balanced critique - I really appreciate it. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative: File:Landschaftspark Duisburg Nord March 2014 5.JPG

Info Impression of Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord at blue hour. All by me. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since composition seems to be an issue above, as mentioned by mathias K and Tuxyso, I'd like to offer this image as an alternative. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral This one is better. Composition looks more pleasing to me, but due to the massive perspective correction it looks still unnatural in my eyes. Especially the green chamber is too much "corrected" for my taste... --mathias K 07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, mathias K, for your review! Well, imo perspective correction isn't really radical in this case. My lense plane was almost parallel to the image plane. Cf. some photos without any perspective correction, here, and here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Composition seems worse—the contour of the structure is now fanning out into the edge. It was better when it had the whole two-thirds of the picture to face out towards. Also seems slightly overcompressed & oversharpened—Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Babuchas 02 -- 2014 -- Marrakech, Marruecos.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 15:12:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded & nominated by Alurín -- Alurín (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alurín (talk) 15:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 15:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DimiTalen 08:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not much more than a bunch of ~~stuff~~ kitsch for me, quality image otherwise (nothing personal), I'm sorry --A.Savin 10:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The larger (initial) version is IMHO better, but FP for the original composition to me Poc o² 21:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't know why it was reduced in resolution. -- Colin (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, Colin. --Alurín (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is closer to what I was discussing earlier with many shoes. It is far better, but still not in the realm of WOW! I am concerned the colours are oversaturated as well. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice rythm. Kleuske (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 18:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Bangkok Skyline (MK).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 17:50:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panoramic view of Bangkoks hazy skyline. Pictures where taken from the "2nd" floor of the Wat Arun. It is a 14 (upright)picture pano taken at 100mm, hand-halt. ;-) c/u/n by me, mathias K 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- mathias K 17:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Info I know that the foreground looks a bit random and maybe not everyone likes the resulting actual crop. But there were some roofs in the foreground so I had to crop this for the "hazy-city effect". Just for orientation, the Millenium Hilton Hotel (with the "UFO" on top) right in the middle of the picture is about 5,5 km away. --mathias K 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the background in focus or is that just the haze? Either way it does detract from a massive pano with lots of detail. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would say the focus fits pretty good. Even those little things like satellite dishes and antennas are visible very well, though through the haze ;-). But anyway I got your point and agree with it. I would also prefer this pano with bright sunshine, a blue sky and all those little details shown clear and "sharp". But with the given circumstances, I like the result pretty much cause this hazy view, with the nearly mising colours has something special in my eyes. --mathias K 05:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I like the grey haze. Shame the trees and flags on the ship introduce a bit of distracting colour. -- Colin (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like the haze but the foreground objects are too distracting and dominant in my opinion. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 16:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sète, Hérault 09.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 14 Mar 2014 at 18:44:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info A trail and "cairels" (french local name for the little walls in ruins on the right of the image) along the Étang de Thau. The place is named "Lido de Thau" and is protected by the Conservatoire du littoral. All by me. --Christian Ferrer 18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 18:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 19:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, this is a very nice picture but not much more for me. I don`t think this is one of the best pictures commons has to offer. By the way, it looks way to oversharpend in some areas (the water on the right side for example). --mathias K 05:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
mathias, thanks for your rewiew and for your explanations but I want to specify that the aspect of the water is not caused by oversharpening but by a very strong North wind (look at the grass), which causes every times a lot of very small waves and an aspect very wrinkled of the water. --Christian Ferrer 07:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can see moreover better these wrinkles at the bottom right with a lot of details! --Christian Ferrer 12:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No sorry. Picture about nothing. Description about nothing (it is the most common scene in "Sète, Hérault"?!!). Shame! --Kikos (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please try to be kind with your critics! This is not a helpful review! Shame is a totally no-go and a bad insult to the author! --mathias K 07:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shame" does also mean "pity". I hope that was the purpose by Kikos. --A.Savin 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --DimiTalen 08:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ugly landscape, the photo does not say anything--Pava (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I'm not necessarily convinced that this image deserves FP status, I see absolutely no reason why one should a) consider the depicted landscape "ugly", and b) openly insult the photographer... sorry. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

swap my comments to insults really is not very mature, I express just what I think, and sincerely believe to be quite objective, no fury, no insult. I doubt the photographer to stop taking pictures because of my comments, I doubt that my comments offend the photographer, the most they can push to improve, to change the subject, change cities, change place or not repeating the same actions. If we instead want to comment sterile as "no wow" or only positive comments is another matter. I voted photographs of this photographer in the past, when I liked. --Pava (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I stumbled on the ongoing discussion only after leaving my comment here... --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks all, a famous photographer said (I forgot the name) and I think it was not the only, that a successful photo is a photo which activates a reaction, I thus concludes that my artistic talent is on a good way --Christian Ferrer 21:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with Pava. The scene is ugly and deeply boring. There is no composition or artistry here. Christian, the photo did not "activate a reaction", your nomination did. Hence the photo is not "successful". As someone once said "If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff." -- Colin (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality but uninteresting composition Poc o² 21:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow, I found the composition being too tight, it is probably due to the choice of a telephoto focal lenght for a landscape. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a nice place and I believe you could take a nice photo at a different time of the day. It could definitely be more wow. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 18:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rideau Canal Skateway Ottawa - 2.jpeg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 08:34:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

Info Rideau Canal Skateway, Ottawa, Canada. Imo a very nice vierw of both the skateway and surrounding city. Created and uploaded by Saffron Blaze. Nominated by -- ArildV (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Dadaszehon (talk) User has less than 50 edits. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice and interesting subject, taken with good quality. The picture makes me read the article, so it done it´s job pretty good. ;-) But sadly imo not outstanding enough for FP. The thing is I can`t even tell what I´m missing cause like Arild already wrote it is "...a very nice view of both the skateway and surrounding city". Sorry! --mathias K 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination It was kind of ArlidV, but I don't think I would have nominated this. It has EV and may be technically OK, but little else. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Io diagram.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 22:30:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jupiter's moon Io! all by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kelvinsong: Nice, but would be good a Set with all diagrams, no!? ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ughh half the people here want set noms & half of them don'tt.. Anyway there's no Callisto diagram so a set nomination doesn't really make sense—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelvinsong: Ok, you decide. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I kinda nominated this individually...—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support great, as always --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 14:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --CyberXRef^☎ 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jacopo Werther ^iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 11:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Newborn bat (Cynopterus brachyotis).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 15 Mar 2014 at 07:00:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by -- Anton^Talk 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton^Talk 07:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though the bright background is a bit distracting, IMHO, this is great work. Nikhil (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the background is too distracting for me. Tomer T (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question @Tomer T: How is a white background distracting to you? Just curious. —Blurred Lines 13:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks unnatural. Tomer T (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I also have some concerns regarding the background, it looks so empty and sterile --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the lighting. Background is overly bright but this isn't high key work, perhaps as a result of the flash. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron Blaze --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per others --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Harsh flash. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Le ito xx 23:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 15:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aegithalos caudatus front-on 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 16:11:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info This is a similar picture to one I nominated a month ago (in fact, of the same bird), but which didn't make FP here. I went back and reviewed the shots from the day, and I think this one has a better pose than the other nomination (I liked the slightly cocked head here - I think it makes it looks more "connected" to the viewer). I've also re-cropped to give a better, less cramped composition, imo. I can understand, however, if the front-on view is not to everyone's taste. All by Baresi franco -- Baresi franco (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Technically excellent, nice framing, wonderful pose, well-lit and colourful image... and very cute. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 17:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alurín (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Baresi. No front-ons for me. And the background is awfully unnatural. Note the italics. Pavements (one of many OK unnatural elements) are fine with me. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Again, very good work! Maybe a tad oversharpend but still OK for me. --mathias K 07:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Saffron Blaze. Nikhil (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great image! Halavar (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Strange (and unnatural?) backgroundcolor. WLMBP (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info It's a brick wall. --Baresi franco (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --JLPC (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good quality, but the brick wall is unattractive and distracting. Sorry. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 20:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kamal Bahamdan & Noblesse Des Tess - 2013 Longines Global Champions Tour.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 12:46:35 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by inisheer - nominated by Pleclown -- Pleclown (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I really like this picture, the horse looks like its hovering over the fence. The oxer's, the horse's and the rider's coat colors are contrasting with the sand. A little bit of background: This picture was taken in Lausanne, during the swiss event of the 2013 Longines Global Champions Tour, which was attended by three accredited photographers, thanks to Wikimedia CH. The rider is en:Kamal Bahamdan, a Saudi Arabian, and the horse is Noblesse des Tess, a 13 years old mare. This couple has finished in 4th place at the individual jumping at the 2012 Olympics -- Pleclown (talk) 12:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it. Dynamic composition and high quality with good focus.--ArildV (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per ArildV. —Blurred Lines 13:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a really good one! --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment bird's eye view is not the best angle to capture this scene. worm's eye view would be better. Otherwise an excellent motive. --195.69.53.244 18:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In an international competition, photgraphers are not allowed to wander where they want. There are allocated spots. Pleclown (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment CAs on the left -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New version uploaded. Pleclown (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support although I'd reduce noise a bit Poc o² 21:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but there is a reason why the pro's use another viewpoint (though a shame we can't). Not seeing the rider's eyes fails it for me. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your bit about pros. We were with others photographers, "as if" we were from the press. it's the meaning of "accredited". We had access to the same spots than the professionals. but, as you can see in the category, being "on the ground" poses other problems, the first being the public and everything in the background. it's, in my opinion, one of the interests of this picture, the spotless background. 90.84.146.197 12:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC) ps: I'm on my phone, I can't ad links, sorry.[reply]
I misunderstood your comment about restrictions. But it is common in events for pros to have positions that the public can't use. And lenses the public can't afford. -- Colin (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were having access to positions that the public can't use. See the white person in the right top corner in File:2013 Longines Global Champions - Lausanne - 14-09-2013 - Gerco Schröder et New Orleans.jpg ? That's the photographer of this picture, at another time of the day, in the same spot that this photo.

Regarding the lense, it's taken with a 80-200mm f2.8 Minolta mounted on a Sony Alpha 900, a 3000€ euro combination, not really everybody's equipment. Pleclown (talk) 17:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are focusing on aspects of my comment that aren't relevant to the oppose. The viewpoint doesn't make the jump as dynamic as it could be, and not seeing the eyes of a subject is problematic. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 11:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK, there are flaws. But the motive seems exceptional to me. And one can see the eyes of the subject very well, as the subjects is, of course, the horse...--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~--ApolloWissen (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. J e e 05:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Jebulon. Nice flying horse. ;o) Yann (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 14:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Sports

File:Schonbrunn Palace - Vienna.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 13:36:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- MrPanyGoff 13:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- MrPanyGoff 13:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is a notable lighting/brightness difference between the left and right halves of the image. It gives the impression this was two images stitched at the middle. Not convinced this particular building rises to the level of wow either given its rather mundane surroundings. I do like the lone indivual walking across the front. Nice scale reference. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The difference in the light is because of a shade just thrown by some clouds on some parts of the ground and the building. A couple of minutes later the whole building was overshadowed. Isn't that actually a plus to catch the moment of changing the lighting conditions?--MrPanyGoff 22:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 17:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Saffron that the lighting changes from left to right. The horizontal along the base of the building is distorted so the stitching hasn't worked as well as it might. Rather low resolution for a stitched image. I like the plainness of the building/garden. -- Colin (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Oppose In my opinion, this image needs more space around the main object. Kruusamägi (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 15:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:View on SR 98 Arizona.jpg,not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 16:23:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Moroder - uploaded by Moroder - nominated by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if an horisontaalne line is inclined in a picture, it better be inclined a lot. Otherwise it just isn't effective. Centered composition is also not the best solution in most cases. --195.69.53.244 18:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Not sure if it's tilted or if it's actually just the terrain but nice picture and while unsharp at 100%, image size more than makes up for it—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bottom is extremely unsharp. Consider cropping it out (and possibly cropping out a corresponding area from the top to rebalance the horizon). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Cropped top and bottom, resized. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pretty unsharp, tilt. --Yikrazuul (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't like the crop or the lighting. -- Colin (talk) 12:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do love that sky and the subject's relation to it, but can't get past the other issues people are raising. Do you have other versions perhaps taken from a more level place or from a higher vantage point? Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong tilt (the sky transition rules out a slope that strong). Background oversharpened, foreground blurry. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 11:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've never been puzzled so much from reviews of my images --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 09:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbalanced, tilted. I can see more beautiful photos coming from this exact same scene and conditions. Did you take more by any chance? -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 20:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Helags Mars 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 07:39:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Panorama of Mount Helags. The highest mountain in Sweden south of the Arctic Circle. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very sharp and lovely - Is it possible that WB is just a tad bit blue? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. I uploaded a new version with a small correction. Did you think it was enough?--ArildV (talk) 09:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ximonic (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Fantastic sharpness and snow detail!!! Great composition as well!! --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --G Furtado (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shun Lee Crisco edit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:33:00 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Base64 and uploaded by Crisco 1492 - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 12:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as editor of the image. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support for the good view, composition and quality but still I miss something special here Poc o² 19:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Poco. --mathias K 21:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I miss something too, but pleasant quality-- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice to see a high quality shot of something modern. Well executed imo. --DXR (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also per Diego - which is kind of funny, as we're all missing "something special" and yet do give our support. On the other side, maybe that's the special element here, the absence of anything aesthetically pleasing as key subject. This ugly monstrosity of a building is almost dehumanizingly intimidating, especially considering the friendly evening atmosphere and lighting. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow great comment! -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per Martin.--ArildV (talk) 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ricardo Esteban Gutierrez (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per supporters (!!!) = nothing special.--Jebulon (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- After another look, I change to Neutral. And no, I'm not a troll.--Jebulon (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jean Henri Marlet Das berühmte Schachspiel zwischen Howard Staunton und Pierre Charles Fourrier Saint-Amant 1843.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 16 Mar 2014 at 22:29:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jean Henry Marlet - uploaded by WolfD59 - nominated by Paris 16 -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 22:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The EV is there but is the wow? I think this may be better suited to en:FP nomination. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sickla Strand October 2013 03.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 17 Mar 2014 at 19:19:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by ArildV - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful reflection. Halavar (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Joydeep _Talk 09:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Good reflection and colours. But it is still a brick (former) office block and those buildings on the right with scaffolding and plastic sheeting aren't attractive. Not really working for me. Sorry. -- Colin (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Colin, I don't see anything featurable here. Quality is, as usual, top but I apart from the reflexion the buildings in the picture don't say much to me, sorry Arild, Poc o² 19:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is just a reflection. I cannot determine which is the subject. If it is trying to show the building, then the trees and the reflection get in its way. If it is trying to show the water and the trees then the building is awfully disturbing. IMHO. Barcex (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for nomination. I like this photo. Some environments are complex. This lake is located very close to the city center (In the background is en:Folksamhuset). The south shore (where I was standing when I took the picture) is a nature reserve. The northern section covers different eras, the trees on the north side is planted and belonged to a former estate. Around the year 1900 industry expanded in the area and Atlas Copco built a huge industrial area. The company dominated the area during most of the 1900s and also built the brick house. In the late 1900s, the industry move further out from the city and the new houses were built. I think (besides the wonderful autumn and the reflections in the water) that the environment is interesting with contrasts between nature and the growing and changing city. I added a geocode to show the location better. Thanks for comment and votes.--ArildV (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tokyo Midtown Akasaka.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 00:13:50 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by JordyMeow - uploaded by JordyMeow - nominated by JordyMeow -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not the best lighting, strong perspective distortion. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per King. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry, the composition doesn`t work for me. Per KoH. --mathias K 13:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oversaturated, in addition to the composition issues. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Widok na Perast od strony morza 05.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 22:59:56 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Halavar -- Halavar (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Halavar (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stunning location and nice composition with some interesting leading lines. However, I think the point of critical focus is on the boat not the landscape, which causes the village and mountains to be rather soft. The village shows sign of some blown highlights. I am also seeing an unusual texture pattern in the sky, which is most notable when the image scales in the browser. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron. Sorry Halavar. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice one, but per Saffron. --mathias K 13:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really like the image, Halavar, do you think you could address the issues mentioned? I'm certain that the original file should be free of the line issue mentioned, do you have a raw file? --DXR (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunately I do not have RAW file. Looks like my image wouldn't get status of FP... Halavar (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:T Roosevelt.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 16:34:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pach Brothers (photography studio) - uploaded by ¡0-8-15! - nominated by The Herald -- Herald talk with me 16:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 16:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator-- per Guidelines. Herald talk with me 13:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barrow Offshore wind turbines NR.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 15:40:03 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andy Dingleyd - edited and uploaded by Muhammad Mahdi Karim - nominated by The Herald -- Herald talk with me 15:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 15:40, 17 March 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. --DXR (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the FPD, you were a tick quicker Poc o² 19:08, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw as nominator-- per above. Herald talk with me 13:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:La Grotta di Byron.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 20:00:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Andrea - uploaded by Tm - nominated by Pottercomuneo -- Pottercomuneo (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pottercomuneo (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Typical HDR problems: Clear sky haloes around mountains, a bit oversaturated. Also small and not very strong in details. --DXR (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. HDR problems aren't really that noticeable. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice view indeed, but the HDR problems, mentioned by DXR, are too visible for me. btw, whats the pink spot on the upper right side? --mathias K 10:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the pink spot is a flower, I suppose. --Pottercomuneo (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This sure is a great photograph! The issue I have is that its appearance isn't very natural, and therefore its encyclopedic value seems rather limited to me --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Martin above that this is a great photograph. The only flaw, unfortunately, is oversaturation. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per HDR issues. Daniel Case (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looks unnatural especially the sky (HDR). Looks slightly tilted. Original photo with appropriate post-processing could be FP. Jordy Meow (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 21:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lörrach-Hauingen - Haus Steinenstraße6a 2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 19:26:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 19:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see anything remarkable either photographically or in the subject. (are those roof tiles plastic?) -- Colin (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have spend a few seconds more you could see that this is a regular residential building, but exceeding small. But I never had seen any solid review on my picture by you. Such is life. --Wladyslaw (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice it was small, but not "exceedingly small". Perhaps, if the subject is remarkable but the photo fails to express that clearly, then that is all the more reason to oppose. -- Colin (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the photo fails to express that clearly because? I see a house and a lamp in the background to give a idea of the dimensions. If this point should really be your reason to oppose (but I question this) than it is easy to disprove.--Wladyslaw (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The house in the background is four stories tall, so of course it is larger. And a street lamp at similar height to a second floor window is not unusual. -- Colin (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me just one example of a house with just 1 story, an area like an garage and straightly above a attic floor with double pitch roof. I never had seen that before. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean a one-bedroom bungalow? Have you seen the size of starter-homes in the UK? And this is wider and deeper than any single garage in the UK. Small houses are not unusual, but typically they are old and quaint, rather than modern and plastic. -- Colin (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) You aren't able to show me such a house. (2) This house is not in UK but in Germany and such houses are very unusual for middle Europe. This one is a cultural heritage monument for your information. --Wladyslaw (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Colin, QI but not featured for me. --mathias K 10:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice. -- -donald- (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a nice and good QI, but not more for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 21:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:1930s Japan Travel Poster - 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Mar 2014 at 22:36:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by (Japanese government railways) - uploaded by Anonimski - nominated by Anonimski -- Anonimski (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anonimski (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jordy Meow (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mukdenia Rossii 03.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 18:22:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Small flowers of Mukdenia Rossii. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand that the shutter speed was slow, but sorry, even so I can't let go of the fact that the flowers are not very sharp. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Choloepus hoffmanni (Puerto Viejo, CR) crop.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 19:18:16 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Geoff Gallice - uploaded by WolfmanSF - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Kikos (talk) 07:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sharpness problems and pixels on the sloth. And for every animal shot, I would expect a nice sharp head. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unfortunately, Arctic Kangaroo's comment is accurate and has to be considered. -- Sputniktilt (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- As in En-wiki. Foliage does obscure the pic and hence adds up to my concern. Herald talk with me 06:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Arctic Kangaroo. --mathias K 13:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Tomer T (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Heißluftballon am Sihlsee2.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 08:37:10 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Wladyslaw -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Wladyslaw (talk) 08:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture with good quality. Perfect QI for me, but I´m missing something special for FP. --mathias K 09:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Don't see anything remarkable either photographically or in the subject. -- Colin (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have found apparently a new hobby? Giving the same cursorily argument on all my nomination. So it looks.--Wladyslaw (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It goes to the heart of why this not FP. It is a perfectly ordinary photo of a perfectly ordinary balloon, with no apparent attempt at artistic composition or spectacular technical achievement. In contrast, King of Hearts, I don't think "I think it is quite good" is a satisfactory reason to support an image that is supposed to be among our finest works -- have you looked at the category for balloons? -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is quite good. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose QI, but nothing outstanding here. --Ivar (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wlady, your other balloon image at least has context. This is just a balloon. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question It is almost perfect technically. I would definitely support if the resolution is higher and the sharpness increased. Any chance? --Jordy Meow (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Resolution? My camera has 16 MP and this image was not downsized, so no chance to get a higher resolution. But I wonder anyways what is the effort increasing the resolution? You want to make a ultra poster out of it? This picture was not sharpend in addition, IMO it's sharp enough. But I could for sure sharpen the image a bit. --Wladyslaw (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would increasing the resolution/sharpness make this more interesting? Remember this is supposed to be the "finest" on Commons, so a look at the category is a good idea. This is complicated by the fact that someone has over-categorised as is a frequent problem on Commons. But still, we have thousands of balloon photographs and many are equal to this in technical quality and lots are superior in terms of subject (not least, as Saffron points out, the other balloon picture by Wladyslaw). -- Colin (talk) 08:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Psarisomus dalhousiae - Kaeng Krachan.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 06:06:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support As usual from JJ. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ excelent picture--ApolloWissen (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Not eligible to vote. J e e 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 18:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ȸ 19:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Support Poc o² 15:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 20:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support some noisy at full res (due to ISO 3200), but still way too good to oppose. Good shot! --mathias K 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:St Bride's Church, London - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 13:48:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good ~~but please see note~~.--ArildV (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support very good. Arild, look again! It looks weird at first sight, but there is nothing wrong, just the shadow of the window framing in a thicker bar of it. --Kadellar (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! After staring at the picture one minute I understood:). Strong Support--ArildV (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support thats how a fp has to look in my eyes! Great quality with a pleasing composition! Great! --mathias K 13:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I could almost walk right into it. One of your best British building interiors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 19 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 13:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katie Green, Nikon Solutions Expo, 2008 (crop).jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 12:41:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Keraunoscopia - nominated by Blurred Lines -- —Blurred Lines 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Very nice subject, but rather low quality. The sharpness around the eyes is pretty soft and very strong CA´s all over the bling-bling. --mathias K 13:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 16:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Innenhafen Duisburg Blaue Stunde 2014.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 09:08:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nightly view of Duisburg Inner Harbour at blue hour. Please note that not additional saturation was made. Sky (and water) were that dark blue due to end of blue hour.
all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Sputniktilt (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 21:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Good timing, quality and reflexion, the composition is also ok but not spectacular to me. I like the quietness. Poc o² 15:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice reflections and colours. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TC)

Support --JLPC (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support That's a very blue hour you've got there. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! --DXR (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As good as the English blue-hour pics we got a couple of months back. Daniel Case (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 17 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Lido de Thau, Sète, Hérault 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 20 Mar 2014 at 06:31:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The "Lido de Thau" an area protected by the Conservatoire du littoral along the Étang de Thau. In background a part of the town of Sète, Hérault, France. Image taken a few days after and not far from this image but in the other direction. All by me. --Christian Ferrer 06:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 06:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting and composition. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per King of Hearts. —Blurred Lines 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, I don't see how this meets the standard at Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural. I'm not going wow and the sky looks smoggy rather than attractive. -- Colin (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, but per Colin. --mathias K 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per KoH. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tu corriges le dust spot dans le ciel, et je supporte !--Jebulon (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks, I had seen it before before to go to job but after having returned I forgot... --Christian Ferrer 06:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting and per Colin. -Kikos (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, Per King of Hearts. --Caecilius Mauß (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not convinced by the usage of a telephoto here, the resulting compression of perspective gives a feeling of being trapped in a box, which is not of my taste for landscape photography. Sorry --PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Difficult, quality and lighting are good, composition ok but there is something missing here that makes it remarkable. I also agree with Pierrre's comment Poc o² 15:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as promised.--Jebulon (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Colin (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scorpions - 07.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 19 Mar 2014 at 22:48:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Paweł Mąciwoda, bassist of German rock band Scorpions, in Madrid in 2014. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Kadellar (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kadellar (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support minor technical flaws but very atmospheric! --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good moment, quality and background Poc o² 15:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support You anticipated the right moment. Great shot! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 15:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 07:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 21 Mar 2014 at 00:31:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pedro Américo - uploaded by Lecen - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me it is the best framework of the history of Brazil, although not is quite match with the reality in the time. -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Mile (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jordy Meow (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prismas Basálticos, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, México, 2013-10-10, DD 42.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 19:33:53 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Waterfall over the Basaltic Prisms of Santa María Regla, Huasca de Ocampo, Hidalgo, Mexico. All by me, Poc o² 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WOW! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 12:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like it! (Could probably be even more Wowful with ND filter, still I like it like that too). --PierreSelim (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I used one :) Poc o² 16:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 20:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Callisto diagram.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2014 at 17:18:58 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Jupiter's moon Callisto, all by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 17:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Love the bokeh effect of Jupiter in the background. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone actually noticed!!¡¡ 😊 It's because all my earth science diagrams are actually meant to be miniatures hence the short focal lengths, wide apertures, & iOS7-style scattering effects. Idk if I got the falloffs right though—I'm not sure how circles blur with bokeh so I just used a gaussian filter. I've never had to do point bokeh so it's not that obviouss—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually noticed it all the while, including in the other diagrams. And I like it, as it lets us know which planet the moon belongs to, and gives the effect of viewing the moon from space. Btw Kelvinsong, is it possible for you to create similar diagrams for the planets and dwarf planet (Pluto)? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ofc!! I'll probably do Jupiter first then Saturn & the terrestrial planets. && Thanks everyone for all the support!!!¡ ☺—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Blurred Lines 13:57, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would put the text about Callisto on the lower part of the image so that it wouldn't cover Jupiter. ;) Kruusamägi (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if what you have left in this series was offered as a set instead of going through each nomination individually. However, I would suggest to ensure a smooth nomination process that a standard be applied to them all. Also agree with Kruusamägi regarding the placement. No need to obscure that nice bokeh work :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stahp it's literally just a 8.0 gaussian blur on jupiterr!. Moved the title (though personally I think it's better to have the title superimposed on it to make it clear that Jupiter is in the background). && I wish I had the patience to do all of them & nominate them as a set but the promotion of each one motivates me to do the next one ;). Also I didn't really want to invest so much effort if there was a chance they wouldn't be very well recieved bc a lot of large projects I drew before wound up getting ignored in FPC so I don't do those anymore.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Bask in the sunshine of your efforts :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thankss! && I don't think you actually voted yet.. :)—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question How could we be sure that this design shows the truth ? Is Callisto's interior really like that ? In other words: are these diagrams "scientific" ? Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram is based on a doctoral thesis and the WP article according to the description. Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jebulon Good question & not really one I can answer. Usually I just draw what the sources specify & if the scientists are wrong you can't really blame me. I use 3D projection software & draw these things with neurotic precision because I'm like OCD with this so you certainetely don't have anything to worry about on my end. Really I don't think it's even possible to be wrong with subjects like this cause from what I read not even the lab coats know what's inside the Jupiter moons. It mostly consists of all the scientists making their own guesses about the moon structure and each guess is different. Sometimes the scientists even contradict themselves (along the lines of "wtf eight pages ago you said Callisto had Ice III inside it & now it turned into Ice V??"). If I tried to average the numbers or cover every possibility there would probably not actually be any Callisto diagram to vote on here. Really the only way to do this is to just pick one source that's fairly recent & comprehensive enough & go with it. Ig if a PhD publication can't be trusted then I don't even know what can then.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Kelvinsong for complete answer. I'm fully ignorant about astronomy. I don't want to "blame" anybody, and especially not scientists ! It was just a series of questions, and I think they are not illegitime in this case. Your kind answer is sufficient for me. "Love" too, --Jebulon (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- :-) Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Waldkauz-Strix aluco.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 08:45:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Merops - uploaded by Merops - nominated by Merops -- Merops (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Merops (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice contrast between light and dark. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per King of Hearts. Very good iamge! Halavar (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly a difficult shot to get. Well done with the light. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church of St. Michael (1).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 09:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

The ruins of the church of Sv. Archangel Michael in former village Vyshenka Velyka

Info The ruins of shot church of St. Archangel Michael (Ukrainian) in former village Vyshenka Velyka, now this is a territory of Yavoriv Proving Ground in Yavoriv Raion, Lviv Oblast, Ukraine. The church was built in 1927 and destroyed in 1940 by the Soviet occupation regime. --TheLotCarmen (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TheLotCarmen (talk) 10:32, 19 March 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: Insufficient size, far below the required 2MP, please refer to the guidelines. --DXR (talk) 10:52, 19 March 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:Peter-Gabriel-2011.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 16:52:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Peter Gabriel performing at the 2011 Skoll Awards.

Info created by Skoll World Forum - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --- One of my favourite artists, but this is not an exceptional potrait of him. The background is distracting and the lighting a bit harsh. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What do you think about the lighting of these portraits of him 1 2? Are better than this? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I removed the background, you were right! It´s more brilliant in this way... --Araujojoan96 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better but it is hard to get past the lighting on the top of his head. It looks like raw flesh. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the help. (Don´t answer to this, please). --Araujojoan96 (talk) 03:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative version of this candidate can be found here... --Araujojoan96 (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

An alternative version of a nominate to FP.

Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an alternative version of one candidate. I put this other nomination based on this: Only two active nominations by the same user (that is, nominations under review and not yet closed) are allowed. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 04:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved from Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Peter-Gabriel-2011I2.jpg. Just to let you know, Araujojoan96, this is the correct way to nominate two versions of the same image. In terms of the two-nomination limit, these two only count as one. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThanks, King of Hearts. I was wondering that since the beginning... Greetings! (Do you want to vote on this nomination?) --Araujojoan96 (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support C records (talk) 06:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alurín (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivan2010 12:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}}~~ Composition: Inexplicable, ineffective and inadequate black space to the left. Why the space is not to the right (random picture?)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can´t understand anything that you said. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The cropped of the photo? I only respect the original size... I didn´t took the photo. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I can think of the phrase "I didn´t took the photo". Please, take responsibility for what you propose--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand my English, I can explain me in spanish: En cuanto la composición, la foto está descompensada. El sujeto mira hacia la derecha y el espacio libre está hacia la izquierda. Es una pena, pero, para mí, no es una buena foto--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lo repito, respeté el tamaño original de la foto. Yo me responsabilizo por mis nominaciones, pero es absurdo que crea que tengo que complacerlos a todos para que me den su voto. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue Bugallo raised is he didn't like the space on the left he thinks it should be on the right. He is entitled to that opinion. I just don't agree with it. If the black space was on the right it would be like Mr Gabrial is singing to the void. Here he gives the impression of singing out to those beyond. It's just a matter of taste and people vote their taste here. BTW, this latest edit isn't likely to help your cause. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I´m surprised that a serious matter like this, a Feature Picture nomination, has to be simplified to a matter of taste...--Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ignore singular oppose votes. Addressing them often makes things worse. This is an abject example of that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¡Qué difícil es permitir que alguien piense diferente!: La composición es mala: Bad composition. It's my opinion. Tengo que negar mi opinión por algún especial motivo?--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

¿No es suficiente que ante tantos votos a favor me muestre diferente como para que vosotros me podáis ignorar?. ¿Por qué se odia al que no piensa lo mismo?. Algúndía pensaré igual. ¿Debería entonces rechazar la compañía? Conclusión: Somos poca cosa y menos si no somos como son los que son más. ...Y todo esto por una ...de foto que no me importa un carallo. Todo por simplemente no ser igual--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agregué el espacio en negro, por si no lo notaste. No escribiré más al respecto. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No veo espacio en negro más que el de las palabras tuyas, gracias: Bad composition IMO. I can say what I think and there is what I say--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're a big friend, of course--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ésta es la versión actual: 1. Ésta es la antigua 2. Juzga por ti mismo y deja de actuar así. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Empezáramos por ahí. Yo no me he fijado en la foto desde entonces. Está mucho mejor. No me puedo oponer ni queriendo. Debería no querer por como he sido tratado. Ni si quiera se ha indicado que se me ha hecho algo de caso. Se me ha llevado adelante como a un... Pero la verdad es la verdad: Me gusta ahora la foto mucho, no solamente lo suficiente,

Support, aunque no precisamente te considerte un buen amigo, dado el trato recibido por no ser igual--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lo hice apenas lo pediste, Miguel. Sólo que me decepcionaba que dos personas se hubieran opuesto por gustos personales. Eso no quiere decir que te hubiera despreciado o ignorado. Nunca quise eso; lo que pasa es que no sabía muy bien como arreglarlo hasta que la solución apareció sola ante mí. Te pido disculpas si te ofendí, te agradezco el buen gesto, y si quisiera ser tu amigo en un futuro. --Araujojoan96 (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support But please mention all the modifications made to the original so far preferably using {{Retouched}}. Also it is not a good practice to overwrite original source file here. J e e 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that, I changed the information... Is better now? --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 15:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

The chosen alternative is: File:Peter-Gabriel-2011I2.jpg

File:Uitlopend wilgentakje (Salix) 01.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 06:06:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Anticipating willow twig (Salix). created by Famberhorst - uploaded by - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ Oppose after reconsidering. Per comments below. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clipped whites. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The bottom of the image is out of focus. Clipped whites.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice but not outstanding in terms of composition, background or subject. -- Colin (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination--Famberhorst (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lagoon Nebula by ESO, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 00:47:28 (UTC)

This new infrared view of the star formation region Messier 8, often called the Lagoon Nebula, was captured by the VISTA telescope at ESO’s Paranal Observatory in Chile. User:Stas1995
The VLT Survey Telescope (VST) at ESO's Paranal Observatory in Chile has captured this richly detailed new image of the Lagoon Nebula. User:Jmencisom
Gas and dust condense, beginning the process of creating new stars in this image of Messier 8, also known as the Lagoon Nebula. User:EricHS211 (centered by User:Lmbuga)

Info created by ESO - uploaded by users - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 00:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Nice collection. Herald talk with me 07:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ȸ 19:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No wow for me. I'm not sensitive to this kind of images, they do not look different (to me ) of the tons of images like these we have here on "Commons". I know this is not politicaly correct, but it is my opinion, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jebulon : I respect your opinion, but I think compared images of the category of the Lagoon Nebula, they belong to, they need to be promoted, as there are few Featured Images of the Lagoon Nebula. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 15:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 02:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Greater Flamingos, Lido de Thau, Sète 03.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 07:52:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Christian Ferrer - nominated by Arctic Kangaroo -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 07:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not enough in the composition to catch my interest. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main object almost not visible. -- -donald- (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@-donald-: I guess the purpose of this is to show the flock of flamingos in their preferred habitat, and get a good composition at the same time. ;) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Many objects are visible IMO. Wov IMO (but it's not a castle, or a manor house)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There may be some encyclopedic value in this nature shot but I am not getting any sense of wow. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough." -- Robert Capa. -- Colin (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Thank you Arctic Kangaroo for this nomination, I am rather satisfied with this photo and with what I show there, the purpose being to show an overview of birds in their habitat, the whole in a not too unpleasant composition. The purpose of this specific photo was not here the research of the wow but rather to show most possible landscape around the birds. It was for me impossible to pass there without taking this photo. When I shall find the time to edit them, other photos of this place will be uploaded, maybe certain will be more artistic to pass the bar of FP. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 17:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Tudor1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 13:59:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Antonis Mor - uploaded by Lostresjovenes - nominated by The Herald -- Herald talk with me 13:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 13:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support J e e 13:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 17:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carduelis carduelis close up.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 17:01:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by Baresi franco - nominated by Arctic Kangaroo -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are you fitted your camera on your bird feeder?!!! Jee 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh...I didn't realise he "cheated". But anyway the photo looks very natural, and imho that's more important. :) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost, but not quite! The feeder is on another branch about 2m to the right, and this is a branch that they land on to eye it up. I've weighted this branch at one end to pull it down and give me an unobstructed view along it (and, I think, a nice background). I've sort-of given up on my 100-300mm f5.6 lens for birds at the moment, and instead I'm trying to get close with a 60mm f2.8, which involves a lot of subterfuge ;) I've used a remote shutter and tripod here, and a home-made hide from which I can see my pre-set AF square on the LCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baresi franco (talk • contribs) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow! Wonderful tactics to override the limitations of your equipment. And IMHO, you beat our great birders in some of your works. Keep it. J e e 03:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Many thanks for the nomination, Arctic Kangaroo :) I like the tighter crop you've done, although maybe a little more space above his head (since he's looking slightly up), might not go amiss? I wasn't exactly sure how to crop myself, as you can see in the history --Baresi franco (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info I've added a tiny bit of headroom, and cleaned up some noise --Baresi franco (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Neak Pean, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-17, DD 01.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 19:19:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Way over a pond to reach the Khmer temple of Neak Pean, an artificial island that belongs to the Angkor temple complex, located today in Cambodia. The buddhist temple Neak Pean, part of the temple Preah Khan was erected by order of Jayavarman VII in the 12th century. All by me, Poc o² 19:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry Diego, I dont`t see anything that makes this picture featured. Nice shot, but not much more for me here. --mathias K 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mathias. -- Colin (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 05:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Panorama of Vologda Kremlin.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 22 Mar 2014 at 18:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded by Alexey Yuzhakov. Nominated by PetarM -- Mile (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice panorama of Vologda. Cold tones in cold weather in cold city. A bit artsy sky but I like it. -- Mile (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Araujojoan96 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the image with the moon. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 22:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The visual effect is striking, especially the foreground, but the post processing is overdone. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral stunning image, but Saffron Blaze is right. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- -donald- (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Per Saffron. One look and it's out. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 12:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron.--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Saffron, I wonder if the ND filter is digital, because the image itself is pretty promising and certainly useful, but the quality at the moment is not FP-like --DXR (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old book bindings.jpg (delist), delisted

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 23:24:53

Info This picture would never have had a chance of becoming featured today in 2014. The blur is generally too high, and the narrow focus depth doesn't suit the scene at all. (Original nomination)
Delist - as described. - Anonimski (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Support to prevent early close. J e e 17:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist —Even though I'm always sad to strip FP starss—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Echoing Kelvinsong's statement. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist good idea for an image but bad technical accomplishment, I am very reluctant in delisting FP but here I think it's justified --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per above. --DXR (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I too am morally opposed to delisting, but even given its age it is hard to understand how this became an FP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Kruusamägi (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. --Cayambe (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for the reasons listed above. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist J e e 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 10 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Jee 05:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orhan Pamuk in Rustaveli Theatre, Tbilisi, Georgia, 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 04:24:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info uploaded by Jaqeli - nominated by Jaqeli -- Jaqeli (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Jaqeli (talk) 04:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low general quality (out of focus and almost all detail lost to noise reduction). — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Low general quality. Unsharp and composition (the right side is empty)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 06:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pluvialis fulva 2 - Laem Pak Bia.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 26 Mar 2014 at 15:06:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created and uploaded by JJ Harrison - nominated by Blurred Lines --—Blurred Lines 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- —Blurred Lines 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bird seems very yellow? Is that how it's supposed to be like? There seems to be a yellow colour cast in the photo imo. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Its probably because of a sunset, or its it natural color. —Blurred Lines 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm then what about the colour cast? Not possible to be caused by sunset right? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Honestly, I don't know what to tell you. I wasn't there when JJ took the picture, so you might want to ask him to comment on this, if he is still active here or Wikipedia. —Blurred Lines 16:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Since the time at which the photo is taken is 17:45, I would just assume that the colour cast is due to a sunset. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kruusamägi (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yellowish IMO and composition: not centered IMO and not rules of third... --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The colour cast was one of my concerns as well, but I think overall the picture is still fine despite the colour cast. ;) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New review: Support It's a very good picture--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 06:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:King's College London Chapel, London, UK - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 13:50:12 (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) 13:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kadellar (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Strong distortions. --Kikos (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly unavoidable in small spaces. If you want a fairly complete view of an interior, you have to accept a certain amount of distortion. Diliff (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I agree with Kikos, the lamps are very distorted, I tried to fix it (wrap distortion) and got better results but not as I hoped. Also a compression of the y axle, keeping the x as it is helped. Still overall an FP to me. Poc o² 15:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ...and again! Great quality, good composition and pretty nice colours! --mathias K 13:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Wladyslaw (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would have been better without the people. -- Colin (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 17:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Friedrich-von-Thiersch-Saal Bühne.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 14:58:30 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Martin Kraft - uploaded by Martin Kraft - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I liked it and added to Kurhaus, Wiesbaden earlier; but the low resolution forces me to refrain from supporting here. J e e 03:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support now; thanks Martin. J e e 15:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think though that increasing the contrast in the top part would help Poc o² 15:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Really nice picture! But for me there are some issues to make me oppose. The overall quality could be higher imo. For a shot like this i expect a little higher resulution, better light and, I know thats nitpicking, the other fotographer is really disturbing in my eyes and I think this would be avoidable . Sorry... --mathias K 13:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Leviathan1983: Ok about the other photographer (I was thinking about retouching myself, but others convinced me, to leave him there) and the optical aberration(it's „just“ a 500€-Lens), but I don't understand why you suggest a „better light“? This interiour shot was done with the available artificial light and reflects the exact situation on location. I neither see the possibility nor the necessity for a different lighting?!

One comment on the resolution complaints: Our guidelines define a minimum of 2Mpx. This photo has more than double of that: 5.5Mpx. Who ever consideres this not to be sufficient, should attempt to change the guidelines, instead of giving contras to single photos. --Martin Kraft (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are used to Diliff's fantastic stitched photographs but this appears to be a single frame from a 10MP camera and is approx 75% width, which is not a large reduction. If the subject were less spectacular, or the framing less precise, the lower resolution would count against it for me. Martin, the 2MP limit is the absolute floor of acceptability (to be breached only if really justified). There is nothing stopping reviewers citing insufficient resolution/sharpness in their opinion for their oppose as we are judging what is the "finest on Commons", rather that what is acceptable. This happens not infrequently for scanned paintings or for panoramas. The "finest" will naturally creep upwards technically. Btw, can people avoid "small" for review comments. I know the intention is to make the text parenthetical but it has accessibility issues. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Halavar (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well captured ornate interior. I would support an alternative with the photographer skillfully cloned out -- just use the retouched template -- I see no issues with doing that here. -- Colin (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's funny but the other photographer is one the detail I like so much about this picture. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 02:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katzenjammer - Greenville-Festival-2013-2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 23 Mar 2014 at 15:05:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Menschenmaterial - uploaded by Menschenmaterial - nominated by Achim Raschka -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Achim Raschka (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice concert picture! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 07:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 15:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 14:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't like the crops. Daniel Case (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 02:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: People

File:The Cloisters of Gloucester Cathedral.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 21:15:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Saffron Blaze - uploaded by Saffron Blaze - nominated by Uoaei1 -- Uoaei1 (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Uoaei1 (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent ! Big wow for me, congrats. --Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, interesting perspective. --DXR (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the clipped highlights are acceptable here. Interesting detail. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{o}}~~ Sorry, the clipped highlights are only a bit acceptable IMO. Too tight at left: bad composition IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Certainly not technically perfect but hard to argue it's not pretty. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's not pretty IMO--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 18:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made that apparent in your oppose. I guess you were just trying to throw it in my face that is isn't so hard to argue. You win. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. The users win, Commons win, I'm no-one or I'm nobody, please you do not consider that I am important. Confused if you think that. I only say a opinion (I only say a opinion IMO)--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May I do not think like you, please? It's only a vote and I'm nobody--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I await your response, meanwhile I delete my vote because I feel bad. I feel bad with your treatment. Maybe I should stop once and for all to collaborate on Commons--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --JLPC (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unfortunate crop at left. --194.132.180.242 22:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Yes, too tight on the left, I would really like to see a bit more and the overexposures in the stained windows took away important details. Poc o² 18:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CityCat and City Ferry flotilla returns to the river 14 February (5728364964).jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 02:01:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Brisbane City Council - uploaded by Russavia - nominated by Nikhil -- Nikhil (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Nikhil (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tilted (check horizon), dust spots. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. It is striking and if the technicals can be addressed I would change my vote. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination per above comments. Nikhil (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alhambra Löwenhof mit Löwenbrunnen 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:02:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Court of the Lions of Alhambra. The light is quite challenging (extreme bright, dark differences), shooting conditions poor (no tripods allowed, a lot of people, very limited time). I made a hand-held exposure fusion.
all by me. I look forward to your reviews. -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 10:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neutral~~ good quality, but could you try to give the image a more natural appearance? --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:43, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yeah, unfortunately the processing is just not realistic looking. Diliff (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Martin and Diliff, I've hopefully adressed your issue and made a completely new development. IMHO it looks now more naturally. It would be nice to take another look and give some feedback. Thanks. --Tuxyso (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I Support now. It's not absolutely natural, much better though, and there's definitely wow here. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll Support now also. Agree with Martin, it's still not completely natural, but it's a big improvement. Diliff (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per others --Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for re-reviewing. The current photo is the most natural looking one I could achieve - I made several attempts... --Tuxyso (talk) 08:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not easy to make this sort of scene look natural. It's tempting to do all the processing in a tone mapping/exposure fusion software, but I often find that it's better to output a very 'flat' tone mapped/fused image, and then do the rest of the post-processing in Lightroom/Photoshop. It's more time consuming and difficult that way, but you end up with better control of how it looks. I'm not sure how you're processing it, but it's worth keeping in mind. :-) Diliff (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your suggestions. I usually use Photomatix 4 only for exposure fusion. The tonemapping and selective shadow brightening, local white balances,... is done in LR. The function "Merge to 32 Bit HDR" has the disadvantage that ghosts cannot me marked as those. Thus I usually use Photomatix with manual ghost marking and exposure fusion in combination with LR. The detail enhancer method ofter leads to unnatural results - I use it very seldom. --Tuxyso (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are some issues: the right side is closer to the camera than the left one (horizontal perspective correction needed?), to me it still looks unnatural (but wouldn't make me oppose with this improved version), the closer group of columns on the right is leaning out and there are some noticeable halos, especially 2 people in the middle of the right side. The place is, of course, magic... Poc o² 15:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said in QIC, Granada is one of my favorite places in the world. But all the issues mentioned by Poco are enough for me to oppose. I think an attempt to clone out the tourists could be interesting. Once again, I'll be there next summer vacations, and I'll try to do something. And yes, the place is magic !--Jebulon (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As said in QIC, as Jebulon--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 20:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't oppose this, but I can't support it. I actually went off and did something else for 20 minutes or so and came back for this one ... and it just seems ... unreal, or maybe hyper-real. I can't imagine how difficult it is to get the lighting right, since I've never visited this site, but it looks like a painting that was itself created in a badly lit studio. Details in shadow are (seemingly) impossibly highlighted; every nearby tourist is partially obscured. It feels like a composite; it feels like a manipulation—and, with apologies, I can't seem to get past that. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atari-2600-Wood-4Sw-Set.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 11:20:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Evan-Amos - uploaded by Evan-Amos - nominated by kasir -- Kasir (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kasir (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hight historic value --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good image. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 20:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chinese Palace in Oranienbaum.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 08:09:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Chinese palace (South facade) and Chinese pond in Oranienbaum park of Saint Petersburg
Info created, uploaded, nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Alex Florstein (talk) 08:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some of the whites are blown out. Any chance you could fix it in RAW? --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Way too much added clarity makes it very nervous and harsh, almost hard to look at. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree it could be more sensitively processed (but perhaps capture was problematic) but overall this is just a QI photo not exceptional enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nationalmuseum Mars 2014 01.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 10:11:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Nationalmuseum built 1844-1866 in Stockholm. Architect Friedrich August Stüler. In the foreground two classic archipelago steamer (still in regular service in the summer) from the early 1900s. Both ships belong to Waxholmsbolaget, which for over a century have used quay for its archipelago traffic. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I Support. Fine image and museum. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Quality and timing are good, but not outstanding (as in other of your shots) and the subject and composition are good but not featurable IMHO Poc o² 15:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Angle. You should have shot it directly in front of the museum. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. For symmetric buildings, either it's gotta be perfect, or very obviously and intentionally skewed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above ♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 20:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I agree with the critisism but find it not too problematic. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not exceptional enough for FP. -- Colin (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Some of the criticism is correct, some not (the trail-away walkway lights to the left are perfect). This is soooooo close. I understand waiting for minutes if not hours for the lighting to get juuuuuust right, which is what makes it so ironic that this would have been nailed about 20 seconds later; the boat's stern partially obscuring the entryway killed it for me. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Talmont 17 Église remparts 2013.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 06:50:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Sainte-Radegonde church in Talmont-sur-Gironde, Charente-Maritime, France. created by JLPC - uploaded by JLPC - nominated by Christian Ferrer --Christian Ferrer 06:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer 06:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 12:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Needs a crop at right until the stairs, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New cropped file uploaded. All the grass wasn't absolutely useful. Thanks for your comment.--JLPC (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support and thanks Christian for nominating this file. --JLPC (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice composition. Merci :) -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Rjcastillo (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Godot13 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wladyslaw (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This midday sun makes it somewhat boring for me. Kruusamägi (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 21:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kruusamägi. Also tree on left is distracting. -- Colin (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 13:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Close-up of Cynopterus brachyotis (Lesser short-nosed fruit bat).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 09:05:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me. -- Anton^Talk 09:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton^Talk 09:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Bad lighting creates many sharp highlights that are clipped. The sharpening makes the effect even stronger. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As Julian H.--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Julian --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holy Trinity Sloane Street Church Nave 2 - Diliff.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 15:22:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Diliff -- Diliff (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Diliff (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support High quality and EV.--ArildV (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Colin (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the subject is not as spectacular as others, but the execution is top Poc o² 18:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—and from an atheist, no less. Color, composition, everything. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm an atheist too, and yet the majority of the images I've uploaded recently have been church interiors. You don't have to be religious to appreciate the architectural aesthetics of churches. :-) Diliff (talk) 07:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well said. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 08:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@Blurred Lines: Don't use revert to close a nomination when the time is over. You made a mistake that I corrected and talked to you gently. But your behavior is rather rude. First learns what are the purposes of the revert tool. Second, let the bot to close the nominations first. Give enough time to confirmation so that bot will permanently close it in its next run after 8 more hours. Jee 15:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First, to let you know Mr. Jee, I do not have rollback permission, so to tell me to learn about reverting is a pity thing to say to a experienced user. Second, I have told you several times that it has been 5 days, and since then there has no been opposes, and that's why I have speedy promoted it. I don't know what your problem is with speedy promotions, but please do not bark at me like a dog because I couldn't concentrate on the time, minding the date instead, as of which in the rules it does not state any of what you are trying to say to me. —Blurred Lines 16:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hope you understand why I barked :) Jee 17:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oy. —Blurred Lines 17:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 23:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Poecile montanus kleinschmidti 2.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 21:39:51 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The Willow Tit (Poecile montanus), a species that has suffered a dramatic population decline in the UK (and over most of Western Europe) over the past thirty years. Created, uploaded and nominated by Baresi franco (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Baresi franco (talk)21:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Though tail is a little out of focus, IMHO, it is still a nice pic worthy of FP status. Nikhil (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 12:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Support ~~The pic can be better if it is saturated a bit more, and if the background had not been an unnatural brick wall(?) on the right.~~ (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info Appreciate the constructive comments, and I can understand the desire for more colour/warmth. However, I don't really want to increase the saturation in this case, as the Willow Tit has quite muted plumage, which reflects its habitat (damp scrub/woodland at cool latitudes - it nests in old, rotten tree stumps ), and I think this is captured here. The background is all foliage, just lighter on the right. --Baresi franco (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 20:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 23:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pano Grand-Hotel Nationalmuseum Stockholm DSC 0003w.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 24 Mar 2014 at 23:44:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- P e z i (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support - Nice composition, but IMHO, it has some noise in few places and also could have been a bit sharper. Nikhil (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 19:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Nice but lighting leaves a bit to be desired (too close to noon). --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Distortion (is it an assemblage?) and dull lighting. Could be better with lateral light. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Need to crop out the near bank/pavement. That would improve composition. But resolution and lighting are still unspectacular. -- Colin (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*{{Support}}--Miguel [[User talk:Lmbuga|<u>Bugallo</u>]] (Lmbuga) 21:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Second vote, sorry--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 21:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /J e e 07:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Île de la Cité shortly before sunrise, West View 140320 1.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 10:53:40 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me, -- DXR (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, this is obviously the sort of view pretty much everybody has seen before, but I think the morning blue hour (?) - the image was taken at 06:30 CET - makes the location, which is nice anytime, outstanding. The image is a HDR, but I have been careful to use it as a pure dynamic range expansion tool and think that it does not introduce any fake effects here. -- DXR (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Paris 16 (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice composition. Very good --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very stunning result. I would prefer less processing (would make the noise less dominant and give some areas more contrast) but the result fulfills what I expect of a FP. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--ArildV (talk) 15:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- That's just lovely. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. -- Colin (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Arcalino (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Baresi franco (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good. Nonetheless I think FPC votes have a massive bias torwards photos with water reflections (as I know from own noms) :) Could you shortly say which HDR technique was used? Software? Fusion vs. tone-mapping? BTW: There is no excuse required if you use HDR techniques - in contrary. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxyso, I exported the five images from RAW in LR, did a fairly conservative tonemapping in an ancient version of Photomatix, exported it as a (gigantic) 16-bit Tiff and did some final touches in LR, again. --DXR (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really great image! Halavar (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Think again, my friends. Yes, sunrise is nice, light coming from back could be nice when is compensated by HDR. But this city landscape? I don't think it's the best idea. The only justification could be that in this hour there is no traffic, no people. Don't let the nice sunrise sky and water reflection fool you. Composition is poor. Something on the left side but rather empty, the center part is very busy. Poor details, main object in shadow, dull colours. Most of you and also the author have given these reasons when opposing good images. Now you don't see these flaws. Just think again. Of course you could blame the reflection in biased voting. --194.132.180.242 21:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. — Macbeth

Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --XRay ^talk 08:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support but still improvable IMHO adding a bit more of the bridges in both sides, the crop is not the best I think Poc o² 18:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poco, you are correct, but regrettably I cannot add more space on the left. In my defense, it was very early when I took the photo, and there was a slightly irritating and most likely intoxicated person not far away from me that persistently tried to converse with me in ways that well exceeded my knowledge of French. That was obviously not helpful for my concentration ;-). --DXR (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, good work anyhow! Poc o² 19:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Beautiful. The reds on the left more than make up for any lack of activity. (Oh, and DXR, just how "intoxinated" were you when you typed that? XD) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... I knew there was something wrong with that word... --DXR (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I'm not fan of the colours and contrast especially the dark dones. One one hand part of the images gives pretty soft colours, due to the light at dawn, on the other hand their are pretty very strong dark tones with a mix of green and black wich is not in my taste. --PierreSelim (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 23 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Barnard 33.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Mar 2014 at 14:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Ken Crawford - uploaded by The Herald - nominated by The Herald -- Herald talk with me 14:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Herald talk with me 14:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Woaaeiuoiaeaeoiow! ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 14:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice. -- Jordy Meow (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 13:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 15:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Are we going to feature all space pictures ? --Jebulon (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not, only (false-)colorful nebulae get some luck around here. Anyway, you should point reasons for not featuring this picture or if you think you have already done that, be more explicit. --G Furtado (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jebulon: Lol, I'm not sure how I should decide not to promote space pictures. So as long as it impresses me, I support. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since I'm here, there are (almost) always two or three current nominations of "space pictures", and as a fully ignorant, I don't see difference between them. My question was another way to say "no wow" for me, sorry".--Jebulon (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - My dear, FPCs are not intended to satisfy your taste. It is meant to choose finest images from a list of over 20 million files. Herald talk with me 15:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, really ? Thanks for information, my dear.--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impressive. INeverCry 19:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support /St1995 20:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with editorial: something's always bothered me about images similar to this one, as if their creators vacillated. You know, "wait, this is too red, maybe I should add something different ... hey, how about a blue nebula down here?" xDDD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's IC 434 down there. Herald talk with me 13:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 18:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Astronomy

File:Jasná Ski Resort - gondola lift Kosodrevina - Chopok (3).jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 17:06:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I had an impression that it's slightly tilted ccw. I'm not sure if it's an illusion though. --Ximonic (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks tilted, but horizon is parallel to the length of the picture. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info small correction of the horizon --Pudelek (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Blurred Lines 12:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 13:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes. This one jumps. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Really nice scenery! --mathias K 15:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 17:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Meydenbauerkamera.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 18:50:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Camera conceived and built by Albrecht Meydenbauer, German engineer, creator of the architectural photogrammetry. Created by Swiss National Library - uploaded by Swiss National Library - nominated by Kelson -- Kelson (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Kelson (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some explanations should be interesting, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /♫♫ Leitoxx ♪♪ 23:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balaruc-les-Bains, Hérault 01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 05:47:33 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info The commune of Balaruc-les-Bains on the bank of the Étang de Thau from the La Gardiole Mountain. Hérault, France. All by me. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Almost no flaws, if any. Beautiful landscape that makes me go "WOW!!!!!" as well. Nothing available for critique in the picture. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 06:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose No "wow" and almost nothing interesting. Specialy ferms and wires in front :) --Kikos (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Kikos. I don't understand AK's comment at all. The camera has captured a sharp image on its sensor. Other than that, I can't see anything remarkable about this photograph that justifies even QI never mind FP. One has to do more than point the camera at a bit of landscape. -- Colin (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Colin: "Wow" is subjective. ;) I hope you understand that. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Arctic Kangaroo: , I agree wow is subjective, but I wasn't commenting on your "wow" remark, because at the time you hadn't said anything about wow. Saying this has no flaws and cannot be criticised in any way is, well, ridiculously bold and not true of any picture created by someone on Commons let alone an award winning photo in a national gallery. AK, voting like that just makes people suspect you are playing games. This isn't fair on Christian, who I'm sure would prefer a justifiable level of appreciation from supporters rather than the fawning on show above. -- Colin (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Colin: OK, I will take note in future. I was just adding the "wow" factor about the imho "beautiful landscape" that I did not mention earlier, following your criticism. Thanks for the feedback. ;) (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 05:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think we all understand that wow is subjective but it also has norms. Look at the FP landscape category for images that are within a wide range that could be considered a norm. This falls well outside that norm. It's a fine picture, but very few people are going to go wow! Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Kikos. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Colin. It's a fine image, but nothing about it says anything to me more than standing-on-an-overlook-point-and-shoot. Its most interesting feature to me is the background; nothing closer to foreground captures my attention. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Ok, thanks all. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Twintowers of Deutsche Bank Headquarter in Frankfurt a.M..jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 19:05:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by and uploaded by JürgenMatern - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 19:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --XRay ^talk 08:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Godhulii 1985 (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 18:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--JLPC (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Herald talk with me 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A little watery-looking down on the street in the center, but so what? Daniel Case (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Papilio demoleus (Lime Butterfly) on leaf.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 09:22:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info All by me -- Anton^Talk 09:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Anton^Talk 09:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Laying eggs?" - No; it is excreting excess water and minerals that it consumed through it's proboscis (as here). Butterfly eggs are fixed to a leaf with a special glue which hardens rapidly. They bend their abdomen and lay eggs (clusters or single according to their instinct behavior) mostly under the young leaves of their host plants. J e e 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the info, Jkadavoor. --Anton^Talk 02:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose CAs, noise, blur, lighting is a tad bit harsh. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 16:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per AK. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Generally overexposed in my opinion, and therefore clipped in some areas. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Julian. I've commented on several images that don't "pop"—this went so far to the other extreme that it actually gave me a headache. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI'd prefer constructive criticism, not this kinda 'headache' criticism. --Anton^Talk 10:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing incivil intended, just an honest opinion. :)

But, come to think of it, you're right. To me, this is hyper-everything—hyper-sharp, hyper-lit, hyper-colored; the photographic equivalent of an overproduced song. Again, it's all a matter of opinion—and it's all too possible that it merely augmented an already-existing headache. xD —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry, nice scene but the lighting is way to harsh for my taste. --mathias K 14:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moros, Zaragoza, España, 2013-01-07, DD 11-13 HDR.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 19:21:52 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info View of the small village of Moros, province of Zaragoza, Aragón, Spain. The whole village of Moros lies on a hill, with the most relevant buildings in the top (church and former town hall), the residences in the middle and the sheep pens at the bottom. The current population of Moros is 441 people (35% of the population one century ago, that's why many houses are abandoned). The picture is the result of the blend of 3 pictures. It was necessary because the sun (shone on the left) made the clouds very bright, causing an overexposed sky within one frame. All by me, Poc o² 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 19:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gidip (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the overall composition very much, however it appears that there are some patches of softness on some of the buildings. Nothing major, perhaps related to the HDR. --DXR (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DXR, thanks for your feedback. Feel free to add notes, I'll see what I can do Poc o² 10:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a matter of location in the image, but e.g. some of the buildings near the church are a bit soft (like the ruin below) [but well possible that I'm maybe a bit too strict here]. I would just sharpen it a notch overall to give it more crispness, but just my opinion, not a big deal at all at this res. --DXR (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I increased the sharpness overall and selective in some areas, looks fine to me, thanks, 11:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Much better! --DXR (talk) 12:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak ~~Oppose~~ Sorry but Imo despite sharpening, the left part are is still not quite sharp and has a low level of detail. Composition and lighting is good, but not outstanding (nothing that sets it apart from a good QI). No wow either.--ArildV (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ArildV, can you please add a note where you miss detail? I cannot see the loss of quality that make you oppose. The weather and lighting were IMHO optimal. The sun was shining to the facades of the interesting side of the village and the shadows, far from disturbing, add perspective and texture to the image. The clouds, that could be shown properly with help of HDR, are a plus to me, as well. Regarding wow, of course, that's a matter of taste. Maybe you think that this kind of scenes are usual in Spain. I am Spaniard and have travelled a lot and I hadn't seen a case of a whole village being fully built up on such a steep hill. Before tooking the picture I walked around the houses and it was pretty crazy. When I took this picture there was big wow for me and I thought that would be even more for others not familiar with old spanish villages. Poc o² 14:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poco_a_poco; after discussing the picture earlier today, I took another look. I'm still not convinced, to me it is almost like you've applied a lot of sharpening on a slightly blurred image. I am aware that I may be wrong, and removed my oppose (and DXR has a point).

I dont doubt your description of the village, abandoned (or partially abandoned places) are often interesting and often have an very interesting story to tell. But an exciting and unique places does not automatically mean that the picture is exciting and unique. For me, this is a very straightforward QI with a good composition, good lighting conditions and good EV. I look forward to see more pictures taken inside the village. I understand the feeling of walking around in the unique village, but I don't feel that feeling when I look at this picture. I dont think I can explain it better.--ArildV (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The dark sky with sunlight on the subject is a good catch, and capturing the whole old village on the hillside makes an interesting composition for me. Whenever I find an image disappointing at 100% for softness or noise, I always pop it into something like IrfanView and reduce it first 75%-original-size then perhaps 50%-original-size with a little sharpening. Here, the 75% size version is still over 11MP and very sharp all over. So I ask myself if an 11MP image offered at FP would have enough wow here. And it does for me here. I'd rather Poco donated his larger image than felt it necessary to heavily downsample to avoid pixel-peeping. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Pixel-peeping is a derogatory term, and I dont think it's fair here. The most reviewers (including me) take into account the images size (In other words, you are not alone), it is one of the considerations when reviewing images (downsampling is not a solution, since we take eventual downsampling into account when reviewing the image). By the way, I upload and nominate full-size images.--ArildV (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ArildV, I think you assume too much of your fellow contributors and you also assume everyone here is as experienced as you with FP expectations and norms. Also, remember my comments aren't just/necessarily pointed at yours. You may well have done as I suggested and still found the image wanting (I can't personally spot any sharpness issues at 75% but perhaps you think then the detail or resolution at 11MP is unexceptional and requires more). But you didn't say you had. So for all the newbies and kids who vote here, are they to read this and assume that pixel peeping is fair game? Because if one reads photography websites it sure is and nothing is desirable less than the latest 36MP A7R with Zeiss glass. Back in the real world, we have lenses mortals can afford, cameras that can only dream of 19MP, heat haze, noise, hand shake, wind... The vast majority of images online are "resized for web" and probably look awful at 100% and Commons is quite unusual in publishing large images for close examination. So you may not need reminding of the dangers of pixel peeping, but in my experience many do. As a newbie reviewer, nothing is easier than opening the image at 100% and finding technical flaws. Oh look, I found some CA in the edges. Far harder and bolder to criticise the composition or lighting, say. Contributors have given up because of pixel peeping complaints at FP and many contributors do downsize heavily to avoid them. I know of no other term than "pixel peeping" to describe an issue apparent only at 100% but that is not felt important for judging. BTW, I don't understand why you struck your oppose. I think your rationale is a valid one and should conclude in you opposing. Be bold! -- Colin (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first thing I said when I saw this image was "wow, I would love to see this place in person". In Canada we have NOTHING like this, and given that context, what might be quite ordinary to some is extraordinary to me. However, I don't think this position is so outside the norm that I felt at all constrained in supporting this image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's always possible I'm being too picky, here, but I'm completely on the fence with this one. The foreground/background contrast is nice, but nothing within the subject itself jumps—it's flat, for lack of a better word. This has a ton of potential; if you were to make this same picture perhaps earlier/later in the day when the buildings' shadows add some dimension, I'd support it in a heartbeat. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great lighting. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, what a shot! The lighting is awesome and the composition is also really, really nice. The overall quality could be a tad better, but anyway this one rocks! --mathias K 15:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --A.Savin 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Sharpness not very convincing. Picture doesn't really "wow" me off overall. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the best sharpness for this camera and lens, yes, but anyway Support. --Alex Florstein (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Salar de Uyuni Décembre 2007 - Panorama 1 edit.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 20:31:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by S23678 - uploaded by Julia W - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose Shadows and halftones of the half right are dark--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unusual subject and I can't find a better picture online let alone on Commons. The resolution/quality isn't quite our finest but then it was taken in 2007 with a 5MP compact camera from 2003 and stitched. I think the rarety of the location/subject mitigates the fact it wasn't taken with the latest pro camera. -- Colin (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice pano --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak pro because of the car on the right. --XRay ^talk 08:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support because of the unfortunate right crop, an easy-to-fix issue that makes out a FP. I would even go further and clone out those 4 people Poc o² 18:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The idle cyclist center-shot sells it. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 07:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice picture with good quality! S23678 was one of my role models in panorama taking when I begun with this stuff... So I need to support. ;-) --mathias K 15:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /J e e 03:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Toyota FJ Cruiser Iceland.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 27 Mar 2014 at 19:51:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Ritchyblack - nominated by Tomer T (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tomer T (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --TheLotCarmen (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose It's a cool photo, but it looks clearly overprocessed to me, especially the registration plate which is far too gray. I would support a more moderate edit if available. --DXR (talk) 11:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Jaqeli (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an overprocessed photo and a reason to oppose, but I love it. It shows exactly how this day was. Cold, wet and hard. Thank you Tomer T for the nomination.--Ritchyblack (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per overprocessing, sorry...--Jebulon (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overprocessed. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak oppose I've not problem with overprocessed images in FP (I've problems in QI). Nice image, but the wheels are noisy and they are important in the photo. I like the composition--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nice picture and interesting composition but unfortunately overporcessed.--Jean-Éric Poclain (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great picture! For me it don`t look that much overporcessed... Good shot! --mathias K 14:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support/ Nice/ JukoFF (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support--An678ko (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the shot but having a hard time to understand what is happening. It crossed the river and is supposed to be stopped, but the water drops and the tire motion would indicate it is moving backwards into the river? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Info I can understand your reasoning when I see the water drops on the wheel. But the car drove forward from the river. I think the movement of the water drops is a result by the the brakes or the strong wind (see the flag on the vehicle). --Ritchyblack (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 03:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Orchis 03.JPG, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 06:04:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Orchis. Plant in the Netherlands is on the red list. created by Famberhorst - uploaded by Famberhorst - nominated by -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Famberhorst (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the exact species is needed for a FP. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Done Dactylorhiza maculata maculata, one of the (many) varieties. Kleuske (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you, Kleuske. --Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Not centralised. I will support if fixed. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Centered. Thank you.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --P e z i (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support One is almost required to view this full-sized to see the subtleties within each bloom. This would be an excellent candidate for enlargement and exhibition. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Poc o² 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Jasná Ski Resort - gondola lift to Chopok (2).JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 13:42:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whites are overexposed. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per King, and I think the composition isn't ideal because the cable cars are almost hidden in front of a dark background. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 14:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Only a bit overexposed, but too centered and the trees of the first mountais are too dark--Miguel Bugallo (Lmbuga) 15:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not FP quality or wow. -- Colin (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I almost feel like I'm being too critical, but there's an "eh, it'll have to do" feel about this. I imagined myself moving right so that the left-most cable was overhead or to photo-left, and waiting until the car was closer to contrast the ice-covered support (even if that meant losing the trailing car). Still, I find this worthy. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overexposure and lack of wow. Also agree with being too centered. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sunsetboat.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Apr 2014 at 14:38:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Royroydeb - uploaded by Royroydeb - nominated by Royroydeb -- Royroydeb (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Royroydeb (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please have a look at the other images nominated here and those that have been promoted before. Unfortunately your image is very unsharp and also not very expectional in any other way and not comparable in quality to the standard here. Please read the guidelines before nominating. --DXR (talk) 15:01, 27 March 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: Severely out of focus --DXR (talk) 15:01, 27 March 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:Ursa Major2.jpg (delist and replace), not delisted or replaced

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 28 Mar 2014 at 14:12:30

Info There has been a new version of the image uploaded by Adam Cuerden, and I think that it looks better than the current FP. (Original nomination)
Delist and replace -- —Blurred Lines 14:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace but @Adam Cuerden: is it possible to save the JPG with the colourspace used. -- Colin (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just standard RGB. I think doing anything else breaks the thumbnailer. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - RGB is not a colour space. The "standard" solution would be sRGB. — Julian H.^✈(talk/files) 07:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - All I can say is that I know that any attempt at indexing breaks the thumbnailer, so I don't tend to fiddle with such thngs. Far easier to break the thumbnailer than to do good.Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace obviously. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and replace J e e 13:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 4 delist and replace, 0 keep, 0 neutral => not delisted or replaced. Jee 02:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For another, successful nomination see Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/File:Ursa Major2.jpg/2. MZaplotnik^(talk) 16:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jupiter diagram.svg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 17:34:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Diagram of Jupiter, all by Kelvinsong—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Love, Kelvinsong talk 17:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yann (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support My background for the week. The wide aspect ratio was nice to have. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~2:1 for life uk? 💁~~—Love, Kelvinsong talk 19:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not getting the reference or concept. Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

never mindd. Just expressing love for the 2:1 aspect ratio—Love, Kelvinsong talk 20:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'm partial to 16:9 since getting this new monitor. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 22:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This clearly took some work. Nice job. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have just nominated this for English Wikipedia Featured Picture as well. --Pine^✉ 04:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice! I appreciate. --Ximonic (talk) 06:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great diagram. --Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question I am not expert in this topic, however, Jupiter has a irregular form not espheric, like the texture over the esphere is not well expanded. But, How you can see here, Jupiter look espheric and regular?. It is only a question, maybe is only my point of view. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Jupiter in the picture you linked to is round, like Kelvinsong's Jupiter. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no rotating body is perfectly spherical. Not sure the extent of this is relevant to Jupiter. It's an oblate spheroid. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the feedback

Support Halavar (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very nice, though I find the pink core slightly distracting. Are the inside colors arbitrary or following something? --DXR (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ya I think so too. :P (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 02:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason I just like pink! ;)—Love, Kelvinsong talk 21:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Nice to see some love for Frutiger as well... ;-) --DXR (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OMG NO ARE YOU REAL. You are literally the first person on Commons to ever recognize the font!! Glad to know some people here have an appreciation for fine typography ;). Frutiger is my favvv 😊—Love, Kelvinsong talk 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Kikos (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Could be nice in french and spanish. Congratulations your level is improving --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what I need do to have a spanish version. Thanks --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you provide a list of translations that would speed up the process a lot, otherwise I'll probably have a Spanish version in a few days. Translations of these diagrams are always hard bc you have a lot of technical phrases like "North-north temparate belt" & "Gossamer ring" && words that usually aren't adjetives being used as adjetives that are hard to translate.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --ArildV (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Karelj (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /— TintoMeches, 22:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Råsunda February 2013 02.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 15:11:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Råsunda Stadium (host of the 1958 world cup final) and in the background the new Friends Arena (inaugurated in October 2012). Råsunda was Swedish national football stadium 1937-2012. It was a unique photo opportunity just before the demolition of Råsunda started. Created, uploaded and nominated by -- Arild Vågen (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArildV (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak oppose~~ To me it was not obvious what was the subject of the picture, and even after reading the description I still couldn't say without doubts which building we are talking about. I guess that from that location 70 mm was not enough to stand out the subject. Further I am not sure why you placed it that low and so far to the left, I'd centered it a bit more. Sharpness is good but not outstanding and both sides are leaning out a bit. I imagine that the reason for the chosen shutter speed, low DoF and resulting composition is that you had to be quick (commercial flight?), and I have to say that under that condition the shot is really good but still not a FP to me, sorry. Poc o² 18:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in both the description here and on the file page, the image captures both the old national stadium and its replacement (Friends arena) in the same image. I cant at all understand why a different focal length had made a difference, the distance between the stadiums are over one kilometer. For once I dont think your comment make any sence, I can of course center the two stadiums by a further crop but it will just make the both arenas a smaller part of the images and make it harder for you see "which building we are talking about " (what's the point of that?) I can not see any better way to include both stadiums in the same picture, I can not see any photographic tricks that make the stadiums to "stand out" better.

With all due respect Diego, I don't think you take into enough account the image qualities. The image has historical value (the only free aerial image showing both venues), Råsunda is a historic arena (one of the few that has hosted the world cup final in soccer for both men and women), the quality is not bad compared to other aerial FP (especially considering that it covers several square kilometers!), picture could only be taken from a chartered helicopter (if you were lucky and got permission to fly as close to Bromma Airport, and the stadium is demolished today).--ArildV (talk) 19:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Arild, I got it wrong. I looks that I didn't read the description carefully and came to the conclusion that the subject was only the stadium in the bottom left corner. Therefore my judge was based on a wrong premise, I take my oppose back and leave it just as a comment. Poc o² 13:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support While the photo is certainly not quite perfect, as mentioned before (especially the color cast IMO, however I am not very familiar with northern light and accept that this might have been unavoidable), I believe that the EV is significant and the photo is probably unique. --DXR (talk) 14:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Litlle bit chaotic composition, no wow. --Karelj (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nikhil (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Karelj, oddly enough. The chaos is the point, for me. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 04:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per DXR - EV and uniqueness. I like the light, too. --Baresi franco (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Funkturm Arsenal Wien DSC 7717w.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 19:56:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- P e z i (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Info The so-called "Postturm" (official name "Funkturm Wien-Arsenal" is a 155m high tower of reinforced concrete. On it's top are antennas for radio and television broadcast, point-to-point radio systems and base station controller for mobile telephony. The middle platform is housing an operating room.
Support -- P e z i (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why so much sky at the top? The eye is drawn there, as if the spire points to something we can't see. Personally, I'd crop that down a bit. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the hint, I've uploaded a new version. --P e z i (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And with that, I Support —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support Nice colors and good details at the antennas. It's a bit grainy overall but still OK for me. --mathias K 15:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tuxyso (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Original shot Poc o² 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Rjcastillo (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pudelek (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Solsbury Hill.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 29 Mar 2014 at 15:17:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Thomas Nielsen - uploaded by Araujojoan96 - nominated by Araujojoan96 -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alt

Support -- Araujojoan96 (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a search to find the inspiration image. Found this. -- Colin (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You´re right... The photographer said something similar: Solsbury Hill. Greetings! --Araujojoan96 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Info A few words of the guidelines: Symbolic meaning or relevance Opinion wars can begin here … A bad picture of a very difficult subject is a better picture than a good picture of an ordinary subject. A good picture of a difficult subject is an extraordinary photograph. Images can be culturally biased by the photographer and/or the observer. The meaning of the image should be judged according to the cultural context of the image (to read more about it), not by the cultural context of the observer. An image "speaks" to people, and it has the capacity to evoke emotion such as tenderness, rage, rejection, happiness, sadness, etc. Good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensations…

Is this directed at me? --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. I forget to cite this words since the beginning... --Araujojoan96 (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 23:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Uninteresting composition. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 22:06, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tintern Church Hill.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Apr 2014 at 21:45:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support an excellent study in contrasts, both in terms of what's in the picture (life from death, as it were) and what's not (the portrait aspect lends to the mystery). The cloud formation also frames the subject to near-perfection. Nice snap. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 22:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak Support The overall quality could be better imo but the composition is so nice that I need to support here. --mathias K 15:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Green cast ?--Jebulon (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is just algae and moss on the stone. The stone is quite yellow to begin with and the sun is low. The white dove on the church is quite white and if the cast was green I would have expected it to be off. What led you to this concern? Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice green shot, there is some minor CA, though (see note) Poc o² 22:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Tamba52 (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --DXR (talk) 23:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nature wins last. J e e 03:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crop is too tight and I believe it is also downsampled significantly. Why? Otherwise a lovely picture. --192.36.80.8 09:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /A.Savin 22:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Echeveria elegans, Jardín Botánico, Múnich, Alemania, 2013-09-08, DD 01.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 07:14:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Exemplar of Echeveria elegans, Munich Botanical Garden, Germany. All by me, Poc o² 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 07:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Is this the plant or the flower? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 08:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most fascinating of this plant to me and the reason why this species is my favourite: the plant has the form of a flower. In addition it does have also flowers. Poc o² 16:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, a beautiful and interesting plant. :-) --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I like this plant. ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 21:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing special, normal good quality image, no reason for nomination. --Karelj (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like the plant, a lot; but the image itself seems flat. Even at full size, the highlights don't jump, the shadows don't contrast. Maybe it's just me. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Yes! You nailed it. :D —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 05:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why not try a tricky AOV than flat overhead view (which also works; but rarely)? :) Jee 06:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just my own opinion here. I prefer proper, serious overhead shots for flowers, unless you are shooting sidewards to show dew on the stamen, bees on the flower etc. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 14:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to dislike overhead, symmetrical shots of plants, although here it does seem justified to me. My only concern is whether a higher F number wouldn't have given better results. Gidip (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think I'm with Jee here. And when a overhead I think a little stack would work much better too increase the dof. Now the focus fits perfect but I miss more "deepness". --mathias K 15:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The fact that the second circle of petals seems to be situated before the focus point is a bit problematic. It is a good image but if we add the fact that the subject does not distance itself from the background, certainly not your fault but... Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Poc o² 20:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:SRP entrance close.JPG, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Apr 2014 at 19:22:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I doubt your picture is free of copyright. We don't have FoP for 3D/2D artworks and there it's absolutely not de minimis as it makes up over a quarter of the photograph. --CyberXRef^☎ 05:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me I need to back off from the sculpture to make it less prominent, or that it can't be prominent at all (if in fact in the image at all, given that its absence markedly alters the image)? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 06:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sorry, the composition doesn`t work for me. --mathias K 16:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that you mention it, something seemed a bit off, and I just figured it out; I wanted the sculpture to appear to be pointing to the directory as if welcoming the viewer to browse, but at this angle it also appears to block the entrance. Given that and the potential copyright issues, I'll make some more attempts next time I'm up there. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 02:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Mathias and CyberX --An678ko (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- converging verticals due to low positioning of camera. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Larry Kirkland confirms copyright ownership in an e-mail this date. If CyberXRef is correct, this image should be deleted. I'll try again soon anyway. :) —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 21:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /— TintoMeches, 22:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trombidium holosericeum Woblitz01.jpg

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 16:51:12 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Kulac - uploaded by Kulac - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 16:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soft. Lacks sharpness to make it "pop". And it's 1/250 ISO 400??? Considering that and the quality, I wonder how it became QI. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Level of detail is not sufficient for macro FP. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Is it me, or is the focus on the surface instead of on the mite? —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 09:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 15:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:GLIMPSE360poster.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 10:49:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by NASA - uploaded & nominated by Originalwana (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support As nominator Originalwana (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—😍😍—Love, Kelvinsong talk 18:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow, there is! Yann (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support — TintoMeches, 23:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /A.Savin 14:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Río Saigón, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 21.JPG

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 6 Apr 2014 at 05:47:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Container ship Tan Cang 15 in the Saigon river in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All by me, Poc o² 05:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Poc o² 05:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tomer T (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 03:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Call me a killjoy but I cannot see what is featureable here. Quality is high (excellent FF camera + ISO 100, 1/320 - no wonder!), but motive and composition are too ordinary for me. I have also problems with the light because nearly the complete ship is in unfortunate shadow (only tiny areas at the nose and on the front parts of the containers receive some light). Motive: If you walk for instance through Hamburg you have much more impressive container ships than this one. You could have made this photo special if more of the surronding context had been visible. As it is here, it is just a (relatively boring) ship in any harbour in any country. A well done documentary photo of a ship but imho no FP, sorry. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:28, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what is extraordinary to me (feeling like a fragile tiny thing next to a huge container ship which is 50 times bigger that the boat I am in, and looking at the ship from the bottom how it pass by), may be ordinary to you, no problem with that. Regarding the place (Saigon river in Ho Chi Minh City), it may also be ordinary to you but to me it is not what I would call a place around the corner in my home city. Poc o² 07:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little concerned about giving so much importance to where the image was taken. Wikimedia Commons is a global project and have a global perspective. It is true that users from Europe (especially Western Europe) are over-represented here, but should it really affect the assessment of the images? Are pictures from Vietnam more exotic and therefore have a bigger wow? Ho Chi Minh City metropolitan area is populated by more than 9,000,000 people and Vietnamn have more then 90 million inhabitant (more inhabitants than Berlin and Germany), no remote or difficult to reach location.--ArildV (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you didn't focus it the way I mean. Vietnam is not more exotic than Spain globally (but it is, of course, to my person). If we were flooded of high quality pictures from Vietnam then my comment would not be accurate, but right now in the category of Quality images of Vietnam you will only find pictures of Prenn (mostly flowers) and mine. So, although Commons is a global project, a big majority of the photographers and reviewers here come from Europe and America and will more likely be familiar to cities like Berlin, Madrid, Paris or London than Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi or Phnom Penh. To me usually it will have more wow seeing something I haven't ever seen before than something I have seen in person. Poc o² 11:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso, sorry --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso. Kruusamägi (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tuxyso --Ivar (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination I give up, a pity, Poc o² 21:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Burg Altendorf 2014.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 30 Mar 2014 at 15:33:28 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by me -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Tuxyso (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 17:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sputniktilt (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Good quality and high EV but to my perception the subject is not really outstanding. The shadows don't help either (too harsh), probably there are better lighting conditions to shot from that angle. Poco² 18:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Motive is a matter of personal taste - for me it is interesting enough. But I strongly disagree with your comment on the light - I imho the large bright sun side of the building and the remarkable smaller shadow side give the building depth which had not been there with complete flat and homogeneous lighting conditions. --Tuxyso (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose same as Poco --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I believe the subject is fairly interesting and great colours and weather. Sanyambahga (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The square crop would work better if it was more centered on the building, here for this composition I think there is too much grass. The shadow at left is also problematic because the blue footbridge catches the eye exactly towards this shadow. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian, thanks for the review. I thought for a long time about the crop and decided this way. If you take a closer look on the different shadows of the trees you will see that I tried to use them as frame around the building. IMHO the shadows are not really problematic because the building is well lid and catches enough attention. --Tuxyso (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A thing is sure, the image is good and interesting. And I agree in 200 % that a good photographer must try to integrate at his best all the elements which can be disturbing, power lines, cranes, shadows, ect... --Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 02:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Americo-avaí.jpg, not featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 01:04:39 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pedro Américo - uploaded by Tetraktys - nominated by ArionEstar -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ArionEstar (talk) from Google Translate. 01:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- Herald talk with me 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /J e e 05:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karpovka River Embankment 06.jpg, featured

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 31 Mar 2014 at 07:50:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info Karpovka river embankment -- National Romantic style district of Saint Petersburg.
Info created, uploaded and nominated by Florstein -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain -- Alex Florstein (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No...not the power lines. :( --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is air communication cabling (TV, internet, telephony). Сables are everywhere, and we have no chance to take picture in the old city without wires in a frame. In fact, these cables above the streets became a part of our urban atmosphere. Alas... --Alex Florstein (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Very pretty, despite the power lines. --King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't think these wires are power lines, per King. --A.Savin 18:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ritchyblack (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Power lines? pfft!!! It is thus even harder to make a beautiful photo, nice place and photo. -- Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kikos (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Michael Barera (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Ivar (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am certainly no fan of powerlines, but these don't detract from the main subject in a substantial way. However, a slight crop on the left, right and top could minimize them even more and improve the overall composition (see note for an approximation). Saffron Blaze (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your opinion. But I think that the current crop is better for this picture - it needs more space anyway. Maybe I'm wrong. --Alex Florstein (talk) 08:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --JLPC (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Except for the spider web away from the camera, the power lines work for me. The perspective seems to point left, toward where the clouds are "gathering", adding to the mystique (as in, "hey, what's going on over there?!"). My preference would have been to crop out the cars camera-right; that this is a roadway seemed to detract from the romance, as it were. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Kasir (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Halavar (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support per KoH. --mathias K 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Nice composition and good quality but terrible power lines Poc o² 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /—Blurred Lines 12:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places