Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/May 2009

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


This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.


[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:27:52
Fireworks - contest performance of group Macedo´s Pirotecnia (Portugal) on Brno dam (Ignis Brunensis 2007)

 Question Can you show me that artifacts of yours? It happens I can't see any. The same goes to the other picture you opposed as artifacted. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better. MER-C 09:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Done. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 21:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:24:48
Hummingbird Hawk-moth

 Question Please, show me any artifact on this photo --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the green areas in the background. MER-C 09:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 08:53:49
The coast of Jan Mayen Island in the Norwegian Sea.

  •  Comment --hence my suggestion to tone down the sky a little. no offense, but the sky pretty clearly is not the main subject of this picture, nor what makes it worthy or unworthy of FP. Lx 121 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 16:39:15
Epalpus signifer 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 20:14:57
Rhombodera basalis 

result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 Apr 2009 at 23:21:56
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Additional informations added to to the image description --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the only viewer we have --Richard Bartz (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The Wide image template is also useful, for example you can use it in your user subpages, of course it is more useful for wider panoramas, it's just an idea.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the info. I've put the template on my sandbox for now :-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
No, I would say It's rather a tad underexposed. --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But holiday pictures are ... --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday pictures are not necessarily FP material and the same applies to non-holiday pictures. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support certainly more relevant than an oversaturated field. Beautiful composition, nice quality. --Dschwen (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Brackenheim (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose -- nice panorama of a power plant, but it's nothing special, & a FP needs to be. i'm not clear why the subject merited the effort; is there something unique, or notable about this facility? i've walked past thousands of simillar, unremarkable buildings in DE, with & without waterfrontage. as re composition: it's not really well balanced left to right; the water side is nicely done, but the trees & equipment on the left neither contrast, nor balance the water particularly well. the cut-off line on the far left is somewhat awkward too. (also the roof pattern is coming out messy on my (lcd) monitor, in anything other than max size?) panoramas are tricky to do as a balanced whole, but that's another reason i don't see this as an FP. it's very nice work on a technical level; very crisp in max res, well stitched together, seams all covered up. wmc should have a better organized system of merits, including technical categories; i would support this for an award for "technical skill, panorama", but it's not really an FP image. who would want to see this as a potd, much less poty? who would care enough about, or be interested enough in the subject, to click it & enlarge? the author seems to have quite a fanbase on wmc, but i don't think this particular image merits all the enthusiasm, sorry. Lx 121 (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Don't forget, everyone sees things differently. While you may consider it just a building, others may percieve something else entirely. I personally enjoy it, but the subject hasn't totally drawn me in. I realise that it has no obvious flaws, and while it may not 'turn me on' it may do so for others, so I don't oppose it. In the end, people will vote how they will, based on whether they like the image, and if it it fulfills their own perceptions as to what 'technical quality' is. It's not a perfect system, and it never will be. But such is the consequence of being born into this chaotic world. Welcome to Commons, make sure you keep your sanity and thick skin firmly in place at all times. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - bravo! --Pudelek (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 24 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 16:23:23
professional drumset

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of multiple issues discussed above --ianaré (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 00:40:39
Oahu from the air

Thank you for you comment, Notyourbroom and not for opposing the image for tilt that is easy to correct. May I please ask you to take another look and tell me, if it should be rotated some more?--Mbz1 (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kallerna! May I please ask you to feel free to support your edit? :) --Mbz1 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs crop IMO (that "thing" on bottom left is distracting). —kallerna™ 15:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for your comment Notyourbroom. The image was actually taken not from a helicopter, but from a commercial airplane.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
(Dmitry A. Mottl was not contacted regarding his oppose, as it was not a deciding vote.) Maedin\talk 18:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 07:11:01
Amelia Opie 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 07:34:19
Wire Light 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beskid Śląsko-Morawski - panorama 2.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 09:55:09
Moravian-Silesian Beskids in winter

 Comment -- if you follow the bottom power line you can see a misalignment, but hardly noticable. -- Peipei (talk) 11:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 16 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 15:28:02
Salt lake Baskunchak in Russia 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 18:59:31
Map of Europe in 1923

 Comment Although Bacon died in 1921, the map shows the borders of 1923-(1929)-1935, so I will have to change the name at the end of this vote. --Alex:D (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support A fine map of Europe after WWI drawn by G. W. Bacon. -- Alex:D (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support without hesitation --Zakharii 19:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Dmitry A. Mottl (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Speaking as an American whose commonwealth's boundaries have not been redrawn since a minor reshuffling in 1785 (NY ceded Erie County to PA, PA ceded all other land north of 42N to New York), it's fascinating to see the extreme extent to which national boundaries have been drawn and redrawn over the course of the last century in Europe, and how so many nations like Moldova, Belarus, and Slovenia (to name a random few) simply did not exist in the not-so-distant past. Thanks to my daily spaced repetition memorization sessions, I have memorized all of the modern nations and capitals of Europe, so the differences here are fairly easy for me to spot. Even where new nations have not been created, there are still noticeable discrepancies between national boundaries—like the bite Russia took out of Finland during the Winter War still belongs to Finland on this map. Mesmerizing stuff. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- MJJR (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - it is a .jpg map and therefore not very precise or easy to change for translation.--Avala (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Gorgeous! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support highly detailed, great quality (JPG is OK because it is a scan, not a new work) --ianaré (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree with Avala. For an old work it's not so great, and new work in SVG would be so much more useful. Samulili (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment -- !!!  :(( -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I respect everybody's opinion, but since opinions are formed according to previous experiences I should make a comment. First of all, I would like you to compare this map with several others from the same period. Bacon's map is not just a political one, with borders, rivers and cities, but also a form of art, one of the most beautiful and representative works of cartography of its time. I didn't propose this image solely for its informational value, but also for these other particularities. Note its "warm", harmonious colors, discrete relief hachures and those little details that makes this map special: steamship routes (historically significant) and time zones. I know many would like a dull, "cold" png map - which, no doubt, is preferable in some ways, and can be correct to the millimeter -, but I wouldn't vote for it to become a featured picture though: it's too common and impersonal. Maps these days aren't what they used to be. --Alex:D (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I guess I'm biased... I own a number of books of maps (including this excellent one)... but I don't look at historical maps as being "useful." If I want "useful," I'll type a few words into Google. Maps are extremely complicated works of art. They represent the pinnacle of our quest to understand the world—to pare the enormity of the universe down to a whisper of paper—and may only arise through the cooperation of many arts and disciplines. The precision of the astrolabe and compass, the wanderlust of pathfinders far from home, the ambitions of the global-minded, and the tireless passions of artists all mesh together in one harmonious product. That is why this map—and others like it—deserve to be featured. —Notyourbroom (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support--Mbz1 (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I do not understand the opposes, but I guess that holds true for some of mine too.
    I support, cause I like the details and it is an old one of countries and borders of yore. Lycaon (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Lošmi (talk) 09:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support /Daniel78 (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Aqwis (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- as re: some of the above objections: it's not just useful as "a map" of europe, post ww1; this is both "map as art" & "map as historical document". it demonstrates the skill of the mapmaker, & what a map really was & really looked like, in that era Lx 121 (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 13 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 19:06:04


Yes, it is--Euroman3 (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 23:31:57
Refueling a Fire King Helitanker during firefighting operations in Southern River Western Australia 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 May 2009 at 19:57:17
Dendrobates azureus (Dendrobates tinctorius) 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 15:22:59
Mircrowaved Disc 

result: 5 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 00:52

Mircrowaved Disc 2 

result: 4 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 05:28:17
Ulysses S. Grant 

result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 09:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Gastrophysa viridula-2.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Gastrophysa viridula copulation.

Needs parental advisory control first ---Richard Bartz (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 09:30:13
Coreus marginatus 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 21:41:29
Obamas and the Queen

  •  Info created by Pete Souza - uploaded by Allstarecho - nominated by Allstarecho -- --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Love the capture of the decore in Buckingham Palace. I hadn't realized how up in age the Queen is getting. Don't think we've seen much of her since the Diana fiasco. And who would have "thunk" years ago that there'd be an African American president and his wife, standing in Buckingham Palace? Quite the pictue.--✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Good contemporary document. For an image taken by a professional photographer (which got money for it, I'am shure) I expect something much better (look at the crop on the bottom) - otherwise I'am not too keen in supporting commercial pictures. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was taken by the official White House photographer. It's not a "commercial" image. --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 23:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it's not made for sale. But it was a commercial job, respectively part of Obama's 100 days in job PR campaign. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I just don't see or understand your reasoning. How is it a "commercial job" when it's taken by a federal gov't employee whose job is to take official photos? --✰ALLSTAR✰ echo 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont't know the photographers contract, maybe he's a freelancer. It's just because he works professional and get money for that, therefore my expectations in absolute excellence are very high. It would be a slight difference in my opinion when a Commoner had taken the picture (e.g. you), I could see mitigating reasons because of nervousity or excitement. Simply said, I dont like the crop on the bottom. --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is poorly cropped 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.

. --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You was faster with your comment than me striking my oppose vote --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 21:47:26
Sculpture of Saint Sebastian

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image quality is poor (colour balance) and the subject is cropped 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => /not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 21:17:55
Lyttelton Timeball Station

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image quality is poor (unsharpness, lighting) 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charles Robert Leslie - Sir Walter Scott - Ravenswood and Lucy at the Mermaiden's Well - Bride of Lammermoor.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 19:26:48
The Bride of Lammermoor 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 19:24:01
Firehole river

Done, Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Robert of Ramsor. You've got it just right! --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not worry. There are few more of my nominations for you to oppose. Please do not miss any. :)--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support With Robert of Ramsor. A new sensor will give us in some years a larger contrast between dark and light points in the image. Today it is -like we say in German- "ein Streit um des Kaisers Bart".--Michael Gäbler (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Danke schon, Michael. When we had only film and wet chemistry, we didn't have some of these problems, but you didn't know if your photo was OK until days or months later. Too late, then, to do a re-take. Technology improves every year, although I think that the JPG compression and current computer graphics are major limitations. We need systems with RGB ranges 0 to FFF rather than 0 to FF (hexadecimal). -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1, withdrawn

[edit]

Honestly, I do too, but shhh, please do not tell, AngMoKio. I'm doing my best to please him, but I am afraid I am failing miserably. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Imho it might look nicer but it simply is not realistic as it looks here. In reality the colours are not that intense there (as in the original version). By pushing up the saturation or doing other things with PS, Mbz worsens many of her very nice pictures. I am just stating my opinion. --AngMoKio (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 this one only--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Thank you,Richard, I mean thank you for "it's" .--Mbz1 (talk) 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 May 2009 at 20:11:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 12 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Ibis rouge (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Eudocimus ruber 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GIPE25 - Cigognes dans leur nid (by-sa).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Ciconia ciconia in fly 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 11:00:46
SHORT DESCRIPTION

I don't use a Nikon camera. I think it's because of a feature similar to Canon's tonal value priority which automatically brightens dark areas - which causes color noise throught excessive overdrive of the sensor - or - 2 much sharpening value in the parameters. --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment you will find it very difficult to get good 'extreme' macro shots with this type of camera. Flowers, lizards, butterflies etc should be OK if you can keep the noise levels down. --ianaré (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral The fly is reasonably sharp, except for the wing and further parts of the body which are almost out of sight anyway. The texture of the petal is visible. The pattern of petals makes a nice idea. The weakness of composition is in too much background in the top half of the picture. I suggest a crop so that this is reduced, placing the eye of the fly at "rule of thirds" location towards the top left-hand corner. We have no reference by which to assess the petal colour, so must assume that it is naturally this vivid yellow. The other weakness is the harsh metallic sparkle on some bits of the fly, especially the magenta and cyan blobs on the top between the wings. It seems that, with the equipment you have (rather than professional kit) you have done fairly well before the fly flew away. But it is not quite up to the standard being aimed at for a relatively common-place subject. Use the experience on FPC lists to give guidance for the future. That is what I try to do, thinking more critically about how to get round the limitations of my camera. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 14:24:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Request As a courtesy to the nominator, please explain why you have voted your opposition to the promotion of this image. Note that the voting instructions request that you provide an explanation for votes of opposition. Thank you. --ianaré (talk) 00:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk">talk]]) 09:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  •  Oppose sorry. The photo deserves to be QI as it is a solid shot. But this centred composition and all those trees in front of the the church are reasons for me to oppose. Also the trees hanging from the left into the pic are distracting. --AngMoKio (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment A centered (or symmetrical) composition is certainly not always a good and valuable reason for opposing. Sometimes it's simply the best way to show a subject, as it is here the case IMO. BTW, the 'distracting' trees at the left are adding some tension to the picture, which make it just less symmetric. After all, the trees are really there, so why do you want to remove them or at least to clone them out of the picture? In our quest to make clean and beautiful pictures, we are more and more violating the reality... and the truth. -- MJJR (talk) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahm...where did I say to clone them away?! All I want to say is that certain conditions require certain compositions. And this composition doesn't convince me, although it is in general a nice shot - it is just not a FP for me. Btw the other shot where the trees have flowers/leafes is much nicer as this way the trees fit much better into the composition (unfortunatelly the colours are a bit strange there) --AngMoKio (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Ok. ;-) For this photograph I waited for the time when there are not so much leaves. In summer it looks like this: --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 15:21:13
Tamarin

looks more chinese .. --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Richard,
May I please ask you what is your mood today? I'm asking not because you opposed few of my images (that's fine. I'm always happy, when you pay attention to my images even if this attention results in opposing), but because you asked me to provide a location for an image which is clearly specified at this very nomination as taken in SF ZOO. You did not seem to be interested in the location while supporting few of Luc nominations.You did not even bother to ask what Zoo the images were taken at. Maybe you ask for the location only for the images that you are opposing. Is that it? I mean I understand why AngMoKio asked for the phone number for the beautiful woman, but asking to provide the location for a monkey in a cage... Well, Richard, just for you I added location for my image. Sorry, I could not direct you to the exact cage. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 16:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for asking me - my mood is markedly well since spring has arrived Munich at full tilt. Sometimes I forget to ask for the location but thank you for finally adding the location to the description. Regarding opposes - I think it is important to hold onto our FP claim in delivering the best of the best commons has to offer, which I think only less people awares at the moment. FPC is turning into QIC - I cant't admit that - nobody should. Rise up FPC! --Richard Bartz
Discussion about my oppose vote is moved to here --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 May 2009 at 15:28:59
SHORT DESCRIPTION

72! --Richard Bartz (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oww, that many. I smell POTY 2009 --Muhammad (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read some tick experiences by Commons photographers here --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  •  Support hmm...tasty. This one is fresh from your dogs fur I guess and not from your...ah whatever. Your story shows again what risks commons-photographers take to make good pictures. I once got bitten in my hand by a horsefly while taking a photo. I saw the fly on my hand but didn't remove it because the photo was more important. Result was a big swollen hand that had to get treated with antibiotics. Though after reading your story I am happy that this fly didn't bite me somewhere else. --AngMoKio (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These little suckers are aldo dangerous. In my country they transmit a disease we call 'fever of the tick' which may cause extremly high fevers. During summer most of them are infected! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment But don't forget Wikipedia is not a trusted source. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Yes, but a quick Google search confirms it (did you mean Ixodes ricinus?). UpstateNYer 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Royal tern in flight 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 17:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 02:08:13
Dawn Service ANZAC Day 2009 at the State war memorial in Kings Park, Western Australia Alternate version reduced foreground lighting

  •  Info created by Gnangarra - uploaded by Gnangarra - nominated by Gnangarra -- Taken during the dawn service ANZAC Day 2009. Gnangarra 02:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Gnangarra 02:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I know it's an ambiental picture, but underexposure of the important part of the picture bothers me. Also, the out-of-focus head near the lower right corner and (I think) a slight clockwise tilt. --Yerpo (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Is it just me or the monument and the crowd are too noisy?--Moise Nicu (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The picture doesn't know if it wants to be a silhouette effect or a nightshot with a vantage point. It's a pity that the memorial isn't illuminated --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Although I expect it will fail on some aspects of technical quality. It may do better under Valued Images for its historical interest. If you had been free to wander around, it would have been useful to take 10 or 20 shots of this scene and offer us an alternative. Such as from about 100 yards to camera right, getting the obelisk closer to the right-hand 1/3 vertical and flag-pole framing the edge. I don't know for certain this would be better composition, just suggesting something to try. Whether or not this makes FP this year, have another go next year and improve some of the technical aspects, especially the bluured heads of the crowd. May need a little more light, closer to sunrise. The reflections on the water work well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment wasnt really possible to shift position during(I was there 2 hours before to get a high central position) with 40,000+ plus[1] people there once your in a spot thats it for the duration, unless your in official areas setting up tripods for long exposures just isnt practical. I see the people attending as a intergral part of the event that does mean using levels that increase noise, an alternate silhouette version is File:Dawn service gnangarra 02.JPG. Gnangarra 14:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extra information. It explains that you were not able to do much different, and like many of us you have to put up with what is possible, rather than the theoretically ideal conditions and unaffordably expensive cameras people think you have. I like the second version better, especially with the aeroplane included. (When I suggested trying another location I did not realise that there were so many people there. The picture looked a bit like you were at the back of the crowd. We don't get nearly so many people attending events like this in Britain - only football matches and pop concerts.) Thanks for reminding us of this event. I wish you well. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 11:36:38
European Hare camouflaged in its natural environment

While I understand usefulness of geolocation tag for photos of places etc., what use it has for animal which can be seen basically everywhere? --Spock lone wolf (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly virtually no use for geolocation for, e.g., a photo illustrating a mass-produced man-made object. However, I think there is some inherent worth in geolocating photos of natural flora and fauna, especially when combined with the date information. I like taking an extreme long-run view for Commons, e.g. that historians of the early digital systems of our species centuries hence may appreciate details that we might consider unnecessary in a contemporary sense. —Notyourbroom (talk) 20:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, added --Spock lone wolf (talk) 12:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 12:04:45
SHORT DESCRIPTION

That's possibly true, however you still have other options. Using bounced flash if possible, use softbox or diffuser, or use other flash unit not on the camera... But using only direct flash on camera should usually be the last option to fall back. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 15:28:17
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leopard---Panthera-pardus-saxicolor---Face---(Gentry).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 12:24:20
Face of Panthera pardus saxicolor

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of serious quality problems due to post-processing errors --ianaré (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2009 (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. 
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baccha bequaerti.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 13:57:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

The eyes are definitely not with a black frame and the natural appearance isn't metalic. The harsh flashlight is at the expense of value. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lighting isn't that harsh(I used a diffuser) and it better to have some detail than none at all due to motion blur. --Muhammad (talk) 09:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best is natural looking light without motionblur . The max for a flash is 1/200 on your cam but your shutter speed could be much higher - I can reach 1/320 with 400 ISO and f/10 and on that day it was very windy, too. No need for flashlight. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My picture was taken a few mins before sunset, so unfortunately it was pretty dark and I have never seen the overfly again since then :( --16:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's the bitter reality of macro photographers :-/ --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's why I shouldn't be here. Maedin\talk 22:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
? I don't understand.--Richard Bartz (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clear! I meant that, as I lack expertise in both the subject matter and in photography, there are times when I should refrain from both commenting and voting, :-) Your comment pointed out the error in mine: that perhaps the lighting isn't ideal. It was my rather obtuse way of showing that I accepted your comments. Maedin\talk 07:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't wanted being dogmatic, but sometimes there are important points we shouldn't overlook and must oppose when necessary, what doesn't mean that the image is bad or ugly. As en example: At german FPC which has a big community, there are many users which have the opinion that most of Commons FP's doesn't have any, respectively less EV, which IMO is true for some. Our most important guideline which is the only one in bold letters states: Value - our main goal is to feature most valuable pictures from all others - great :-/ - now comes the stupid schizophrenic part - I love a lot of the images I had to oppose - but the problem is the place (relation to wikipedia) and the imperative FPC project scope. Sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 14:28:57
Schwerin Castle in the evening Sun 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 21:18:32
Walingford (Oxfordshire, UK) Castle Ruins - Remains of Saint Nicholas college 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 16:22:16
Lacerta agilis female 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 18:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jamaica Bay Canada Goose.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 19:32:02
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Sorry, I don't get you --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I mean that the subject is not the same sitting vs. flying bird is quite different for photography so should be the expectations.--Avala (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now i get you - thought you ment it's a different species. Well, a picture which shows the whole animal including his feet or in an action is much more valuable. In my opinion a featured picture should get promoted for QI and VI with ease but I don't see this here. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 17:25:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator not featured.--Richard Bartz (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 13:34:54
Closed church of St. Anna in Szubin - once belonging to the prisoner-of-war camp Oflag 64 and Stalag XXI-B

 Albertus teolog (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator, not featured. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 22:45:13
Anableps anableps (Linnaeus 1758) 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wooden cats.JPG, withdrawn -> not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 22:13:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => Withdrawn by nominator -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 4 May 2009 at 22:54:39

Calidris alba group

  • I used the LR corner in order to add sand to the LL corner. Do you think you would have noticed it was cloned without seeing the original at the top (no sarcasm intended) ? --ianaré (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 00:37:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 10 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 02:19:41
House in Cappadocia

I do not think it is a good enough reason to oppose the image. This image is a good addition to the one you pointed out because it shows a close up of the house and even some furniture.I'm not sure which one of the two is more outstanding, but IMO each of them is more outstanding than many other cureent FP and FPC on this very page.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Your previous photo nicely shows context (+ excellent composition). I can't tell the same about this one. What I meant to say with "not as outstanding as" was that the composition of this photo does not pay off. Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is an absolutely different image of absolutely different subject. I am really not sure how two of them could be compared, but ... Thanks for you vote and for your comment.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, although I cannot agree with your assessment of my image, I'd like to thank you for voting on it. I missed your reviews on my nominations for quite some time. I am really glad we're back to normal :), and that you are back on reviewing FPC. I mean it. Thank you!--Mbz1 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no problem. So what did you do with the image that makes it look somewhat like an old photochrome postcard? --Dschwen (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly cannot remember. Maybe sharpened it a litlle bit too much. If you'd like me to I could upload an original image (I hope I still have one) and let you to figure out what I've done to it. --Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Apr 2010 at 10:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

SHORT DESCRIPTION

You want to know why?

I'll tell you why. Here's what the Arbcom on en-wiki has done in just the last month or so. You can figure out the context yourself.

1. Rlevse oversights links to the offline copy of the log about Durova, which was my main bit of evidence against Durova. This greatly escalates the case, forcing me to take it to Arbcom, because that's the only way I can have the log considered, since Rlevse is determined to abuse her tools to protect Duurova. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

1a. I mail the Oversight committee about this. I get a message saing it was awaiting moderation, then nothing. I send it again, I'm told it's being discussed, but they forgot to tell me. I send two or three messages after this, asking if I'll be informed of the result. None are ever replied to.

2. During the case, Durova is allowed to go over the word limit, but if I do, I get a warning. I allow my text to be redacted once, because I was so upset over the Faysall's talking about how Durova should apologise, at which point I will immediately work with her on a project, treating two years of her using me as a scapegoat as something I should go back to, so the Arbcom doesn't have to bother. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2a. When I briefly go over again during the course of a major, three horu revision fo my statement, I get some weird edit conflicts along the way. I don't know why, so I just save over them, so I can get my thoughts together. IT turns out some clerk was constantly reverting to a reduced form of the FIRST EDIT I MADE, even as I was still trying to get my words together. In the meantime, Durova's wordcount stood at about 576, and no redaction happened to hers. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2b. I find out about this when done, and go to deal with it. I tell the clerk it will take a short time to work on it, and point out the problem with Durova. I complain about the uneven treatment, so he blocks me. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA 2c. The clerk then spends 2 hours being an utter dick, holding the block over my head, while poking me with a stick. He only unblocks if I promise to leave his highly misleading redaction alone. 2d. Durova's statement remained over the word count during this time. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

3. Durova outright lies, claiming, based on me giving permission for her to post a specific log which backed an outrageous claim she made - and was never able to back - that she can post any logs she wants, because her Skype is saved as one log. She actually quotes from e-mails. The Arbcom are unconcerned with her behaviour, or that this new statement of hers is around 1500 words. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA

4. The fact that she lied about having permission, was unable to back an accusation which she had made on ANI before, claiming she had the log at that time, does not concern Arbcom. They decide that, despite me having been driven off Wikipedia for 5 months by her actions, and her not having a lick of evidence against me, that they should ignore her behaviour. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA?

5. Durova is allowed to make constant references to the situation which set off the case at en:Talk:The Raven, even make snide comments about logs containing my objection to her orientation. All this questioning was being done by other people. They are fine with this. But, when something I made on commons - which they explicitly excluded from their judgement - having seen what she was doing on en-wiki at en:Talk:The Raven gets put up as an FP candidate on en-wiki, and I politely ask that it not be used, because I had had to make do with some non-FP quality work, they block me for the maximum duration. OBVIOUS FAVOURITISM TO DUROVA


After Durova spent two years harassing me, they have decided to show blatant and obvious favouritism to her, while poking fun of me. And this while knowing I was in a vulnerable state for various reasons, had just returned after five months away due to the harassment, and had only in the last week returned to participation. Then they pull the last stunt, and taunt me about it.

English Wikipedia's power structure is blatantly corrupt. And anything I do here supports those people over there. That's why you should care about en-wiki. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, first of all what you do here supports the readers of en.wp. Why punish them? Secondly why punish the remaining Wikimedia projects too? --Dschwen (talk) 03:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky talk 16:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 11:14:01
en:Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) in en:Stockholm. Note that this differs from the rest in that it shows the feet. (Also note that a piece of an icecream cone has been retouched away.)

  • FPX doesn't devalues a picture. It accelerates (in all fairness) the closing procedure when there seems no chance of success - instead of - cashing in a flood of unpleasant oppose votes. FPX is good - a long dead is sad. --Richard Bartz (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 17:48:04
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 18:11:44
Bald eagle 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 18:26:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 08:53:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the missing inbetween frames causing a too fast and distracting animation --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => FPX -> not featured. Richard Bartz (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 21:37:19
Fallow Deer (Dama dama (Linnaeus, 1758))

This picture was taken in the forest, I added geolocation tag (very approximate though, because I really don't know on which exact place I encountered this deer) --Spock lone wolf (talk) 22:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was it really not taken in a sanctuary ? I ask because this picture was taken at 17:38, 30. Aug. 2007, 12 minutes later you took a picture of a mouflon File:Mouflon.jpg .. it happens very rarely that one is surrounded by so many wildlife in a forrest. A very short time with such a close distance. I'am a bit sceptical ;-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never found it that bad, but it's true that it's a whole fallen tree. I had no chance to get above it this time while crawling towards the deer, the photo is taken half second after it saw me and half second before it ran off. Maybe some other time it'll be better :) --Spock lone wolf (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 23:18:29
The Winterfelds' Diptych - revers of left wing The Winterfelds' Diptych - avers of left wing 

result: 4 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 01:53:01
James Greve apple blossom 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

  • The light was full sunlight, with the background in shadow, which is why it happens to have ended up so dark. Which is a good thing as the ground below this bracnh was untidy. I considered lightening the background by adjusting the gamma, but lack the software to isolate the flowers neatly enough. (And printers often lighten the picture anyway.) The change in gamma made the flowers look whited-out. The exposure was limited by the need to avoid saturated white on the petals. And having had another picture taken in passing cloud cover on a sunny day rejected because of the light, I thought it would be better to use he full sun option. (You can't satisy everyone all the time.) Composure, aiming at this bloom as the best isolated bunch at the time, leaning from the top of a ladder, was planned to avoid putting the main bloom exactly central, and this was the sharpest of 3 (there were others, but being perched on the ladder they were cropped) which worked along these lines. Perhaps I should cut the branch off the tree, and place it in a studio with full control over everything. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

  •  Comment As Alt 2 but with sharpness and resolution degraded to match more closely the general quality of up to half the existing flowers now in Featured Pictures. And this is still better than any of the previous examples in the Malus domestica blossom category. OK, it may not be good enough for Featured Pictures by 2009 standards, if the bar is as high as AngMoKio says. But it would have made Featured Picture at this sharpness and resolution 2 years ago if the existing examples are any guide. -- Robert of Ramsor (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for lowering the volume --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 19:26:53
President Barack Obama reflects.

* Oppose The scene has some potential, but there's too much distracting elements --S23678 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC) after 5th day. -- Colin (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 08:54:48
Olga Kurylenko

:-) --Richard Bartz (talk) 14:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you afraid that by opposing the image, you would never get the phone number for Olga? :)--Mbz1 (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 9 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:33:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:47:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 20:38:13
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 8 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 6 May 2009 at 22:29:10
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 04:52:17
An eroded rock formation near Furnace Creek, Death Valley, Ca.

Don't panic, nobody will bite him :-) - but I ask myself when he's new why he went straight to the most holy place on commons ? As Lycaon has proposed it would be a good idea to firstly look around at Commons:Photography critiques before cashing in a flood of unpleasant oppose votes. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Beginners should try Commons:Photography critiques first, your removal of the FPX template was not warranted. Lycaon (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- it's my right as a voter; try & remember how your first few FP's went... Also, the person who placed the FPX template was in such a hurry, they didn't even bother to correct the spelling in their comment. that suggests both haste & a lack of manners, sorry. Lx 121 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Info - The FPX template has a dual purpose: to avoid unecessary humiliation to sub-standard nominations and to keep the FPC page cleaner for the pictures which have real chances of promotion. If the closing were done as planned, those nominations were removed from the page in 24 hours after the FPX template being used. There is no intention to punish newcommers but, as Richard Bartz has suggested, this is the right place for evaluating the best pictures in Commons and might not be very friendly for casual nominees. It is really a good idea to start atCommons:Photography critiques or even at Commons:QIC before trying the much harder FPC. Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better  Oppose now then delist later. Quality is very poor, sorry --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This picture looks really cool too. The texture on the bottom hills remind me of elephants. :D Masterasbian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon how cheap it is to send sockpuppets. What do you think - FPC is comedy ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please see my response to your comment on the listing above Lx 121 (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment -- (for the 3rd time) it's not a scan of an old print. i know the photographer. i asked nathan to join wmc so i could use his material on wikip. he shoots on film, likes colour saturation the old-fashioned way; also likes long exposures & darkroom work old-school. the pics were shot on film & transferred to digital in processing. the full-sized version is a max-res of the original film. i agree the full-sized versions need technical improvements; clearly, it would be good to improve those aspects. frankly, i was more interested in the overall quality of his compositions & their usefulness on wikip articles. the photo-technical details aren't really relevant for my work, as long as the image looks decent on the article & on the file page. i'd also like to get geo-tags (something i have nvr dealt with previously). ...i'm hoping to get some musician friends to contribute next. i hope the jury is more merciful on them! :P Lx 121 (talk) 08:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know the problem is that we have VI and QI to identify pictures of high value and good quality. FP should really be limited to a small amount of pictures that really stand out. But the picture in this nomination doesn't stand out. It is not a too difficult shot and it is of poor quality. In general it is a nice shot - but that is not enough for FP. --AngMoKio (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 04:45:15
Mono Lake, Ca. Small Tufa and the Eastern Sierra Nevada reflecting

Expand to show discussion
C'mon how cheap it is to send sockpuppets. What do you think - FPC is comedy ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 02:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK are you trying to pick a fight? if you want to make an accusation, make it for real, do it right: get an admin on it, then after the traceroute comes back clean, apologize. masterasbian is a friend, yeah, not a sockpuppet. looking at the voting patterns on here, i wouldn't talk too loudly about sockpuppeting. it seems like there are a lot of "dittoes". incredible as it may seem, there are people with opinions different from yours, out there in the real world; a lot of them actually look at qualities in a picture beyond the merely technical. if you would like to continue this, i suggest we move it to the talkpages, so we don't waste other people's time. in 24 hours, i want to see either a retraction via strikethru & apology, or i want to get a formal complaint & appropriate processing of same. put up or SHUT UP :P Lx 121 (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
follow-up upon a careful re-reading of the complete threads on both listings, and some reflection, i wish to moderate slightly the emotional tone of my preceeding comment, though not the substantive contents. i find that i had missed one of your previous postings which seems to have been intended as helpful; if i had seen it at the time, it would have reduced the degree of anger in my response. however i still take offense at your final comment, as duplicated on both threads. you have insulted me & two of my very good friends: 1. by asserting that i had "cheated" in the voting process. 2. by implying that no-one would vote for nathan's picture because they genuinely liked it & supported it for FP. 3. by suggesting that asbian's opinion was unworthy of being taken seriously, presumably because he did not phrase it in technical language to your liking. my request for a retraction from you stands. Lx 121 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it. The fact that you concede it's a friend strengthens my assumption that something strange is going on here. I don't trust you, respectively smell cliquishness --Richard Bartz (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid!, now that you have actually taken the time to read at least part of my posting (although apparently not the suggestion that we move this to the user:talkpages, rather than clutter up the nom/voting page with personal remarks), & since you seem to have decided not to apologize, i will expect to see a complaint filed against me, by you, right away. i look forward to dealing with some admins & clearing the matter up. after that, i don't think we really need to have any further communication with each other. since you seem to be enjoying this, however, i will take the time here to point out, re: "cliqueishness": there is a very odd, uncritical, largely uncommented *rather sparingly commented*, "ditto" voting pattern that appears on all 3 of your present nominations, which is atypical *somewhat atypical* as compared to most of the other votes on the fp nom page. i wasn't going to state it quite so directly, but if you really want to get down to it, i don't trust you either. good-bye richard, you needn't reply any further, we've covered everything that's remotely relevant to this page. let the admins take care of things for you. Lx 121 (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC) took another look over the whole page after posting this, found at least one example of a simillar voting pattern on a different user's nom.; but it is still an atypical voting pattern. "excellence" doesn't seem to be adequate as the explanation. Lx 121 (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
postscript: wmc fp voting is not my usual area of interest within wikimedia, however in the short time i have had to study it, i've found a number of areas that should be considered for review & hopefully improvement: 1. the disturbingly large number of ditto votes that turn up on certain noms, whether by puppetry, trading favours, or simply "herd instinct". 2. even with lengthy explanation & help areas, the actual qualities that make an image worthy of "fp" status seem to be rather poorly & at times vaguely defined. there seems to be an awful lot of time spent discussing the technical minutiae of the images (& those according to a limited definition of the correct "style") & not as much time spent discussing the pictures as pictures, or as art. that blurriness, in the definition of what exactly a "featured picture" is supposed to be, really needs to be cleared up. apropos that: 3. we should seriously consider re-working the "merit-ranking" system on wmc, so that it is more useful, more clearly defined, & actually makes sense to the average person. the "valued" category is reasonably clear-cut, tho we could consider a ranking scale within it. "quality" & "featured" are understood to be 2 different ranks on the same value scale, & within the same general category of merit. however, their exact definitions & relationship to each other are in need of clarification. again, we should consider a broader ranking system, with more than just 2 levels, and clearer definitions of each rank. finally, we need to seriously consider creating at least a 3rd category (with the possibility of adding more cats, as needed, should other merit-defining criteria emerge): technical merit, this would be a far more appropriate venue for detailed discussions of the finer points of image quality. these sometimes highly-involved discussions which are occurring on the FP nom page (unevenly, as well) are seriously distorting the consideration of images on the basis of what any outsider, who does not spend a large part of their life on the FP NOM page, would rationally consider the defining criteria for a "featured picture". in their heyday, the editors of life magazine, or even national geographic, probably spent less time critiquing the technical details of images enlarged to a maximum viewing size than we do on here. it's getting in the way, as a part of FP ranking. such considerations do have their place in FP ranking, however they are not the whole ball-game! once the image under consideration clears the bar on certain minimum standards, it shouldn't even be the primary consideration, most of the time. not for FP. technical excellence is recognized as a distinct category of achievement, in almost every serious field of creative endeavour. we should have a separate category, within our merit-ranking system, for images (and ultimately, for other media as well) that defines quality/merit specifically on that basis. doing so would allow recognition of achievement for images that don't properly belong in FP, and would "unclutter" the defining criteria somewhat, for FP consideration. i'm writing this ad-hoc spur of the moment here, but it applies to the entire pages & process, not simply to these 2 images by my friend. looking at the nom page as a whole, i see feature-worthy images being denied on technical grounds that would probably not stand up in debate at a professional publication. i also see images that are clearly not feature-worthy, but may have certain outstanding technical merits. worst of all, i see the voting decisions being applied unevenly, & with irregular criteria, blurring the distinctions between technical & artistic merit. once i've slept i shall review this overlong post & consider where else to place it, but i'm putting it up here since this is where it was originally written. hopefully, somebody will find it useful. Lx 121 (talk) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thank you richard, i'm sorry that you seem to have missed the point. i don't think i'm really interested in dialoging with you anymore, actually. Lx 121 (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lx 121: It is amazing how you could produce such a lengthy and authoritative text on the demerits of FPC and its reviewers with your limited experience on the subject. However, and after knowing that we have a disturbingly large number of ditto votes […] whether by puppetry, trading favours, or simply herd instinct, I confess that I’ve lost all interest in reading the rest of it. FPC was created in 2005 and has a story and a culture of its own, which was constructed through the voluntary work of many users, some of them still contributing with their creations, reviews and maintenance work. Instead of starting by assuming the incompetence of those people and the inadequacy of the guidelines, which are the result of a long and detailed process of discussion and negotiation, maybe you should first go through the gallery of the present FP’s and recognize the excellence of many of those pictures and the relevance of this forum. No, we don’t need your advice as long as you keep this arrogant attitude and disrupt FPC by forcing your points of view trough the images of your friends. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hi; i'm sorry if i have offended you, that was certainly not my intention. as i said, the postscript was written spur of the moment & will be reposted elsewhere. if you check the timestamps, you will find that richard's comments about "cliquishness" & distrusting me, & my response postdate my analysis of & suggested revisions to the WMC merit system. richard added his comment after i had finished writing my "postscript" section. i have spent a fair amount of time on wmc, mostly when i'm trying to find some needed item for wikip. i could give a detailed critical analysis, but this is neither the time, nor the place for it. nobody is perfect, & wmc has far less people working on it, i get that. but there are some pretty clear problems, and areas of shortcoming; fixing them requires something more than hostility. the voting pattern on this page is odd. i'm not talking about nathan's pics here at all (i'm not even counting them as a part of statistical analysis, personal bias, would make for bad numbers); i'm talking about the activity on the page as a whole. when second-rate pics by one user get shot down mercilessly, & second-rate pics by another user receive almost universal praise & approval, that's not balanced voting. if you'd like, i can go back through the vote records & do a quick statistical analysis to back it up. it's not even surprising, any vote ends up being part popularity contest, part crowd behavior, but it is flawed. as a final point: can you give me one good reason why wmc shouldn't have a merit category for technical skill?

i am going to bed now; i will probably not be back on this page for a good while, if anybody other than richard would like to contact me, to discuss the wmc merit system, or the weather in timbuktu, it would be lovely to hear from you on my talk page. the convo in this nom section has gone far astray (partly my fault, i admit, but not entirely); i don't think there's anything good to be achieved by extending it further, so i won't be adding anymore, unless compelled to respond by circumstance. good-bye all & good-night mrs. callabash, wherever you are... Lx 121 (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 3 support, 10 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 05:48:26
Fallow deer on the lawn at Dunham Massey Hall 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 23:35:01

Portrait of José Antonio Navarro from the Texas State Library and Archives Commission.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image is too small. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 23:42:59
The HMS/HQS Wellington, taken from the London South bank.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is tilted --Richard Bartz (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caméléon Madagascar 02.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Furcifer oustelati, Madagascar

It was taken in the wild!--Mbz1 (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean we should feature it because of that? You can give him a wildlife photographer barnstar if you like --Richard Bartz (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 11:56:53
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 delist, 1 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Maedin\talk 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chateau de Chenonceau 2008E.jpg, not delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 5 May 2009 at 12:33:12

A cutout from the picture, showing heavy distortions. This is not the worst part, but it is prominently featured near the center of the picture. For a nightmare, look at the right edge...

Panorama of Château de Chenonceau, Indre-et-Loire, France.

Not a reason but decency. I'am not a fan of delisting recently promoted pictures especially when they are part of the ongoing POTY 2008 poll. --Richard Bartz (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 delist, 10 keep, 1 neutral => not delisted. --Maedin\talk 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 12:11:20
Buddhist Hell - the Punishment of Belly Smashing. Set of the Mandschu Prince; Qing Dynasty

This I do not know of as I am not the author. User:Dr. Meierhofer took the photo and is aware of that. I see from description that it comes from the museum in Germany. I just found 3 images depicting buddhist hell on commons. This one offers the best quality. So, from the point of subject value, its quite unique. And on my opinion the value of the subject (whatness) should have a priority in evaluations. As quality without a subject is meaningless. In fact, quality (suchness) is accidental in relation to substance (whatness). By itself the quality is an accident and can not even exist. And my impression is that evaluators here tend to ignore the subject, or at least it does not have the upper hand in evaluations. Hence, the (the value of) subjects in most of already featured photos, as I see, is rather trivial, though quality is perfect of course. Its just a remark.

--Zakharii 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support - good detail shot, very useful for the subject. is it possible to get a slightly wider view, tho? would like to see the top corner of the "device" in frame, as well as the rest of the edges. Lx 121 (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps User:Dr. Meierhofer has it or at least can take another shot, as I am not the author and can not provide such. I merely found it on commons and found the subject quite interesting. --Zakharii 22:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Sorry for not immediate response, as I have not checked the page since yest. --Zakharii 22:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Château de Fontainebleau - pano façade.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 7 May 2009 at 13:04:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 13:33:38
Whitsunday Island Panorama

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: image is heavily tilted and quite noisy. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 15:16:30
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of poor image quality: harsh lighting, geometric distortion and subject cut-off 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 17:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GIPE25 - Ardea cinerea (by-sa).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Ardea cinerea 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 19:38:53
Panorama of Bedonia in Italy.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: The images contains obvious stitching errors. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 06:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 01:07:45
Helmeted Guineafowl in Paulínia's Ecological Park

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: there are several quality problems (artefacts, not sharp, washed out colors) and composition is poor --ianaré (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (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. 
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 20:23:45
Sphaerophoria scripta 

result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 8 May 2009 at 23:48:01
House in Cappadocia

Well, it is Cappadocia, where the houses blend with the natural rocks formation so much, that it is hard to say, where one ends and the other starts. It is what making Cappadocia so unique, interesting and unusual place. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 03:16:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by Mary Cassatt - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Under the horse chestnut tree.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Simply fantastic! Finally something human, the subject captures so many realities and emotions of human existence (parenthood, childhood, joy, care, motherly love, happiness all in one). Besides that, its a fine art work of an outstanding painter. --Zakharii 10:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As above. Plus: good restoration work. To my eye, you were able to remove dust specks, &c., without compromising the authentic appearance of the work. —Notyourbroom (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral excellent restoration work as always but I really don't like the piece, sorry --ianaré (talk) 22:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Oppose Still missing {{Retouched}} template. Lycaon (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • All edits performed are fully documented in the other versions section. I'm no fan of that template; with this sort of work it obscures the links to intermediate versions and confuses the reader with arbitrarily different layout as they navigate between unedited and edited versions of the same image. But you're welcome to add the template yourself if you feel that strongly. Durova (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fee strongly about it for reasons outlined below. But it is up to the author to add it, as he alone knows what has been altered from the original. Lycaon (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually as stated above, the alterations have already been documented in the other versions section. Best practice is to document all such things, and I do. You are welcome to copy and paste that if you feel so strongly. Nowhere in the featured picture standards, however, is such a template required. If you wish to introduce novel standards please discuss the proposed innovations at talk. Durova (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • If it was a requirement I would have FPX'ed or opposed (I still might, actually). As it is now it is just common practice do use this kind of templates. Lycaon (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It comes across as very odd that you appear more interested in templating than in the fact that we've obtained a very high resolution image by an important artist. Especially since the file itself is fully documented and the template would be redundant. If you wish to learn restoration and find out what works in terms of documentation I'd be glad to help you get started. Otherwise the feedback and input you wish to give on this subject is likely to be counterproductive, even with the best of intentions. Durova (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Talking about counterproductivity, I don't understand why you adamantly refuse to add all the kind of information/documentation that is possible. There are more ways to access info on an image than reading the image description. Multi-approach categorization, which is supported by the use of templates, constitutes a large part of how Commons works. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- GerardM (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC) I do not think that you can talk about "retouched" when you consider a restoration. In a retouche I would expect the original to be equal to the derivative. In a restoration the derivative aims to show what the original looked like at one time.[reply]
  •  Support —kallerna™ 17:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Estrilda (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose one reason & one reason only; i agree with lycaon, there needs to be a template on this file for "retouched" or "restored"; i'm flexible as to which (or both), but when an image is altered in any way from its original form, that change needs to be documented & marked into the file info accordingly. not doing so is bad archival practice & leads to confusion. keeping careful track of changes, & having that change-tracking information available in such a way that it is immediately clear to anyone looking @ the filepage is necessary; both for art, & for historical documents. anything less risks "changing" history, whether that is the intention or not. ten years from now, how easy will it be to for an inexperienced person to backtrack & figure this out? get the template issue resolved (with changes documented & noted) & my vote changes to "support" :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 08:41:33
Mother's Day

 Comment Thanks.   ■ MMXXtalk  17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 10:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 06:52:42
Bearded dragon eating

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the lighting is poor 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. 
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 10:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matanaka - Granary, Privy & Schoolhouse.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 11:07:16
Historic farm buildings at Matanaka, near Dunedin, New Zealand 

result: 20 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 9 May 2009 at 23:04:31
Elizabeth I in coronation robes 

result: 8 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 01:41:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:09:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION

result: 19 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 07:52:28
A group of James's Flamingos at Laguna Hedionda in Bolivia 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

A group of James's Flamingos at Laguna Hedionda in Bolivia

It is not upsampled. It is a 1:1 crop from the center of the full image... --Chmehl (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 08:22:40
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 08:35:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 15:30:14
End of U.S. Route 1 in Key West, Florida

* Oppose Agree with Muhammad. Sorry.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)--Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Info Despite appearences this is actually a unique sign. US1 is a famous road on the US east coast, and its begin/end point in KW is well known. They sometimes station police close to the sign at night to prevent people from stealing it. --ianaré (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support If this is the case. Thank you for explaining this to me,Ianare. Dschwen, maybe this information that Ianare provided should be added to the image description? --Mbz1 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As a landmark... and an observation... if it is mile 0, is it not the beginning? --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 12 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 16:15:11
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Pyrrhosoma nymphula-1 (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Pyrrhosoma nymphula 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Berthold Werner (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 17:36:09
Ice entombed bush 

result: 10 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 18:07:12
Midtown Atlanta at Sunset 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 18:14:38
High Falls Rochester, NY 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 18:46:01
Niagra Falls 

result: 2 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 18:52:52
Niagara River 

result: 17 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 10 May 2009 at 20:11:18

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 08:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 04:04:00
Niagara Falls 

result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 03:43:59
Waterfalls with eternal flame 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 09:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 21:36:04
Permafrost

Thank you for your comment, Notyourbroom. Agree it would have been nice to have something to compare the size, but IMO on the other hand the pattern is interesting by itself even without knowing what the actual size is.
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Permafrost 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 17:01:27
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 18:57:24
Sunrise Normandie Sunrise Normandie

  • You can nominate the photos for Quality Image to get feedback on them before nominating for FP (for the vast majority of images on FP, meeting QI requirements is necessary). I don't know anything about tags, sorry --ianaré (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I didnt know, that it would be better to go for QI first :O... Good to know! Next time I'll nominate pictures for QI before I propose them here. Sorry for that wrong approach. Newbie-mistake... thanks for the info. --Rectilinium (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 02:47:06
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 11:26:23
TV station on Chopok, Slovakia 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 May 2009 at 18:03:55
Rainbow in Paulínia.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: See above comments. 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.

—Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Refraction of GGB in rain droplets 2.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 19:56:01
refraction of GGB

Thank you, Ianaré and Richard! It is really nice of you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 4+(1) delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Alternative featured.  Maedin\talk 06:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 17:41:38
SHORT DESCRIPTION

You probably do not know that I never take bad images. I always take only great ones :)--Mbz1 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Current FP version to be delisted.  Maedin\talk 06:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 11 May 2009 at 17:56:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created by American Colony Jerusalem - uploaded by Durova - nominated by Durova. Restored version of File:Ramallah spinner.jpg. -- Durova (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Hand tinted print created in 1919.
  •  Support -- Durova (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ianaré (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose in the original there is a wall or sth in the background which got lost in the restoration. Furthermore the dark area in the background has a bluish touch, I don't think that this is realistic. --AngMoKio (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original had to be rotated by several degrees, so recropping necessarily lost a portion of background including the structural element at left. Other than that there was virutally no photographic detail in the background: only texture from the printed surface and a few creases. The paper print had yellowed significantly in 90 years. Durova (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hm...we really should discuss restorations here. In my opinion in a restoration a picture shouldn't get rotated. The only things that should get changed are things that got lost over the years (colours, scratches,..) --AngMoKio (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I can't believe why you changed the color and removed objects from the background ad libitum. From where do you know the background was dark blue ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes a restoration yields a surprising result; you're welcome to repeat these steps yourself. Begin from the original: it needs substantial clockwise rotation. Once that is completed, the only cropping option removes the sole structural element. Examine the remaining image at 200% resolution: it's creasing and surface texture on the print, with a substantial amont of dust and grit. If the color balance on the background is not to your taste I could rebalance it, but the fact is this was a hand tinted black and white photographic print. Brush strokes are still visible in the jacket, which demonstrate that not all of the print was painted. Please read the upload and restoration notes before taking offense. Durova (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - after extensive examination. I can only value the restauration which in my discretion is done by rule of thumb estimate. The dimension was changed, distracting aging artefacts was only cropped instead of tenderly restored. The new coloring is without a concrete reference. --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec with above) Basically from locating certain features on the image and orienting around them. The rotation is based upon the man's spine and the spindle. Parts of the man's head covering are close to true white; balance color accordingly. Durova (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Followup: this really is one of the oddest opposes I've yet seen. Many hundreds of small damaged areas were indeed corrected by hand. This was painstaking work that took hours working as small as four pixels wide. The cropping is fully explained by the rotation; substantial areas would have to have been constructed by guesswork to address the complaint. Saturation was not altered; the appearance of saturation changes are fully explained by histogram adjustment. Opposes based upon esthetics I could understand. After over 40 FPs on Commons and nearly 200 at a sister project, it's a bit off-putting to be on the receiving end of a rationale that is practically an accusation of lying in discussion and upload notes. Durova (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see it different. The man pushes the thread with his middle finger. Where is your source that the image was rotated inside the frame ? I ask because on the original TIF which I downloaded there is stamp by W Colony, Jerusalem (on the right side below) which is relatively straight - the frame, too. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of a rotation I see a slight trapezoid distortion, based on the white frame --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks good, but I do wonder if we could have a version with restored background elements? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As Richard Bartz, I think too much has been cut away. --Estrilda (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Bluish. —kallerna™ 11:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeThe choice to rotate the whole picture seems somewhat arbitrary (Why wouldn't the "vertical" bar of the spindle be slightly slanted, since the man is holding its upper tip with his fingers, having presumably just stopped it from spinning ? Why shouldn't this elderly man lean forward when spinning, maybe precisely to give room to the spindle to revolve w/o getting caught in his coat ?) The resulting crop is unfortunate. Furthermore, the clinically-white balance of color seems out of place. A slight "de-yellowing" would have been enough ; the painting over the photograph has been done in respect with the tone of the photo paper, whitening it so dramatically makes the painting appear out of place, like it has been smeared by a 3 y.o. --JY REHBY (discuter) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. --JY REHBY (discuter) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2009 at 13:04:12
SHORT DESCRIPTION

No gummies ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gummies? w:Gummy shark? w:Gummi bear? I did see an interesting insect about 50mm long under one of those rocks actually. I didn't have any macro equipment on me though since I'd just jogged in to this waterfall after a failed trip to the Tarn Shelf in the same park. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ment rubber boots. When i was in Australia and whenever we needed rubber boots for our hike the australian said: "take the gummies with you". So I thought gummies is a familiar term. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
With you now. The water was approximately up to my thighs so they'd be a bit ineffective i'm afraid.Noodle snacks (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Probably a good thing you didn't; from personal experience, your gummies turn into leadweights once they're full of water. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 17 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lachmoewe2cele4.jpg, delisted

[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2009 at 17:46:51
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Sorry, my autologon didn't work. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 10:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 delist, 0 keep, 0 neutral => delisted. Maedin\talk 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Podkowinski - La Folie.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 12 May 2009 at 18:37:10
Extasy by Władysław Podkowiński

  •  Info created by Władysław Podkowiński - uploaded by Ejdzej - nominated by Kpalion — Kpalion(talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Title: Extasy (Polish: Szał uniesień), oil on canvas, 310 x 275 cm, National Museum in Kraków. Painted in 1894, destroyed by the author after 36 days of public display, stitched and restored after the painter's death a year later. The painting marks the author's shift from Impressionism to Symbolism and is one of the earliest Symbolist works of art in Poland. — Kpalion(talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Extremely sensual, one of the most recognized paintings in the history of Polish art. — Kpalion(talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment barely meets image size requirements, and the dimensions seem oddly arbitrary. Is this downsampled from a larger version? —Notyourbroom (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Low quality, plain colours (see the other version). —kallerna™ 11:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment The artist used a limited palette of black, brown, yellow and white, so yes, the colors are plain, but that's a feature of the painting, no a fault of the scan. The other version has artificially enhanced contrast and brightness, resulting in overblown highlights in the upper left corner. As far as I remember the tone of the actual painting from seeing it live, thise scan captures it pretty well. — Kpalion(talk) 19:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This only just scrapes in, size-wise, but I like it and I think the quality is ok. The other version that Kallerna mentions is "enhanced" and the colours look terrible. Maedin\talk 07:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 02:05:50
Göreme Valley in Cappadocia

Thank you for your question, Ianaré. May I please tell you a sad story about my trip to Turkey? My bran new Canon got broken, when I was photographing a glory (like this one) while we were landing in Munich on our way to Turkey. I was sooo upset that I left my unneeded now and way too heavy tripod at Munich airport. I knew that cameras in Turkey are very expansive, way too expansive for me to get one. Then in Istanbul I found a guy, who rented me his old Canon for a very reasonable price. So now I had a camera, but tripod was gone. :) You see now what an effort it was for me to take the nominated images of Turkey without a tripod and with somebody else old camera. They (my images that is) simply cannot be opposed. :) But on a serious note I have to admit that back then in 2006 I had no idea that there are programs that could stitch images together to make a pano. I learned about this here at Commons 1.5 years later. In that happy 2006 I was taking pictures, sharing them with my relatives, my friends and my co-workers, and was happy that everybody liked them. I could not imagine that my images could ever be opposed :). Oh well... :) --Mbz1 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! Just yesterday I was wondering why you are shooting with a 10D (I was thinking "Syphon some of that travel-money into a more up-to-date camera!"). Sorry to hear that story. --Dschwen (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It was not so bad after all.At least I got a full refund for the broken camera, when we got home.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Göreme Valley in Cappadocia 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 1, withdrawn

[edit]

Göreme Valley in Cappadocia

  

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 19:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Porto Covo May 2009-1a.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 12:50:39
Porto Covo, main square Porto Covo, main square

[edit]
This was kind of a joke --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 17:58:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 13 May 2009 at 18:39:03
Queen's Day in Amsterdam, the Netherlands

It shows exactly the same, but only from further away... --Massimo Catarinella (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 05:02:11
Solar Coronae

Come on, Richard. Of course this image is very different from the usual FPC images, and it is great you tried to guess what you're looking at. About the composition - just look at the amazing network of colors and at the w:hummingbird reflection (seen the best at the upper rflection) hovering over reflection of the sun - the most brilliant object in the Universe. :) --Mbz1 (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's interesting but not really aesthetic, which it could be when being elaborated well. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very interesting question, Daniel78. The white spots that are seen at the image have different origin. Most of them are bubbles (there are quite of few fishes, turtles, frogs, w:cryfishes that live in that pond and create all kind of bubbles). Yet the white spots that are seen at the upper middle of the image, for example, are the sun reflections. Why these reflections are so different from the sun glitter you see in the middle of the image? The answer is simple. The reflection of the sun in the upper middle was made possible by the spaces between the leaves of the tree. Have you ever heard about observing partial w:solar eclipse using the Pinhole Projection Method File:Solar eclipse in Turkey March 2006.jpg? At the insert in the upper left of this image you could see the partially eclipsed sun that I photographed with a white solar filter. At the bottom of the image you could see the projection of the partially eclipsed sun. The leaves of the trees create natural pinholes, and it is great to know, when you are looking for a safe method to observe a partial solar eclipse.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. Yes I have observed the Pinhole Projection (did not think about it when looking at this image though). I have some images I took in 1998 in Sweden of that phenomenon, but digital cameras in 1998 was not that good so the quality is quite low, but it was very interesting to watch :) /Daniel78 (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose composition also doesn't convince me. I'd even prefer the uncropped version (but it would also get no support) --AngMoKio (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I dont feel it. From this image I do not learn what a solar corona is (that article on en:wp ist getting a bit cluttered by the way). The colors could just as well come from surface contamination or imaging errors (I'm sure you are right about the corona, but the image just does not show it decisively). The hummingbird does not add to the composition, in fact it is not recognizable and might as well be something floating on the water. Overall it feels a bit snapshotty to someone who is not overly enthusiastic about atmospheric phenomena. --Dschwen (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 08:45:28


 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: of very bad technical quality 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.

--Spock lone wolf (talk) 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 14 May 2009 at 19:34:23
Finis Terrae Finistère

  • What filter/effects are you talking about? I used none. The picture was made with a simple Canon PowerShot A85. --Rectilinium (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please inform Daniel78 (talk on his userpage about your new version. Only he can remove the FPX template. --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify the above: Technically, anyone but the nominator could defeat the FPX. Any support vote given at this point would cancel the FPX, so long as the supporter were to remember to mark the FPX as contested afterward. —Notyourbroom (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi Richard and Noyourbroom. Thanks for the information :). I wrote Daniel a message right now to inform him, that I uploaded the original file IMG 1122. So he can see, that the only thing I changed was a stone in the front of the picture (removed luster/shine) and that I didnt use any filters/effects. It was really a very special ambience then, when I made this picture (it is one out of three pictures). I actually could understand if people say, that the quality of the picture is not good enough, but I just have a very simple and cheap camera and I try to make the best of it ;)... Ok then, I hope Daniel sees my message soon. --Rectilinium (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used the phrase in the FPX because that was an exact quote from the guidelines. I specifically meant the border as 'unnecessary effect' and as that is now removed, I removed the FPX. /Daniel78 (talk) 06:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 May 2009 at 12:41:14
Camp Creek Frozen Over 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thure de Thulstrup - H. Rider Haggard - Maiwa's Revenge - Fire, you scoundrels.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 19:02:46
Allan Quartermain 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 19:36:21
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 18:15:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maison à Castel Meur - Pointe du Château.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 19:46:39
Maison à Castel Meur 

result: 5 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 20:20:29
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 15 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hydrangea macrophylla petals - cropped.jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 20:54:35
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 22:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 15 May 2009 at 22:53:01
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calidris alba running

[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 May 2009 at 02:50:31

[edit]

Calidris alba running 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Calidris alba running 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 May 2009 at 06:29:56
Calvin Borel 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 May 2009 at 13:14:47
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Comment Can I ask then, that you give us all the reasons for your oppose when you make your original vote? It looked like your only problem with the image was the lack of an infobox (easily fixed) and no EXIF data (which doesn't affect image quality). Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 11 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 13:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 15:58:29
Portrait of a Macaw

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Masking 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2009 at 10:09:15
tree

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the tree is not identified, poorly cropped and the background is partly overexposed. Categorization also fails. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2009 at 11:09:15
Frost on a wire fence

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Really too much Noise 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.

--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I tried to clean up the dark areas and reduce the chroma noise, but there's still quite a lot of JPEG compression noise that I couldn't get rid of without blurring the image noticeably. :( This is why we always shoot in RAW format, kids. :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 13:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 16 May 2009 at 16:59:37
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 13 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 13:36:41
Coenagrion hastulatum 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 14:28:26
Great Spotted Woodpecker (Dendrocopos major) on ripped pig. 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Agrion jouvencelle (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 17:35:50
Coenagrion puella 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 14:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 18:56:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Accouplement de petites nymphe au corps de feu (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 19:01
Pyrrhosoma nymphula copulation. 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Agrion élégant (by).jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 17 May 2009 at 19:04
Ischnura elegans 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 18:31:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 00:14:08
replica of Diplodocus at La Plata Museum 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 02:53:51
Taxi in the Streets of New York City

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is unsharp 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.

Lycaon (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 17:14:48
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). --Karel (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 16:38:54
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). --Karel (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 May 2009 at 17:32:15
Harbour temple in Xanten 

result: 6 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dalziel Brothers - Sir Walter Scott - Rob Roy in the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 18 May 2009 at 19:11:33
Rob Roy

Our coverage of Scott is somewhat poor, so I thought I'd have a go at fixing this to some extent: a set of Scott with engraved frontispieces will allow me to do a lot =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Visby harbour panorama.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2009 at 12:57:56
Panorama picture of the harbour of en:Visby.

  •  Comment Could you point those out for me, I can't really find some "glaring stitching errors" other than an error on the left silo. -- Peipei (talk) 14:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment There's a car that seems to appear twice near the middle of the image, and I think a few of the people on the sidewalk may be clones too. Didn't spot anything else immediately. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Apart from those mentioned there is also a fault on the roofs down from the first salmon coloured building from the left. Lycaon (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...and a misaligned flagpole on the right-hand side of the same building, and another misaligned pole on the right, straight down from the ferry and the tower thingy in front of it. And one of the clone people (in front of the red building in the middle) seems to be missing a leg. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Comment Woah, you've got good eyes, didn't spot those in any of my look-throughs. Perhaps I can revisit it in the summer with a proper pano-head, this one is shot by hand, resulting in lots of parallax errors. Should I crop it or keep it a 360? -- Peipei (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Naw, it's an excellent panorama, we're just picking nits here. Anyway, all those errors should be easily fixable with a little manual blending in the problem spots. (I just wish the hugin devs got around to reintroducing the "stitch into layers" feature, it made that job a lot easier.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dactylorhiza praetermissa (flowerspike).jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 23:24:36
Dactylorhiza praetermissa 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 May 2009 at 15:07:17
Into the Abyss... 

result: 5 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 18:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 05:17:15
Maletsunyane Falls, Lesotho 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 11:38:58

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 13:43:40
Mono Lake, California

I ment the placement   • Richard • [®] • 18:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 14:22:39
A Common Sandpiper

It's from flickr, there it was uploaded as wallpaper. Anyway it pass the 2MP limit.. -- Pro2 (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 14:46:22
Petronas Twin Towers 

result: 12 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Coenagrion puella copulation (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 17:40:43
Coenagrion puella copulation. 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elephant Rock, Great Ocean Rd, Victoria, Australia - Nov 08.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 20 May 2009 at 18:14:00
Elephant Rock on the Great Ocean Road, Australia 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 02:14:39
Space shuttle Atlantis (foreground) sits on Launch Pad A and Endeavour on Launch Pad B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

 Comment, for some reason I cannot upload a corrected image of this. I will work on it tomorrow, but know that I did listen to your advice here. Ktr101 (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment, All fixed and ready for approval. Ktr101 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 03:18:04
Camouflaged scorpionfish 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cairina moschata male portrait.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 13:09:32
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 06:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 15:02:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 15:07:31
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 17:57:24
Old church in Hepberg 

result: 3 support, 7 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 21 May 2009 at 20:37:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 14:06:27
North American P-51C Mustang 

result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 19:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Libellula depressa (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Libellula depressa 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 11:56:20
Three-phase electric power 

result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 19:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:05:24
Abandoned council flats in Leeds

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: subject is cut 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:22:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: picture is too small 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:12:33
Leeds by night

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: picture is too small 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:14:21
Quarry House, Leeds

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: picture is too small and it is tilted 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.

Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:17:33
River Wharfe at Wetherby

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is too small 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.

-- Pro2 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), Cap Tourmente National Wildlife Area, Quebec, Canada 

result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Leadenhall Market In London - Feb 2006 rotated.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 19:35:02
Leadenhall Market, London 

result: 13 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chelas May 2009-1b.jpg

[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2009 at 08:10:42
SHORT DESCRIPTION

[edit]
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2009 at 09:13:16
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 23 May 2009 at 10:11:49
a four spotted chaser 

result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 22 May 2009 at 09:27:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

croped and centered the bird 

result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2009 at 16:45:06
Harbour temple architrave 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 16:27:12
Northern Gate, of Sanchi Stupa built by Ashoka in 3rd century BC and believed to contained relic of Buddha, now a UNESCO World Heritage Site 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Acces-mag-poudre (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

An access in Bois d'Oye fortifications 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Cour (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 07:30:02
Court inside the Bois d'Oye fortifications 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Entree-principale (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 07:32:10
Main gate in the Bois d'Oye fortifications 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Tourelle-155R (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 07:36:29
Turret 155R. 

result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 18:17:17
Patočka's hill shortly after storm 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacksonville Skyline Night Panorama Digon3.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 03:51:28
SHORT DESCRIPTION

 I withdraw my nominationTm (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bugatti Veyron - BCN motorshow 2009.JPG, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 09:40:42
Bugatti Veyron 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - A Little Coaxing (1890).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 14:47:09
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carpilius convexus is consuming Heterocentrotus trigonarius in Hawaii.jpg, withdrawn

[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2009 at 15:59:52
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => withdrawn. Maedin\talk 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2009 at 00:40:46
Louis-François Roubiliac 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 24 May 2009 at 06:27:05
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 0 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

SHORT DESCRIPTION

 Comment You mistyped your support, Kallerna. --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it :) /Daniel78 (talk) 18:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) —kallerna™ 08:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 10 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Bohemian Waxwing (Bombycilla garrulus) 

result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2009 at 21:08:35
Tree Swallow, Tachycineta bicolor 

result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 25 May 2009 at 23:51:32
Moonlight on the Viga Canal 

result: 3 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 18:09:11
Rooks in the sundown 

result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Louis Huard - The Punishment of Loki.jpg, featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 01:37:48
The Punishment of Loki 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 18:07:43
St Edwards Church tower, Clifford, West Yorkshire

Ultra wide lens or stitching can help. MatthiasKabel (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your probably right, but these are things few people can afford, being as Wikipedia is generally edited by the common man and not by people with thousands of pounds of photographic equipment this would generally be the case. Any cut on the tower is marginal. It is not really cut at the top, the building just reaches the top of the image. The cut at the botton is only slight and it still, I would say illustrated the building just as well. A matter of opinion I suppose. Mtaylor848 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stitching is free though. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2009 at 10:44:44
Turdus merula (Common Blackbird) nestling.

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the lighting is not optimal and there is too much noise 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.

--ianaré (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2009 at 23:30:33
Hafnium crystal bar

can you show me please a better photo from a Hafnium element sample on Wikimedia / Wikipedia ? You never find one ! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the file is poorly masked/cut/cropped 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.

Lycaon (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2009 at 12:14:02
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the reptile is not identified. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 3 Jun 2009 at 12:25:46
Opencast mining in Saxony

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the sky is blown. 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.

Lycaon (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Short description

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the photo is below size requirements 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.

--AngMoKio (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 09:07:16
Crocus vernus 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 09:08:01
Bohinj lake 

result: 9 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 10:15:32
Tranquil Roman road 

result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 11:41:16
Pig savaged by bear 

result: 4 support, 11 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 14:59:48
Whistling duck 

result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Whistling duck 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 20:21:26
El Gouna (Red Sea, Egypt): the Turtle House by the German architect and designer Kurt Völtzke (Atelier Color, Chemnitz) (www.turtle-guest-house.com; www.atelier-color.de) 

result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 26 May 2009 at 22:34:20
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 02:36:26
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 02:55:15
SHORT DESCRIPTION

  •  Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is an exercice in elements of photography: color, texture, rythm, contour. It is not presented as an identifiable flower. If you think it is important, help yourself in IDing it, otherwise, it is a graphic object. -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Sorry too spoil your party Tomás, but exercise or not, organisms need id's to be valuable for Wikimedia projects. I gave it a start further down, now it's up to the specialists. These things are doable. If you can't do it yourself (and nobody is a specialist in all groups!), then contact someone through the internet: it only takes a bit of research to find a specialist, but the result will often be satisfactorily and reliable. It is thus, IMO, always a good idea to first identify (or have identified) your plant/critter before submitting it for any of the assessment schemes (FP, QI or VI) (I personally do not even upload until I know the id!). Lycaon (talk) 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        •  Info Species identification, valuable as it is, is not an FP criteria, nor should it be. Identification is part of QI criteria, but QI was setup for a different reason than FP. However well meaning, please do not conflate the two, it muddies and devalues the function of each award. Argue for identification when they are nominated for QI status. Please do not re-inforce the confused view of many people who think that FPs are a superset of QIs, or that QI is a booby prize for FP failures. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment Well, in general terms, considering the fact that the image may be used for encyclopedic purposes I agree with you. And yes, id is desired considering that particular platform. I admit my ignorance in botanical knowledge and my incometence in being able to id the species. However, I really did take this photo strictly from the photographic/aesthetic perpective (which in turn it may have its faults). I am a sloppy cactus collector and I just pick them for their looks. My project No. 324-VI-c/967 calls for me to start identifying my collection, meanwhile, this is what I have, a picture of a cactus flower that opens up for one day a year. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm hoping it will be identified (mainly so I can buy myself one) but in the meantime, it's a great picture. I love it. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Nice, but should be identified for use in other projects --Muhammad (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I'll reserve my vote until the species is known (that really is important for the usability of this kind of images!!). I'm not a cacti specialist but I think it is an Echinopsis sp. Someone more knowledgeable should take it from here. Lycaon (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose As long as unidentified. —kallerna™ 11:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Beautiful photograph Fg2 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- Jean-Pol GRANDMONT (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Amazing photo. How did you manage to get such a colors for the flower? --Tiago Fioreze (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Thanks Tiago, but nature managed to get those colors. What I did to enhance the visual aspect was to put a black background in order to isolate the petals and colors, in effect "forcing" the contour and contrast. I moved the cactus (in a pot) to the shade in order to avoid harsh direct sunlight. The angle was difficult because of the way the flower sprouted from the cactus and it affected the DOF... but anyway, I think the overall effect is acceptable. --Tomascastelazo (talk) 18:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral Really very nice image, but this is encyclopedia and image without good description ... ? --Karel (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Info This is wikimedia commons, not wikipedia, this is NOT an encylopedia :-). Also see above, identification is not an FP criteria, please judge it by FP criteria. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 8 support, 3 oppose, 3 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 08:44:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 2 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 10:40:32
attentive leopard

I can see that the background could be more subdued, but that the leopard IS in a cage is to me part of picture's story. Bevegelsesmengde (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that. (hehe, spotting.. :-P) It let me replace a rather bad amur picture ([7]) in en:Leopard with this one. Bevegelsesmengde (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 11 support, 9 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 11:59:39
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 5 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 17:05:51
Greater Pasque Flower

There is no image manipulation whatsoever, this is exactly ther result that came out of the camera. --Spock lone wolf (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to describe changes made to the photo, there is no "it's cheating" philosophy about image manipulation, we just ask that it is declared. eg File:Biandintz eta zaldiak - modified2.jpg that might get "Picture of the year 2008" is heavily edited. The background to this image looks processed - distinct horizontal and vertical and other geometric patterns. This can also be seen in the left half of the sky in File:Brno Královo Pole SSZ.jpg, sort of coalesced noise :-). I'm not sure whether this is from stitching or blurring, but I can't see it in any of the images in Category:Taken with Canon EOS 30D --Tony Wills (talk) 11:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 17:08:18
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 17:41:49
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 19:15:25
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 9 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 12:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Bresson - Pres-de-entree (by).jpg, not featured

[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 07:33:47
Near the main gate at the Bois d'Oye fortifications 

result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 11:06:50
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 27 May 2009 at 09:35:26
Evening in Kuznetsk Alatau, Siberia 

result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 15:36:05
Evening in Kuznetsk Alatau, Siberia 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 16:20:41
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 22:57:19
NZ Red Billed Gull

Underexposed? Check the histogram :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The histogram only confirms the underexposure. On the order of (200,200,200) is far to dark for white feathers in what appears to be sunlight. Take that as what I'd call correctly exposed for a very similar species. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are talking about different things. The photograph exposure is fine as far as I can see, there is detail from the deep black to bright white feathers (eg those on the wings as seen at the tail end). The head is facing away from the sun and is not bright white, nor should it be, and the exposure allows a lot of plumage detail to be seen. So looking at the colour distribution histogram, there is little at either extreme (under or over exposed). You can of course get a more pleasing, brighter, picture by pulling in the ends of the histogram (and under or over exposing a few unimportant pixels :-). The motion blur (some from the wind, some from the birds movement) muddies a lot of the detail though. Your example appears to be heavily processed, and a lot of the head and breast are over exposed, and much detail is lost (just white), despite the actual pixel brightness values having being pulled back to the 230 to 250 range. I would like to have seen the original, unprocessed version.
Not extensively post processed at all, just a correct, in camera, exposure compensation setting. A small amount of sharpening and maybe some noise reduction on the background was performed. 230-255 doesn't constitute lost detail, unless you have a monitor calibration issue. The histogram on your image is essentially telling you that the bird ranges from middle grey to light grey. As the plumage would be described as white and light grey, the image is underexposed. Taking a simpler example, if you took an image of white snow and had a similarly centred histogram, the snow would appear grey and it would be underexposed. You do have to worry about not going too far at either extreme as you say, but there is plenty of latitude for flicking the exposure compensation in this case. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are complaining that one part of the scene (the white plumage on the birds head etc) is not as bright as you would like. It is not bright white in the photograph, because it is not bright white in the scene! The scene is appropriately exposed! The bright white parts of the scene (wing feathers at the tail end) are bright white in the photo. Your complaint is one of lighting, or that I haven't cranked up the exposure or tweeked the brightness to make that part of the scene brighter. Your example, taken with a flash, has artificially altered the lighting, which is probably why it looks to be over bright and lacking detail in the areas previously mentioned :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that vein, I have resolved to upload the original, unadulterated, version of all my future contributions. And then, as with this one, upload my idea of 'improvements' over top. That way people can have the original to play with to their hearts content, though I would prefer that they upload their 'improvements' as separate images :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it could be FP if the humour of the scene overcame the technical deficiencies. But QI is really only about the technical qualities, it is not for second rate FPs ;-) (A higher ISO and faster shutter speed would have helped) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indicating motion, moving a little faster than it first appears :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 28 May 2009 at 23:55:19
Rusty Rural Willys truck. 

result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 03:21:08
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Maedin\talk 11:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 04:20:07
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 5 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 29 May 2009 at 17:19:22


result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). --Karel (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2009 at 04:29:43
SHORT DESCRIPTION 

result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). --Karel (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 31 May 2009 at 20:29:43
La Gioconda 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured (rule of 5th day). --Karel (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 1 Jun 2009 at 22:09:11
Grey Catbird (Dumetella carolinensis) 

result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 2 Jun 2009 at 06:15:15
Graffiti in an underpass in London 

result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Maedin\talk 11:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Voting period ends on 30 May 2009 at 16:26:41
Chicago and Northwestern railroad locomotive shop 

result: 10 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Tom dl (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parc in Ragusa.JPG

[edit]

Voting period ends on 19 May 2009 at 11:11:23
SHORT DESCRIPTION

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: the image is overexposed, tilted and has an unclear compositon 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.

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: [8]. ZooFari 03:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Log/May_2009&oldid=47464006"