Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/February 2011

File:Klebriger-hörnling.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 16:39:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by Holleday - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 --Böhringer (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Good, but a bit tighter crop on the left side would be better IMO. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes to me. --Danny (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The quality is good, but I think it needs cropping. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely not! We must show clearly that this fungus grows only on coniferous trees.--Citron (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Steven Walling 04:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Schnobby (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Could you use it in Wikimedia project(s)? Przykuta → [edit] 14:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Paris 16 (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Stunning contrast! TFCforever (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Böhringer (talk • contribs)
Support - Nice work ! - Darius Baužys ^{→ talk} 10:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral As IdLoveOne--Miguel Bugallo 20:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Plants

File:Église Notre-Dame-de-la-Salette (Paris) 7.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 8 Feb 2011 at 16:38:59 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Peter17 - uploaded by Peter17 - nominated by Claus
Support 1.6 mpx, but it's very very very beautiful.-- Claus (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: it is too small -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:10-56-41-pano-hohneck 1.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 08:43:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by ComputerHotline - uploaded by ComputerHotline - nominated by ComputerHotline -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- ComputerHotline (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Maredentro (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Huge panorama is huge. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just amazing! But is there a mistakenly connection? Look at the mark nearly the center of the left half of the picture... Does that matter? --Danny (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Info There are no errors. It's the real view. --ComputerHotline (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Okay. But what else could it be? Did you see what I mean (especially at the horizon at the mark)? It's still there - and I don't think that I am the only one who could see it (at least I hope so^^). --Danny (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - Info I don't know what is this. --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment the lens flare in the sky, can be easily removed.. I suppose the Danny is commenting about this.. Ggia (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Just this minute I cropped it to show (File:10-56-41-pano-hohneck 1 crop.jpg) ;-) --Danny (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - Yes, there are many errors and visible seams. Check out the roof of the building on the left, for instance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --ComputerHotline (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I'd support when the stitching is fixed. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment-- Wow, such a huge picture to show nothing. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Freudenberg-014 crop.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 14:48:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Bartiebert - uploaded by Bartiebert - nominated by Bartiebert -- Danny (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Exopsure correctet by Aristeas. This image is a cropped version of File:Freudenberg-014.jpg, see also under Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Freudenberg-014.jpg, where a crop was recommended. --Danny (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Danny (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support prefer the cropped version though! -- Marmoulak (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support I liked the full-length image better. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Umnik (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks great cropped! TFCforever (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Yes, significantly better now. --ELEKHH^T 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Number of edits and account age too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Hafen Mgarr-CN.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 17:49:36 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Felix König - uploaded by Felix König - edited from Carschten - nominated by Felix König -- -- Felix König ✉ 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- -- Felix König ✉ 17:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral - Nice pic, although the ship seems overexposed and I'm not a fan of the position of the horizon in relation to the entire frame. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support IMO Only minor issues.--Snaevar (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Looks like a tourist shot taken en passant. Nothing worth being featured here in my opinion. - Benh (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes, of course it's taken en passant, it was taken from a ferry. But it that a reason against FP status? -- Felix König ✉ 15:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - In my opinion, when it looks like it was taken en passant, yes. It really looks like a touristy shot to me, sorry.- Benh (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 5 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Locomotive ChS8-075 2011 G1.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 5 Feb 2011 at 13:01:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info c/u by George Chernilevsky - nominated by George Chernilevsky -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Electric locomotive Škoda ChS8-075 in Vinnitsa railway station.
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Too bad there are all those distracting cables and poles in the background, but still a very good picture. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice colours, well chosen angle of view, very useful image. --Cayambe (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, crisp and clean shot. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Marmoulak (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The blue locomotive with blue sky and snow is especially nice - I mean composition. --Aktron (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful colors, beautiful composition! TFCforever (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--патриот8790 ^{Say whatever you want} 17:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

account is too young --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Falco sparverius cinnamonimus.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 1 Feb 2011 at 19:36:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Fernando da Rosa - nominated by Marinna (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Marinna (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Ismael Luceno (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC) Only two edits. W.S. 06:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Just wish they'd gotten the rest of the tail, but no real loss. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Great composition, even with the tail cropped out. The direct gaze is particularly striking. Steven Walling 22:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I would like that the whole tail was seen, but I like the composition--Miguel Bugallo 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per those above. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Lens flare and tail cut off.--Snaevar (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Would not be difficult to clone out the lens flare, but I don´t mind it at all in this case.--Nikopol (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Snaevar. A poorly cropped image for FP? what next? W.S. 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Sharp but bad composition - bird is cut off. --Mile (talk) 08:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Màñüé£†¹5 ^talk 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As Snaevar and Mile. --Bgag (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ The image is very beatiful and it's very good about creating. --Tokvo (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- As a user of less than 50 edits you don´t have the right to vote.--Snaevar (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Fadesga (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Galandil (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Though I'd have loved it better cropped, it should still be featured. --Izmir2 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The tail...--Jebulon (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose - interesting; would likely support if not for the unfortunate crop of the tail. Jonathunder (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose bad crop: the tail ... --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Bad crop --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Great, but don't like the crop. However, it isn't all that easy to get a pix like this one! –hover Fly | chat? 01:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support The direct gaze of this bird is amazing, you just do not pay attention to the crop of the tail. --MotherForker (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Tail it´s a minor detail. The animal it´s ready to fly watching the camera. I think it´s a pretty much hard work and a ver good picture. --Andrea (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Esteban (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose : end of tail missing. Snowmanradio (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hmmm. It's a good "capture"... despite the tail-cropping ;) Good work. Tirithel (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support Per hoverFly. TFCforever (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per others above --Cephas (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose cut tail hurts. --ELEKHH^T 11:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Excellent work --The Photographer (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 10 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Flickr - Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife - 072010 western pond turtle wray odfw.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Feb 2011 at 03:09:34 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife - uploaded by Boing-boing - nominated by Steven Walling -- Steven Walling 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominator. Steven Walling 03:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The log is severely overexposed. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose As The High Fin Sperm Whale and, to me, the background is disturbing--Miguel Bugallo 19:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose the background is natural and alright, but the way this picture has been shot makes it overexposed.--Snaevar (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question To anyone: Other than the log this looks pretty good. Anyone think the levels can be switched around digitally to dim the log? -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination Steven Walling 01:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A sculpture at the entrance to the palace of Versailles.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 15:13:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by jchristopherrobinson (Flickr) - uploaded & nominated by Paris 16 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Paris 16 (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I think it's Iris. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment Sorry no, it is an allegory of "The Peace" (look, the lady puts out the torch of the war...), by Jean Baptiste Tuby, after drawings of Charles Le Brun--Jebulon (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC) .Reply[reply]
  - Iris the female equivalent of Mercury in some ways. They are the only 2 gods as far as I know that carry a caduceus: Therefore I think it's Iris. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CommentSorry again.errare humanum est, sed perseverare diabolicum. I encourage you to follow the link (in french, sorry) i provided above. Do you really think you know the place better than Mrs Béatrix Saulé, General Director of the Museum and National Domaine of the Château de Versailles, which Is responsible of the website ? Here Is shown an allegory, not a goddess. There was indeed a statue of Iris in another place in Versailles, but it Is destroyed now.--Jebulon (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went to the link, still didn't explain the caduceus. And why would such an object, one that is only associated with the deity pantheon be included in this unless it was meant to point back to that same mythology? No, I'm afraid you're gonna have to do better than that. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm afraid I can do nothing for you, because you want that it is Iris. This is your opinion. But it is "The Peace", and it is not an opinion, but a fact. This statue is part of a set with an allegory of Abundance. Peace and Abundance makes sense. Iris and Abundance is a nonsense... About the caduceus, there is an explanation you obviously didn't read, but let's go, no matter.--Jebulon (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I re-read the text, I missed that line. Hmm... Fine, still skeptical but I'll accept your claim. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 07:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Even if the sky is a bit noisy.--Jebulon (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful sculpture, nice composition. TFCforever (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Only sharp at bottom. Noise in sky. Little CA, see note. ~~Distortion at right~~. Bad perspective to me --Miguel Bugallo 00:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age and numer of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support good enough--Claus (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 8 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Antonius Kloster BW 15 Retouched.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 21:08:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Berthold Werner - uploaded by Lmbuga - nominated by Lmbuga -- Miguel Bugallo 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the shadows-- Miguel Bugallo 21:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral. Slightly noisy and unsharp, but well, the subject does stand out. --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Jebulon (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support} but (maybe) a sky denoising would be good --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks better. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Thanks. New version with only the sky denoising. I can denoise the sky more, if you want--Miguel Bugallo 20:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Bgag (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't find the composition attractive for the image to be FP. I don't find ie. the shadows attractive.. and I don't like the tight crop left and top-right. Ggia (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks great retouched. TFCforever (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose as Ggia. W.S. 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age too young and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I find the shadows of the people distracting. --99of9 (talk) 13:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per 99of9--Claus (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 9 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Places

File:Cymbium cymbium 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 04:57:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cymbium cymbium, Volutidae, False Elephant's Snout; Length 10,5 cm; Originating from the coast at Oued Chebeïka, Morocco; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very nice. TFCforever (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 18:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 19:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Steven Walling 05:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

account is too young --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 12 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Kreuzberg, Rhön.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 14:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Rainer Lippert - uploaded by Rainer Lippert - nominated by Rainer Lippert -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral -- Rainer Lippert (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Weak) Support: very good composition, quality is good enough, lighting is very nice. I also like the perspective, just the pixelated cables are a bit disturbing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 14:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Blurry tower and unsharp wires.--Snaevar (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral The intended composition is interesting, yet it seems the focus (camera-wise) doesn't match the focus (composition-wise). --MAURILBERT (discuter) 03:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like it --Llorenzi (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Whatever it is it was photographed pretty well. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Looks great in the snow. TFCforever (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 6 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:56, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Mexican yoyos.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:24:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Tomascastelazo (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice composition and lighting. Steven Walling 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment-- the color composition is, of course, very attractive. The spacial composition not so much. For example, there is a strong diagonal of yoyos that is cut off at the lower right. A flawless photo would have the third yoyo completely inside. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Hermosos colores! --MotherForker (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support --Snaevar (talk) 11:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Per MotherForker: beautiful colors! TFCforever (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Nice colours but composition seems a bit random - Benh (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support nice view (and one has to crop somewhere) -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bullshit. That book-copy-pasted phrase we all know would mean something if there were not space wasted in the top-left. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Awesome colors and quality. --Lošmi (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Number of edits and account age too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment-- A teaching or remainder to the photographer. There is a trick that can help in pictures like this. When there are so many bright colors (Fall pictures, carnivals, crazy parties ;) ). Use live view in black-and-white mode (and shoot RAW to get the colors in the file). This allows you to concentrate con the actual composition. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment @Dwonsampledbokeh, that is a good trick... let´s see if an old dog can learn it... I hate the live view, but will try it at least once, and take it from there... and btw, I do have other versions of this pic, and you may have a point, however, this is the one that was uploaded... --Tomascastelazo (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dislike the life view too. That is just a trick and some people don't really need it. It is something related to the Stroop effect. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Tonna sulcosa 01.JPG, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 2 Feb 2011 at 16:26:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Tonna sulcosa, Tonnidae, Banded Tun; Length 13,5 cm; Originating from the Philippines; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Galandil (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Steven Walling 22:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I like the background color for this subject. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Oh, yes !--Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I'm glad you've got some shells which retained magnificent colours! I also agree that this is a well chosen background. --99of9 (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 08:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Not sharp enough for a static picture. Try using a tripod. W.S. 07:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Dear W.S., all the pictures have been made with a tripod! --Llez (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Mr W.S. you use a tripod? We are still waiting for your first photograph. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't take photographs. Do I have to? W.S. 12:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Number of edits and account age too young.--Snaevar (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Citron (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Claus (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 15 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Animals

File:Sree Koodalmanikyam Temple.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 06:10:18 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Pyngodan - uploaded by Sreejithk2000 - nominated by Sreejithk2000 -- Sreejith K (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I am not voting oppose because of the low quality (noise issues) but also the composition is not well balanced (a lot of sky), unnatural colors (a better lighting conditions taking this photo is possible) but also the image needs white balance. Ggia (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed for the following reason: Bad general quality due to jpeg artifacts and a blurry image.--Snaevar (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[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.

Confirmed results:

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /99of9 (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hypsizygus ulmarius.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:51:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Susulyka - uploaded by Susulyka - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Flash lighting too harsh and flat, and not sharp enough. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I disagree with the previous. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I disagree with the previous. W.S. 07:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment There are some frozen water droplets on the mushroom, witch IMO technically would make the picture worse if sharpened. Also, Susulyka (the photographer of this picture) did take another one of this subject, but the brightness is even higher there.--Snaevar (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with The High Fin Sperm Whale about the flash. TFCforever (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Jacques-Louis David, The Coronation of Napoleon edit.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:54:14 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Jacques-Louis David - uploaded by Adam Cuerden - nominated by 87.106.215.227 -- 87.106.215.227 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Support -- 87.106.215.227 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC) No anonymous votes, sorry. Please log in.--Jebulon (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Fixed Info.--Snaevar (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question How do we know that the colours are correct? --Eusebius (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Idk EN seems to have toyed around with the colors and decided that these were pass-able. =\ -- IdLoveOne (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Try to compare this picture with the "closer look" feature of the Louvre museum, located here --Snaevar (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Colors of this picture look unatural in comparision with the louvre picture above (perhaps coused by too much lightning). Also, there is a blue line at the top edge of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 11:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice scan of an excellent painting. TFCforever (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per Snaevar. --Zeroth (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose too small--Claus (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Pseudoasaphus praecurrens MHNT.PAL.2003.439.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 7 Feb 2011 at 13:18:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by User:archaeodontosaurus
Support -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Llez (talk) 17:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Very good--Miguel Bugallo 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 18:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support I wonder though if there's enough background in the case this were used on a taxobox. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This point is an obsession for me, I always pass a moment to measure the frame, trying to find a good compromise or release a rule that I never found. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Böhringer (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cayambe (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A cute trilobite! --Citron (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've always wondered what flavor they might have ...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Are horseshoe crabs edible? They're related, aren't they? =) -- IdLoveOne (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Steven Walling 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Snaevar (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

account is too young --George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support --Claus (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Mais pourquoi autant de caillou sous la bête ? --Jebulon (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 16 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects

File:Schloss Neugebäude (Delsenbach).jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 3 Feb 2011 at 17:30:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Johann Adam Delsenbach - uploaded by Feldkurat Katz - nominated by Gryffindor -- Gryffindor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Gryffindor (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Countless noise spots, see annonations for details.--Snaevar (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm wondering what noise spots are. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the "noise spots" he is referring to are marks on the paper itself. That is not a fault of the file though, it's in the nature of old prints like these to have impurities. Gryffindor (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, but those spots can also be triggered while scanning. Eather way, I have cut the number of annonations down, and change my vote to Neutral broken lines in the frame of the picture.--Snaevar (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Great digitization of a file this old! TFCforever (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral → not featured. /The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cassis flammea 01.JPG[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 11 Feb 2011 at 19:08:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Cassis flammea, Cassididae, Flame Helmet; Length 13 cm; Originating from the Caribbean; Shell of own collection, therefore not geocoded.
Dorsal, lateral (right side), ventral, back, and front view.

Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Llez (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose OK don't get me wrong, this looks very nice, and good execution (scales seem consistent and all) but few issues annoy me:
- reflections on the upper right view (but maybe you can prove me this is unavoidable and that this actually add value to the pic),
- very noticeable compression artifacts,
- I don't think the subject is symmetrical enough as to tolerate missing a sixth view

Little issues... but on repeatable shots, I consider we shouldn't forgive. - Benh (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Far right shell is overexposed and the bottom right shell is blurry at the area nearest to the bottom edge of the picture. --Snaevar (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Llez (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Megyeri híd.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 00:57:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by Samat - uploaded by Samat - nominated by Snaevar -- Snaevar (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain as nominator -- Snaevar (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 01:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Couple blown highlights, but positively fantastic composition and color. Great work. Steven Walling 06:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Excellent technical quality I think, but I really don't like the composition, too much centred in my opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose distorted ad nauseam --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 13:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info Those lamposts are designed to be inclined towards the road, i.e. not in 90 degree angle with the road (more details here). Also, I´d like to point out that this bridge is a 2x2 + layby lane bridge, seperated by a slight gap in the middle.--Snaevar (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Despite the distortion -- MJJR (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful -- IdLoveOne (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support ditto –hover Fly | chat? 01:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support just beautiful! --MotherForker (talk) 13:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Love it! --Admrboltz (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Per others above--Miguel Bugallo 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Beautiful! TFCforever (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- MartinD (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Cephas (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support technical not perfect, but good and very good architectual view --Wladyslaw (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose no specific reason ... GerardM (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The picture gives no idea how this bridge really looks. --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ich weiß ja nicht, was du siehst, aber ich sehe eine Schrägseilbrücke mit zwei Pylonen. Komisch, dass ich das sehe, obwohl das Bild laut dir keinen Eindrucken vermittelt, wie die Brücke wirklich aussieht. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

~~Support~~ --SHION (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Account age too young, and number of edits too low.--Snaevar (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I agree with Eusebius, bad composition.--Claus (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Brackenheim (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 13 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

File:Lycoperdon-perlatum.jpg[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 10 Feb 2011 at 20:31:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created & uploaded by H. Krisp - nominated by Citron -- Citron (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Citron (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose I don't see what's so nice here (artistically speaking) - Benh (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Info You can see in the foreground a immature foot and to second 4 mature feet, which one has a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by raindrops, a touch, falling nuts, etc. --Citron (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sure it has encyclopedic value, but I don't find this picture very beautiful otherwise. As per Steven Walling. Maybe en wiki FPC is a better place also. - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Neutral I would suggest nominating for Valued Image. Capturing the puff is of extremely high educational value, but the quality isn't quite there for featured status. Steven Walling 01:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong qualitatively speaking? Thank you to develop. --Citron (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems a little dark, and the composition isn't super clear if the subject is the puff. Steven Walling 23:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Good depth of field, educational, the lighting seems very natural and it's framed pretty well. This image might not grab everybody because few people really care about mushrooms, but I find those other things I mentioned of this image better than the majority. -- IdLoveOne (talk) 04:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On commons, we care a lot more about artistic issues - Benh (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I Disagree with opinion just above.--Jebulon (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's wrong artistically speaking? The colors are not shimmering enough? This is not the fault of this poor fungus. --Citron (talk) 11:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose I do agree with Benh's assessment. Image is good value but misses the pizazz to be considered the best of the best that commons has to offer. W.S. 10:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please, see the other featured pictures of mushrooms and tell me what is so extraordinary compared to this one. --Citron (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose Strong chromatic aberration at the far right mushroom, and lacking space on top becouse of the puff. I agree with Steven Walling on nominating this picture as Valued picture.--Snaevar (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose The rework (masking) is not precise enough, very visible at high resolution (puff, and right mushroom) and it is a pity. Furthermore, please consider the over-categorization of the file.--Jebulon (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I withdraw my nomination --Citron (talk) 08:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Burg Taufers01archedit 2011-01-03.jpg, featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 17:53:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created, uploaded and nominated by KlausFoehl -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support as nominator -- KlausFoehl (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 21:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Nice place and nice picture --Llorenzi (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose About 1/4 of the picture from bottom side should be cut off I think. --Aktron (talk) 10:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --ComputerHotline (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Well done! TFCforever (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak support--Snaevar (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative[edit]

Info cropped version as suggested by Aktron. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Neutral Personally I prefer the towering feeling of the uncropped image. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A good picture made even better.--Snaevar (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Two mistakes. One, follow the advise of amateurs. Your picture was better as it was. Two, alts (unless the original is clearly wrong) distract voters. They can catch votes that could otherwise be on your original. Follow your guts, most of the people voting here don't know a thing about photography. Downsampledbokeh (talk) 13:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- ...and we don't know how happy we are to have specialists as Downsampledbokeh for shepherding us...--Jebulon (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The chosen alternative is: File:Burg_Taufers01archedit_2011-01-03.jpg

File:Gips 01.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 11:27:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info created by H. Zell - uploaded by H. Zell - nominated by Ra'ike -- Ra'ike T C 11:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Ra'ike T C 11:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Steven Walling 03:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support--Miguel Bugallo 07:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Stunning! TFCforever (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Limited detail and noisy --Citron (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose per Citron.--Snaevar (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Poor DOF resulting in an inevitably poor masking job. W.S. 12:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment Dear W.S. we are still waiting for your first masking job! --Llez (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per W.S. --99of9 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirmed results:

Result: 7 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral → not featured. /George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Hofkirche by night.jpg, not featured[edit]

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 4 Feb 2011 at 14:30:41 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Info all by Pudelek -- Pudelek (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support -- Pudelek (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support --Aktron (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Jon C (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose nice place, nice picture. But much too tight crop (top, bottom, the irght and the left...) --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 15:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with kaʁstn. W.S. 07:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support A beautiful night photo, in my opinion. TFCforever (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Agree with kaʁstn.--Miguel Bugallo 00:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose On the cross, on the top of the church, and the statues, is too little light, and detail, IMO.--Snaevar (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)