Commons:Featured picture candidates/Log/April 2007
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
This is an archive for Commons:Featured picture candidates page debates and voting.
The debates are closed and should not be edited.
[edit] Image:Graureiher.jpg, featured
Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Chmehl --Chmehl 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Support --Chmehl 09:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)- Support Nice composition, good quality - Alvesgaspar 10:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Especially the composition is very nice --Packa 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Not good lighting. The majority of the head and neck is in shadow. --MichaelMaggs 14:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)- Support Hugo.arg 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree to Michael Metoc 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose dtto Michael --Karelj 22:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice Ixnay 16:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice composition --LucaG 13:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Michael -- Lycaon 07:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 15:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 8 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sicilia_2006.png, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Kekko89 --norro 19:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, the colors are not real (oversaturated?), the composition is not good enough – and a poor description. But I like Italy! --Packa 20:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment Why is it in PNG, not JPG. Chris huh 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Can't you see the image? It's made in PNG to preserve the quality. --Kekko89 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Question: Who nominated? Kekko89 or norro. -- Lycaon 19:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)- Oppose The colours seem OK to me, but the horizon is not fully horizontal, and the wires and the junk on the rooftop at the right spoil the composition. - MPF 11:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I think colours are real, because I live in Sicily and I know how beautiful my land is. - Max 18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Max on the beauty of Sicily but I'm missing the "wow!" factor to support this picture to FP status. --Diligent 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Ring-Tailed Lemur eating.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Chris_huh --Chris huh 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - thought i would try a self-nom: took this photo at Bristol Zoo back in November --Chris huh 12:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - too obviously in un-natural habitat in a cage, also that odd pink thing covering its right hand/forefoot - MPF 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment i removed that pink distraction thing, didnt notice it before. Chris huh 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very interesting. I can eat too.Metoc 14:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing so special... --Karelj 22:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - this is a good shot, try to take a similar picture, and then you'll khow what's so special about it.--Vaya 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support agree with Vaya Tomer T 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Kirkland23 23:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack MPF -- Lycaon 17:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Parthenon from south.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Thermos, this version edited by Majestic - uploaded by Thermos - nominated by Thermos --Thermos 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --KFP 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - too gloomy, particularly the dark sky at the top right looks un-natural - MPF 16:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Atoma 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- powerful sky adds to the composition Gnangarra 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the atmosphere Benh 07:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The dark sky makes it look more interesting, better than just a regular blue one. Sharp focus too. Chris huh 09:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and excellent colouring, giving a surreal atmosphere. I would prefer the the building vertical though. Alvesgaspar 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment you have to know that the Parthenon is not vertical, it was made on purpose by the architects to enhance the impression of height. Here the non-verticality of the left column is about right. Diligent
- Comment I know that, but the whole bulding is tilted to the left. - Alvesgaspar 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It isn't tilted, the camera is pointing up, creating perspective distortion. In these cases (where, incidentally, the effect of size is exaggerated, so it works for me) you should check verticality at the center of the image. The center of this image is vertical. mixpix 08:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice! --Simonizer 11:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I love it. --Diligent 17:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support super --Karelj 22:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 07:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pupster21 17:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the atmosphere -- Lycaon 19:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support could be a little lighter, but it is nice --Packa 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice lighting --Digon3 15:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 09:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 18 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Oxalis acetosella ziedas1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Algirdas, uploaded by Hugo.arg - nominated by Hugo.arg
- Support --Hugo.arg 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tadas12 17:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- not sharp enough and I don't like the lighting. Lycaon 18:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not very sharp I'm afraid. --MichaelMaggs 22:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough, not nice colours. Benh 07:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rtz 08:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp - Alvesgaspar 09:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unsharp --Karelj 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lerdsuwa 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pupster21 17:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --donald- 14:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose flat, unsharp. --Leafnode 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nice colours. Ceridwen 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tachina grossa3. 2006-08-18.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Algirdas - uploaded by Algirdas - nominated by Username --Algirdas 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Algirdas 18:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support second picture (right) seems ok, except for flash light reflex on its back Ziga 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Please only nominate one version at the time. Lycaon 19:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Hugo.arg 20:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Renata3 23:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose compression artefacts, oversharpening and poor lighting mixpix 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Obviously, author has a lot to shoot but is limited by his equipment. I bet the lack of sharpness and odd colours (common to all his pics) come from the camera and not the photographer. Benh 07:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not so sure... the Nikon 8800 has manual focus, custom white balance, ISO50, RAW, image stabilisation and ED glass. If you set it up right, it can really perform. I suspect the problems with these images come mostly from them being shot JPEG and set to AWB under mixed lighting. Shooting macro this way is asking for trouble, as you're bound to look as close as possible. mixpix 09:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment You must be right. But from the size/resolution ratio of the author's picture, I would say his final jpegs are in the higher side of quality (but the source image may be bad already). So there must be some point in his "chain" where something isn't done right because given the 8 mpix of his camera and the relatively low resolution of the final pictures, details per pixel should be good. And this isn't only because he was shooting macro in some supposedly bad conditions (I don't think conditions were bad on his branch pic below). Algirdas if you hear me, are your pictures cropped or sampled down? Benh 22:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose None of them has enough photographic quality for FP. Please separate the nominations. Alvesgaspar 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Metoc 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rtz 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --donald- 17:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree to Alvegaspar. --Atoma 18:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Karelj 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chikuwa.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by User:Lombroso - uploaded by User:Lombroso - nominated by Shizhao --Shizhao 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Shizhao 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ??? --norro 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Contra I miss a composition with the wow-effect. I would also recommend an additional text in the description...otherwise there might be misunderstandings.... --AngMoKio 18:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: - What is this? Alvesgaspar 16:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose noisy.. --Jeses 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, what could be this terrible thing? --Karelj 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose strange DOF - too long or too short, also lots of noise in the darker parts (to high ISO setting?); oh, I've noticed, that it was made using cell phone... --Leafnode 08:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Ouh ! What noise ! And the subject is badly illuminated --Alipho 11:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, x neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Countdown.gif, not featured
- Info: created by Pupster21 - uploaded by Pupster21 - nominated by Pupster21 --Pupster21 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pupster21 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Fine work, but I'm missing the "0" --XN 19:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)- Info: Was designed to be like a Power Point background, switches slides on 1. --Pupster21 19:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm only always thinking like a computer scientist ;) --XN 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Opposelow resolution, noisy. Who took the original pictures of the number? --Jacopo86 10:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Boring, very easy to make. Noisy. And the copyright status of the used pictures is not clear. --Simonizer 14:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Viele-baeren 21:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grey fantail444.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by, uploaded by and nominated by --Benjamint444 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Benjamint444 12:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose No, not really excellent. Metoc 14:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info: You might be better off submitting the photo of the parent bird on its own. --MichaelMaggs 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 23:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Cold colours, bad lighting, noisy and not very sharp. But to me, it's a very amazing subject ! Benh 07:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose looks unnatural --Simonizer 09:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose valuable but bad lighting Basik07 19:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Costa Rican Sunset.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by waddler154 - uploaded by waddler154 - nominated by waddler154 --Waddler154 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Waddler154 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Beautiful atmosphere! But the composition acts a little boring and the picture is noisy --Simonizer 08:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -Hugo.arg 19:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 23:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the reality could be very nice, but the photo is a little kitschy --Packa 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Chorzów - Skansen - Szopa na siano z Kobióra.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 16:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunate composition (shadows, too much grass) Lycaon 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 20:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I like it very much and don't understand Lycaon ;)
- Support - I like it too, though it might perhaps be a little better with the bottom 5% or so cropped off to answer Lycaon's "too much grass" comment - MPF 21:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose boring, disturbing varicoloured objects --norro 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose boring composition cause subject is centered --Simonizer 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose could be a QI though --AngMoKio 20:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose poor quality and nothing interesting --Karelj 20:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The main subject is not sharp enough,and too far in the picture. --Vassil 29 March 2007
result: 3 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Metalmania 2007 - Vital Remains - Anthony Geremia 02.jpg
File:Metalmania 2007 - Vital Remains - Anthony Geremia 02.jpg
This was not Anthony Ceremia on photo, so I deleted it :( --WarX 17:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Photographed and uploaded by Lilly M, nominated by --WarX 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 17:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) evil inside
- Support Neat. Different. Awesome. Satan. Cary Bass demandez 18:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Oh, yeah!!! How did she manage to get that shot, anyway? Wpedzich 18:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Well, it's different, but I don't quite see what a photo like that can be useful for. --che 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Noisy, ugly (sorry) - Alvesgaspar 21:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- He is so ugly that beautiful! --WarX 22:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Get a Haircut!!" :-) have to agree with Alvesgaspar! - MPF 12:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Ouch!! Lycaon 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Fishing reel.svg, featured
- Info: created by Chabacano - uploaded by Chabacano - nominated by Chabacano --Chabacano 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Chabacano 18:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great SVG.--HereToHelp (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Having large numbers is good, it makes it easy to read in small thumbnail pics and for those with poor eyesight - MPF 11:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wow, fantastic! I like the size of the labels, actually. Brighterorange 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --WarX 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC) This is great image! But in my very-very subjective opinion drawings should not be photo realistic. Sorry ...
- Support Great, i would like to be able to draw like you. Herr Kriss 19:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Thermos 21:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support My vote goes to both versions of this fantastic picture. Good job! /odder 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Smaller numbers
- Info:Having choices is good :)Chabacano 18:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Like the smaller labels. --MichaelMaggs 21:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Moved my vote from above. Alvesgaspar 09:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Moved my vote from above. Lycaon 09:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 11:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice work --AngMoKio 20:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Way better with smaller numbers. --Atoma 08:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support like MichaelMaggs and Atoma --Packa 21:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Like previous comments --Javier ME 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support small numbers = good ~ trialsanderrors 08:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 08:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Masti 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support /odder 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 07:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Everest North Face toward Base Camp Tibet Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured
- Info: This brilliant photo shows the Mount Everest seen from the path to the base camp. Created, uploaded by Lucag and nominated by Überraschungsbilder 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Überraschungsbilder 20:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 21:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - You got lucky with the weather ;-) Lycaon 21:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - although the pic is very nice, that little piece of cloud to the left of the summit spoils it a little for me. But I can't oppose this. Benh 21:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice shot. --Atoma 09:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 10:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jacopo86 11:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Hugo.arg 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 20:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 12:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support excelent --Karelj 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral nice, but it is not so exciting for me --Packa 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lestat 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 19:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 13 support, 0 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:European honey bee extracts nectar.jpg, featured
- Info: created by John Severns - uploaded by Eleassar - nominated by AngMoKio --AngMoKio 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 21:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support third very nice pic in a row tonight :) is the reflection from the body due to a flash ? Benh 21:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 11:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Beautiful colors and sharpness. --donald- 18:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support the bee has so many nice details… --Packa 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the details too. Especially the tiny hair. -- AM 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 17:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 9 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Lycaon 06:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Cranberrys beim Ernten.jpeg, delisted
Cranberry harvest in New Jersey. Credit: Agricultural Research Service.
- Nominated for delisting by Lycaon 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Original nomination by villy 21:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delist
Should not have been nominated with only three votes cast. The image is of very poor quality, only colour and composition are ok.Obviously mistake in judgement of promotor. Lycaon 15:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC) - Neutral Agree about the bad quality of this picture. But this picture wasnt the only one in this month, which got featured with less then 5 support votes. Maybe the rules were different at those times. --Simonizer 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Large, but blurry, scratchy, unsharp. Ick.--HereToHelp (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Have a look at the top of the sky. There's a load of stuff on the film/sensor. --MichaelMaggs 16:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delist Very poor image quality. --Atoma 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support i think the quality is because this is not an digital image. it was taken still on film. so its ok like that... --Jeses 21:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delist - ditto to MichaelMaggs on the gunk in the sky: poor scan from a dusty slide - MPF 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Keep Olegivvit 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 keep, 5 delist, 1 neutral => delisted. Lycaon 07:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517.jpg
#1
#2
- Info: created by Air Force Tech. Sgt. Mike Buytas - uploaded by Rama - nominated by Rama --Rama 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rama 10:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose small and noisy --Simonizer 11:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Simonizer - MPF 14:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The scene, the emotions and the composition makes it FP for me. --Malene Thyssen 06:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 17:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC) I know it's low quality, but it's great!
- Oppose ack Simonizer --Digon3 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support a very impressive photo --AngMoKio 20:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support a little noisy and small, you are right, but very affective --Packa 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ack Simonizer - Lycaon 12:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - not too small, not too noisy and probably the most powerful shot on the page mixpix 00:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - --Luc Viatour 12:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Med 13:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Impressive image. Quality is not everything, and here it's not that bad.
- Support - A meaningful composition and a beautiful light User:Vassil 20 March 2007
- Support - I uploaded a higher resolution of it. --Pmsyyz 01:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => waiting for the result of the edit. Simonizer 06:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit #2: larger, noise reduced
- Info: I don't have any problems with the noise level of the original, but I added a larger, noise reduced version. ~ trialsanderrors 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support either. Iconic image, excellent composition and lighting. ~ trialsanderrors 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - staying with oppose, as I don't find the composition very attractive - MPF 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like almost everything in this picture: composition, light and human expression. But the quality is too poor for FP. Alvesgaspar 20:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- How about the higher resolution version I uploaded? --Pmsyyz 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Info: OK, since the staus quo would lead to the odd situation where the smaller image were promoted instead of the larger, I informed all prior commenters in addition to the prior opposers. ~ trialsanderrors 00:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 06:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- --Luc Viatour 06:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support give my support to both versions. For such a picture the technical quality is not the most important...though the quality here is in both versions acceptable. --AngMoKio 10:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support coherent with nominating and supporting the first one. Rama 12:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Info: Please, go with the original. I dislike noise reduction intensely and neither this nor the larger size adds anything at all to the image for me. Having said that, far & away the biggest reason to support this image is the subject matter, so I would support either version, but I urge wavering voters to go with version 1. mixpix 16:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support like AngMoKio - the overall impression, which includes also the technical quality, is important --Packa 16:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support For the same reasons as before. Vassil
- Support In my opinion both versions are great. --Leafnode 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Great picture, no doubt. But i have to agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 06:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose joining the naysayers. Lycaon 07:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --che 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Med 08:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support The large version of course. --Digon3 02:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 12:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Susanlesch 00:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 15 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. --Simonizer 10:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:ClevelandTowerWatercolor20060829.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by David Liao - uploaded by David Liao - nominated by David Liao --Magneticcarpet 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Self nomination by painter. (The Wikimedia Common alias magneticcarpet and the Wikipedia alias dliao both belong to me, David Liao) Magneticcarpet 04:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose cannot compare (nice) painting with a (nice) snap, sorry --Packa 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice --Elcairo 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support It is not common in art to reproduce the geometric distortions of photographic lenses. And I'm happy the author explanation refer to the photography which is the base of this watercolour. I was puzzled when this image was nominated in WP:FPC because our brain (normally) compensates for that kind of distortion. But my support vote really goes for the beauty of the picture. Alvesgaspar 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Tubal Pregnancy with embryo.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Euthman - uploaded by Patho - nominated by Yonatan --Yonatan talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support the photo is already a featured picture on en --Yonatan talk 15:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Interesting, though as it's a dead specimen I wonder why it doesn't appear to be in focus. The image was taken at f8 which is surprising; I'd have expected much smaller f-stop to give as large a depth of field as possible. --MichaelMaggs 15:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- The image description says it was shot using an old 1970's macro set up with bellows at full extension, which would have dictated a wide aperture (in lieu of powerful strobes) and basically the lens itself is at its absolute limit in terms of resolving power. Realising this and remembering the embyo is less than a half-inch long, and you have to credit the photographer with a job well done, in the circumstances. It's a great exposure. Not sure this has any bearing on its FP candidacy, unfortunately, even if it is a fascinating image. I tried to enhance it but a combination of medium-fast stock, poor scan (very soft grain just visible) and jpeg compression means it just posterizes as soon a you try to sharpen it. Macro shots really do need to be sharp and detailed, something this one will never be, I fear. mixpix 19:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is a great image of a rare subject, could we down sample it a bit? Strictly speaking, it is almost double the minimum requirements. This isn't the ideal solution, but it would make it "appear" sharper. --Cody.Pope 02:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 15:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. --KFP 15:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sorry to oppose what's clearly a rare image, but the fact that the subject matter may be uncommon doesn't improve the actual image quality. The picture may have been taken with a 1970s lens, and the subject may be quite small, but the quality of the equipment used shouldn't in my view be used to excuse a very much less-than-sharp image. Unfortunately, it's not an impressively focussed image, and it's simply a shame that the photographer didn't have access to better equipment and lighting. --MichaelMaggs 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with MichaelMaggs - MPF 01:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - so do I -- Lycaon 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose same as MichaelMaggs --Karelj 17:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm with Michael too. Alvesgaspar 21:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - go ahead and close it then. ;) Yonatan talk 01:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 10:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Sepiola atlantica.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Lycaon - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by MichaelMaggs --MichaelMaggs 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 16:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support great shot, good editing, perfect illustration for encyclopaedic articles. Could you add the circa dimensions (lenght) of this Sepiola individual to the description? --Überraschungsbilder 17:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't expect that it was so small. Thanks a lot. --Überraschungsbilder 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support just great! --Cody.Pope 02:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very, very good --Thermos 05:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 08:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support agree --Simonizer 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Romary 12:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 15:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Leafnode 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 19:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice details --Packa 21:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Javier ME 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very fine. Wsiegmund 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support !! gren 05:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support woa ! Question: wouldn't it be nice to rotate the picture 90° clockwise ? I always find myself turning my head left when looking at the pic ;) Benh 06:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Elcairo 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - phantastic! Orchi 23:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Amazing! --LucaG 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 20:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support wow Oonagh 13:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 02:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Rakshat 12:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 10:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Antwerpen Stadhuis persp1 2006-05-28.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Klaus with K - uploaded by Klaus with K - nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 22:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice, but this type of images needs perspective correction --Packa 06:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Perspective corrected version is here image:Antwerpen Stadhuis 2006-05-28.jpg Benh 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing special and if the corretced version does exist, why it is not here ??? --Karelj 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment the 'corrected version' linked by Benh is actually over-corrected, it makes the building appear too wide at the top. Of the two, the one shown here is the better. - MPF 00:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:April 17 2005 Seaside Oregon United States.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Apollomelos - uploaded by Apollomelos - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The blue tint doesn't help - something more natural would be better. Image is tilted about 0.8 degrees to the left. --MichaelMaggs 18:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose tilt. ---donald- 20:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose tilt, noisy. -- Lycaon 23:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to MichaelMaggs on the excessively blue tones - MPF 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose blue sand --che 13:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Viele-baeren 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose tilt, unnatural colors, overexposed sky --Leafnode 06:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Shivta01.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by ST - uploaded by ST - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very low res, only 116KB, with resulting bad jpeg compression artefacts - MPF 00:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The res is 1600 × 1200 pixels Tomer T 01:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Low res = low information content. 116KB for a file with 1600 × 1200 pixels, spells low quality, unless you have large monochromatic surfaces (e.g. white background). Lycaon 08:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think there is not enough contrast in the ruins, seems too "yellow-brown" --Alipho 11:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't like the lighting. A softer light would avoid the harsh shadows and overexposed parts. Alvesgaspar 17:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Viele-baeren 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Macrocheira kaempferi.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Lycaon (based on Image:Riesenkrabbe.jpg by User:Michael w) - uploaded by Lycaon - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Yep I have to oppose my own work based on size and quality of the original. Sadly not FP worthy. But thanks for the nomination ;-) Lycaon 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, I don't think the black background works with this leggy creature... that's my biggest problem. gren 08:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think it looks too much "weird" because of the lighting of the subject, which makes me expect to see it in a different surrounding Benh 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose like the others. Viele-baeren 21:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack opposers --Digon3 02:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wejście.jpg, not featured
#1
#2
- Info: photo taken and uploaded by Shannon5, nominated by --WarX 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 19:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not sharp Lycaon 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It's blurred in the current version, but the picture is pretty large, so there's a lot to work with. I like the composition and the atmosphere, so I might do an edit or support someone else's. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edited version, not featured
- Info: Downsampled, blur reduced and contrast enhanced
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 18:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, I can't see the relevance of the picture. Maybe some information in English would help. Alvesgaspar 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 11:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 11:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Ceridwen 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Basik07 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Lycaon 07:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Alvesgaspar --Simonizer 14:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 5 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:BusimCafe.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Kalan — uploaded by Kalan — nominated by Kalan — Kalan 15:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Vaya 16:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very tilted, rather dark - MPF 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose good idea, but not a good composition --Packa 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 21:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. May be it's not professional, but I like it. --Obersachse 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not very sharp, noisy and tilted. Also, I don't think it illustrates the subject so well Benh 06:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing special... --Karelj 17:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 08:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Elephant close-up.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by, uploaded by, and nominated by Birdman1 --Birdman1 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Birdman1 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral good impression, but indistinct composition, second main object (tusk) is not sharp --Packa 07:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support though only just, with some parts of photo not well focussed - MPF 23:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Interesting, but not relevant enough for FP. Why such a big file? - Alvesgaspar 11:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- To what should it be relevant? Birdman1 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - To beauty (the aesthetical aspect) and to knowledge (the encyclopedic one). Neither of them is good enough to reach FP status IMO. Alvesgaspar 22:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, although this might look weird, this close-up seems too much close. Particularly the eye is almost on the border of the picture. --che 19:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, too arty. // Liftarn
- Oppose, the cutting should be choosen different way --Karelj 18:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 09:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Aerial perspective 1.JPG, not featured
- Info: Atmospheric perspective, or aerial perspective, is the effect caused by the atmosphere on the appearance of objects observed by a viewer. As the distance between the object and the viewer increases, the contrast decreases and the colours become lighter and more bluish, until the image of the object eventually fades into the sky. In this picture, the effect is emphasized by a series of mountains in different planes photographed in a near contre-jour situation. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar.
- Support - Alvesgaspar 14:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It shows the effect very well, but otherwise it's quite boring. Furthermore sky is overexposed. --norro 16:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with norro. But showing the effect well is not enough for me. ----Simonizer 17:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I chose the wrong template, ment to oppose too. --norro 18:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Viele-baeren 21:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose like Simonizer, sorry --Packa 06:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - should be possible to get a better demonstration photo of this without the foreground (the trees) being so black. - MPF 22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose why should be picture like this one in this page?? --Karelj 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Friedrich Overbeck 009.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Friedrich Overbeck - uploaded by File Upload Bot (Eloquence) - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 21:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very low resolution (200KB) with inevitable jpeg compression artefacts - MPF 23:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Small Red Rose.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Libera - uploaded by Libera - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - no cultivar name. Commons has hundreds of photos of named cultivars; an un-named pic is of little value. MPF 23:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Is it a problem for FP? Why do you think so? --Packa 07:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment - because of its minimal information content, compared to numerous other rose photos on commons. - MPF 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the central part is not sharp --Packa 06:58, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp (poor DOF or motion blur?), crop too tight. Also, not very beatiful IMO. Alvesgaspar 17:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 09:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:43. TKB - Sierra Manta 18.JPG, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Lestat --Lestat 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - don't find this attractive - MPF 23:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Composition, exposure, human expression are all quite good. Photographic quality could be better but the existing flaws (some grain in full resolution) can be ignored IMO. We need more high quality portraits in Commons, like this one. Alvesgaspar 23:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Freestyle nl 08:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Composition, FP 'value' is lacking. Lycaon 12:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: What is she holding in her hands? ~ trialsanderrors 19:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Some kind of musical instrument made of nut shells ;) --WarX 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jeses 20:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 10:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with opposers and don't like the cropped microphone in the foreground --norro 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A cropped version without the uggly and distracting name-tag and the microphone would be better. --Diligent 16:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough good for featured pictures --Karelj 18:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Basik07 20:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose sharpness and colors OK, i think it is a nice picture that might not have been easy to take. but for an excellent photo the expression there are a few things missing. the on her face is less than ideal - i think she herself would not consider this an excellent photo. what are you trying to show? the scenery or the person (mike, nametag, ...)? €0.02, ---volty 13:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As volty --Tarawneh 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 7 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 11:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:The Sun.jpg, not featured
#1
#2
- Info: created by Kulshrax - uploaded by Kulshrax - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kulshrax 15:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Support ... only after blown highlights are removed, so there is no danger to damage the reviewer's eyes. - Alvesgaspar 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Done, see edit #2. ~ trialsanderrors 20:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Support ... only after replacement of the background with a more ichtyological theme. Lycaon 19:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment would support if the main object wouldn't be in the centre --AngMoKio 21:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment April Fool?!? - if yes, a bit late!! MPF 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment haha, very nice. --Simonizer 11:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I posted a new edited version that has been color-corrected and has had some glare removed. Kulshrax 20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - purple blotch below sun makes it look rather odd. It is more a photo of flaws in an individual camera lens, rather than a photo of the sun. - MPF 12:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think it would be much more interesting if the sun were left out. --MichaelMaggs 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it just be a picture of the sky (which would be plain blue), then? Kulshrax 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm ;) --MichaelMaggs 23:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Oppose - I wanted to use this last year as April fool, but them someone nominated it on Wikipedia and he was serious. The nomination failed. Anyway this is a funny joke, nothing more. Even a 2 year old can take this pic from anywhere on earth. --Arad 00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, but this might be a very rare picture of the far side of the sun.--MichaelMaggs 15:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 1th April ... emh... 7th day) Simonizer 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:XN Anemone nemorosa 837.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN --XN 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --XN 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not so nice quality and distracting background to me. Benh 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose would have been better if main flower in focus did not overlap with blurred background flower to the left; also background rather dark - MPF 12:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - overexposed, unfortunate composition. Lycaon 13:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as others --Karelj 19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 12:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Piles of Salt Salar de Uyuni Bolivia Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured
#1
#2
#3
[edit] Original
- Info: This photo shows piles of salt on the world's largest salt flat, Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia. Created, uploaded by Lucag and nominated by Überraschungsbilder 20:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- The tilt wasn't so much the problem as the green fringe on the piles. Edit #2 added. ~ trialsanderrors 07:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support woa, amazing subject to me, and overall very high quality. Benh 21:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support cool --norro 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 6 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit
- Info: Tilt, background noise and green fringe removed.
- Support ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice pic, though Info: it's still slighty tilted to the left! Just draw a horizontal line through the horizon, and you'll see it. --Atoma 08:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- good point, the same image was actually shown twice, fixed the link now --Überraschungsbilder 17:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 09:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 10:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jacopo86 11:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Chabacano 15:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Very nice. ¿Aren't the two pics the same?
- Support --Überraschungsbilder 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 17:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 20:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 05:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Packa 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 01:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 15:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Alvesgaspar 11:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Wsiegmund 19:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 14:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pupster21 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Ceridwen 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Basik07 19:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - What is so special? --Arad 00:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 24 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral (still waiting for edit 2) => featured. Lycaon 06:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2nd Edit , not featured
- Info: Fixed colours with GIMP, added a little light bloom. --wj32 talk | contribs 11:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - worse than the original, with over-saturated colours - MPF 13:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - spoiled the picture Lycaon 19:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
If I can say something, I guarantee you that Salar de Uyuni didn't look yellow but white, bright white and daylight sky tended to be cold blue. Colors of Edit3 are totally unreal. Please don't use this picture with my name. --LucaG 21:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose baaaaaah, delete this --Überraschungsbilder 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I can reassure you I wasn't trying to "spoil" the picture. How would I know that they are white? And to LucaG, what do I name my edit? Random_edit_by_stupid_wj32.jpg? --124.243.176.241 07:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose You better ask to delete this. ~ trialsanderrors 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 11:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bucket well.jpg, not featured
- Info: created, uploaded and nominated by Zserghei --Zserghei 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Zserghei 10:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice image, but not special enough --Simonizer 09:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great. That's the stuff we need. --Jeses 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good quality pic, with encyclopaedic value - MPF 21:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good quality picture but not special enough to be put among the best. Background is distracting and the subject is not self explanatory. Alvesgaspar 21:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose very nice image, but background is distracting. --Leafnode 08:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Ceridwen 15:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A decent-enough snap, but no more. No thought seems to have gone into avoiding the distracting backround. --MichaelMaggs 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Good picture but not special enough for the best. --Karelj 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Contra -- Physikas 11:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:XN_Vinca_minor_682.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by XN - uploaded by XN - nominated by XN 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)]]
- Support --XN 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Pupster21 19:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --donald- 20:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 21:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice use of selective DOF --Thermos 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support even if it looks a tiny, tiny bit too bright to me --Überraschungsbilder 22:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice image, but it looks very compressed, background is disturbing, flowers are not sharp - their borders have a lot of jpeg artefacts. There is this strange grainy look -- look at the dark corners in the lower-left at full size -- and it doesnt' look as camera noise (jpeg artefacts again?) --Atoma 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with Atoma and not so much details come out from this pic. Also I think the subject is too similar to the background : that same flower to the left of the main subject, which isn't blurred enough, spoils it a little to my mind. Benh 11:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice composition and colours, but I agree with Atoma: flowers are a little unsharp and some atifacts are visible. Alvesgaspar 16:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice picture with small details of the flower --Packa 21:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Artifacts, looks like it was artificially sharpened --Leafnode 08:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Ziga 12:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose the same as Leafnode --Karelj 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic 21:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose agree with Atoma and Leafnode --Simonizer 11:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 10 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bryce Canyon Hoodoos Amphitheater Panorama.jpg, not featured
- Info: created and nominated by Digon3 --Digon3 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Digon3 22:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, but it is a bit too out-of-focus. Sad, as it is otherwise a stunning photo. - MPF 12:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Would downsampling help? --Digon3 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - probably yes, if it works the way I think it does - MPF 21:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice, nice --Packa 21:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 20:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support beautiful image Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very sorry too, but I agree with MPF (with the otherwise stunningness of the picture as well). Benh 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Info: I will provide a downsampled image as soon as this nomination is done (hopefully this will get rid of some of the out-of-focus) --Digon3 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Northern Spotted Owl.USFWS-thumb.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by a FWS-Photographers Hollingsworth, John and Karen - uploaded by H-stt - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 20:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose typical position for owls, unfortunately not sharp --Packa 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose low res, noisy --Dschwen 21:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Dschwen -- Lycaon 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - 1.5 megabytes isn't low res! But it is a rather bad scanning of a slide, with dust etc., and the edge of the frame, all too readily visible. As an absolute minimum, the slide frame should be cropped off. That white bar at the left could also be edited out. - MPF 21:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- res!=pixelcount :-) --Dschwen 23:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It clearly is a scan - from a negative, judging by the lack of density. Looks like a bad lens/film combination failed to deliver any decent resolution (of detail!) even though the shot was well-focussed and decently scanned. I see no chance of redeeming this in post processing. Great shot otherwise (or would be if cropped form the right) with the owl looking good in its natural habitat. Would make a nice (small) print. mixpix 08:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've cropped off the edges of the slide frame and cleaned out the worst bits of dirt - MPF 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's surely usable as an illustration of the species in wikipedia, but the quality i definitely not FP-worthy. Lycaon 12:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment good effort MPF and certainly an improvement, but I still have to agree with Lycaon. --Dschwen 12:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support very impressive, excellent piture --Karelj 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Viele-baeren 21:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment would be better if the white line was removed from the LHS --Benjamint444 00:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Brueghel-tower-of-babel.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Pieter Bruegel - uploaded by Adam - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small, JPEG artifacts. --startaq 07:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Freestyle nl 09:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose 196 KB is much too low resolution - MPF 12:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Yes, this is one of the most sriking paintings from Brueghel, but the image is too small according to the agreed guidelines. Alvesgaspar 20:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 16:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I plead in favour of "mitigated reasons" in respect of the low resolution. The painting is outstanding. --Diligent 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see why the mitigating reasons should apply, after all, the painting isn't going away anywhere, so getting a higher res pic should not be difficult for anyone near the gallery where it is kept (unless the gallery has rules restricting hi-res photography?). - MPF 11:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small, and no mitigating reasons. --MichaelMaggs 16:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose no no never! Viele-baeren 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Southeast Steam Plant-University of Minnesota.jpg, not featured
#1
#2
- Info: created by Karl Frankowski - uploaded by Susanlesch - nominated by Susanlesch --Susanlesch 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- I"ve read that this plant supplies most of the power for the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, Minnesota. --Susanlesch 01:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - blurred smokestack clouds (exposure time much too long) - MPF 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think that was the intention of the photographer, to give the picture some kind of mystical touch --Simonizer 13:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - composition (POV) and ack MPF -- Lycaon 13:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I personnaly appreciate the blurred smokestack, aggree with Simonizer that it was a desired effect. I'd support but the distorsion due to the point of view and focal-length is too important on the houses, and the lower part of the photo is kinda disturbing. --Atoma 14:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the effect, but cut parts of the trees in the bottom kind of spoil it --che 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Edit #2, not featured
- Support I cropped and muted the foreground and slightly distorted the image on the right. ~ trialsanderrors 09:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Trevi Fountain.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Kachan - uploaded by Kachan - nominated by Kachan --Kachan 19:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small to assess. Lycaon 19:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Too small. It would be worth your reviewing the guidelines. --MichaelMaggs 20:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice pic, but agree that it is too small. Aim for 800-1000 KB or larger. - MPF 23:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small, per above. Wooyi 20:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Low quality, low size and darked, What's that? A Wallpaper? --Wilfredor 02:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 06:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Miscanti Lagoon near San Pedro de Atacama Chile Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured
- Info: Salar de Talar near San Pedro de Atacama, Norte Grande, Chile. - created and uploaded by Luca Galuzzi - nominated by Überraschungsbilder 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support true colours, good composition, brilliant shot --Überraschungsbilder 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support agree (but can't tell if true colours) Benh 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support // tsca [re] 17:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --XN 18:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Mountain colors look totally irreal (I'm not saying they are irreal!), I've searched "Salar de Talar" on google images, some other photos look pretty much the same. Is there any explanation to this? The contrast between the sky and the mountains is pretty shocking. --Atoma 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support – Double support! --Packa 21:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Wow!! Never been there, but happy to accept the colours are real - a combination of dark sky at very high altitude (it's at 4,100m alt.), lava on the mountains, salt flats, and halophilic microorganisms in the water. - MPF 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, colors looked irreals also been there, explanation is no pollution at all at 4,100m alt. and no humidity in the dryest desert on Earth. Coming back to sea level was depressing! Thanks everybody. --LucaG 20:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 05:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Simonizer 06:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 08:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Stef Mec 15:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Jespinos 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent. ~ trialsanderrors 04:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral It looks unreal as it's been oversharpened, I think. --MichaelMaggs 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- What makes you think that? I don't see any evidence for it. ~ trialsanderrors 08:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support impressive... --AngMoKio 17:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support ¡Perfecto! Hugo.arg 08:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 20:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support okay Viele-baeren 21:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support sanchezn 15:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Susanlesch 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support – Amazing --Kachan 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urby2004 16:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 22 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Waterfrog head.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Holger Gröschl - uploaded and nominated by Simonizer 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great detail, nice DOF --Simonizer 07:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support That's special. Makes me feel really small. Very cool. --norro 08:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great shot. Grass on first plane distracts a bit, but I can't complain about it in this photo (macro+animal) :) --Leafnode 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support yep! Lycaon 10:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 14:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --XN 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Vassil 29 March 2007
- Support --LucaG 22:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like the flash in the eye. --MichaelMaggs 16:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support to me it looks more like a sunset reflecting in the frogs eye rather than a flash, which could be why this scene is so nicely illuminated as well. you can see the fotographer, too :) very nice work. ---volty 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --AngMoKio 17:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support it´s an nice frog. In german we would say "Schöner Frosch" Viele-baeren 21:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Susanlesch 00:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Moving sidewalk scheme.svg, featured
File:Moving sidewalk scheme.svg File:Moving sidewalk scheme v2 no circles.svg
- Info: created by MesserWoland - uploaded by MesserWoland - nominated by Leafnode --Leafnode 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Maire 12:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wpedzich 13:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support :D M@rcin Suwalczan [talk] 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Szczepan dyskusja Mail 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral (for now) Will support if following issues are addressed: arrows (full line, narrower head) and circles around numbers disturb. Lycaon 13:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Is there such a thing as a Polish grapevine ?? ;-)) Lycaon 13:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's our secret plot to... whoops ;) --Leafnode 23:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - ditto to Lycaon; also number sequence is somewhat illogical (my suggestion would be clockwise numbering from the left; 1. Electric motor, 2. Drive gear, 3. Handrail drive, 4. Handrail, 5. Step, 6. Return wheel, 7. Chain guide, 8. Inner rail) - MPF 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --WarX 17:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC) But renumerize and make thinner strokes around numbers ;)
- Support. Great illustration! But is it really called moving sidewalk? It's an escalator! --Dschwen 22:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ah well, maybe you guys have moving sidewalks and flying cars over there in warsaw, who knows ;-) --Dschwen 22:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice one! Herr Kriss 23:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Packa 06:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Image has been changed according to comments. Also version without baloons has been prepared (if you like vote for it below) --Leafnode 10:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like baloons :) --norro 09:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Masti 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) moving sidewalk up-the-hill :)
- Support gren 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose until the kink in the handrail is fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fixed version, no baloons, not featured
- Info: fixed according to comments above (ordering, arrow lines, additionally no baloons) and uploaded by Leafnode based on image by MesserWoland--Leafnode 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Lycaon 07:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Diligent 10:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Thanks! MPF 11:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Support. Always wondered how those things worked. In Paris, at La Défense, there are always at least two mechanical stairs broken, no idea why.
Numbers seem still pretty big (I tend to compare their size to the real-size of the mechanical stair, so they are big). --Atoma 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- A real size escalator would also have about 4 or 5 times as many steps :-) MPF 19:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Support --MichaelMaggs 16:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Thermos 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support really nice! Viele-baeren 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - The level of detail is much lower for the handrail system than it is for the step system. For example, at the inflexion points of the handrail, there should be some kind of wheel, which is not depicted. BTW, some of these inflexions seem too sharp to be real. Also, I agree with MPF about the number of steps. - Alvesgaspar 10:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I believe that this image is supposed to depict stair mechanism, only signing presence of handrail but not focusing on it. But maybe author of this image should make some comment. --Leafnode 17:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral, I actually prefer the circles for this image... they only cover background space and make for better image mapping. gren 10:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose until the kink in the handrail is fixed. ~ trialsanderrors 00:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 7 support, 1 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. (Original has more support votes) Simonizer 06:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Virginia class submarine.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Ron Stern - uploaded by Owly K --Ayack 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Ayack 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Question: Maybe it should be stated somewhere, that it's only artistic vision? --WarX 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very low res, only 219KB, with resulting hideous jpeg compression artefacts (see particularly the lower right part of the pic) - MPF 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- The res is 1260 x 2100 Tomer T 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - No. 1260 x 2100 is the dimensions. The resolution is how detailed the image is, not how large it is top to bottom or side to side. High resolution requires more kilobytage, and that's what this pic doesn't have. - MPF 00:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Not so! I hate to be pedantic, but this sort of thing really gets my goat. Read en:Image resolution and you'll find no mention of image (byte) size, which varies with compression. This is a compressed high resolution file, which reduces file size and sometimes quality (though not, IMO, in this case). If you are to fairly review images here, you really should get your criteria straight. mixpix 00:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great Tomer T 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 16:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose i have difficulties seeing sth special in it. Might be a good candidate for QI --AngMoKio 17:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Trivial 3D rendering, not even particularly spectacular, beautiful or even well-framed. Rama 19:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Viele-baeren 21:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with previous opposers, might pass (or not) the QIC challenge. Alvesgaspar 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 06:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Verdun cimetiere.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Ajor933 - uploaded by Ajor933 - nominated by Ajor933 --Ajor933 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Ajor933 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose severe technical flaws --AngMoKio 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to AngMoKio, also resolution very low - MPF 20:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. --Javier ME 18:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 20:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mousse.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Ajor933 - uploaded by Ajor933 - nominated by Ajor933 --Ajor933 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Ajor933 13:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Unacceptable. Please read guidelines. Lycaon 14:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose This must be very poor joke... --Karelj 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not to be featured. Please read guidelines. --Javier ME 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Waaayyy too low res --wj32 talk | contribs 09:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Paris arc.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Jplavoie - uploaded by Jplavoie - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 18:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - doesn't grab me as a very good pic - MPF 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Maybe because the day was grey and because no street is in you axe --Alipho 11:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment right side of the first avenue left is blurred. --Javier ME 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Basik07 20:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC) cut too high
- Neutral there´s something missinf for a realy exelent picture. Viele-baeren 21:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral Would have been more interesting with a 360° pano. --Atoma 07:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 19:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Maybe too gray, but I liked it since I saw it very long time ago in Wikipedia. Gray is actually a color I associate with Paris. --Arad 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good pic --Tarawneh 13:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 3 support, 4 oppose, 2 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:DK Fanoe Windmill01.JPG, featured
- Info: created by Cnyborg - uploaded by Cnyborg - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 19:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- 20:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but only just: aesthetically very nice, but the resolution is barely adequate. The same size but with 800kb or a megabyte of detail would be much better. - MPF 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 08:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Agree with MPF, the walls of the building seems a little 'flat' --Alipho 11:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Basik07 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice image Viele-baeren 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Packa 06:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Karelj 19:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 05:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 20:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 11 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Car side mirror sunset.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by J RAWLS - uploaded by User:FlickrLickr / Tintazul - nominated by Bryan -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Wonderfull composition -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support I like it Tomer T 20:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Freestyle nl 21:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --donald- 22:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Small; many elements out of focus --Javier ME 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Nothing really interesting in this picture... --Alipho 11:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, doesn't see very special, although it's still a creative step above thousands of other sunsets we have here. --che 12:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - nice idea, but composition spoilt by wires in both directions - MPF 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose like MPF Viele-baeren 21:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support something unussual, nice —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karelj (talk • contribs) at 19:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question: - Would removing the wires be a good idea? -- Bryan (talk to me) 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Orlovic 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Contra, not outstanding. -- Physikas 11:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 8 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 08:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Seine wide.jpg, featured
- Info: created and uploaded by Jplavoie - nominated by ---donald- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support ---donald- 21:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I don't usually like night time urban pics, but this one is definitely a cut above most of the others. Mainly because there are relatively few light sources, and they illuminate the buildings well, rather than a whole lot of glare points. Also that (despite the low light levels) it has been done with a fast enough shutter speed not to blur the water. One comment though, I think that cropping off about 10% off the right hand end would improve the pic. - MPF 00:40, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment A Cropped version is here en:Image:Seine_wide_crop.jpg. Benh 20:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Excellent in everyway (Would probably make the crop suggested by MPF, however, somewhere right to horseshoe stamp in vertical pillar (the detail is really good)). Clearly a FP. --Thermos 03:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 08:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Agree with MPF --Alipho 11:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment For those who may not know, the "disco" colours were to support Paris' bid for the 2012 olympics. Don't expect to see the same if you visit Paris now :) Benh 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support Benh 20:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support really good image. Viele-baeren 21:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support That's a totally cool panorama from Paris. --Atoma 18:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Agree with MPF --Digon3 02:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Why keep voting for a version that is not whole-heartedly supported, when a cropped (en:Image:Seine_wide_crop.jpg) (and apparently more appreciated) version exists? BTW, I would also support the cropped version... Lycaon 06:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Rakshat 12:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good. I'd support the cropped version too --LucaG 23:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 18:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support– Nice colors Kachan 21:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urby2004 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 14 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral => featured. Simonizer 08:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Above the Clouds.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Kulshrax - uploaded by Kulshrax - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kulshrax 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not really attractive and too dark I think --Alipho 20:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice pic, but suffering from jpeg compression faults in the sky (most obvious toward top left of pic) - MPF 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too dark, horizon should be lower --Leafnode 18:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 12:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Kjosnesfjorden.JPG, not featured
- Comment good quality, but a little angle rotation would work! --Orlovic 11:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Question: I see what appears to be a smudge in the upper right region of the photo. Is this because of image editing, or is it a part of the original photo? Kulshrax 15:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I looked at the same smudge. I think it's a cloud. Nevertheless, it's really distracting.Kgrr 16:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not because of the smudge which can be easily cleaned. The composition is a little boring and the image quality not good enough. Alvesgaspar 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment there's two smudges (the other, at the top left); they look like smudges produced by editing, not clouds. Otherwise, nice pic though. - MPF 20:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Camera lent noise --Wilfredor 02:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I like the composition but I would be a greater picture without smudges. --Alipho 20:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose smudges --Lestat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 08:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Bagre Puerquero de la Bahia de Juan Griego.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by wilfredor - uploaded by wilfredor - nominated by wilfredor --Wilfredor 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nothing in focus, not even the (unidentified!) fish -- Lycaon 05:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto to Lycaon. -- Physikas 11:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto to Lycaon and Physikas - MPF 15:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose terrible picture --Karelj 21:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto to Lycaon and Physikas and MPF --Leafnode 18:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 20:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:USMC Marathon.jpg, not featured
- Info: A work of the United States Federal Government - uploaded by Tungsten - nominated by Tomer T --Tomer T 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Tomer T 12:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, but I really don't see what this picture is trying to convey...there just isn't a "wow" factor for me. Kulshrax 15:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Kulshrax - MPF 15:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per Kulshrax --Digon3 15:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ditto to Kulshrax. Nice resolution, but otherwise ordinary sports shot. Furthermore woman in the front is out of focus. --norro 09:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Watching Sunset Salar de Uyuni Bolivia Luca Galuzzi 2006.jpg, featured
- Info: created by Lucag - uploaded by Lucag - nominated by Simonizer 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. Great colours and composition. I guess, the best sunset picture at commons at the moment --Simonizer 11:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Rakshat 13:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support looks like a graphic, but WOW! --Packa 18:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral I've changed my mind, since Lucag told me it's real and I don't want my vote to be a penalty if other users like it. Benh 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to Benh's comments (particularly re the spot of light shining under his left foot), and think it would look nicer without the guy standing there - MPF 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose to my picture but not for an edit I didn't do. The girl standing on the Salar is my 10 years old daughter.
Please tell me how to provide the original Canon RAW file and I'll do it.Giulia, my daughter was really there watching the sun. I love particularly this image. --LucaG 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)- I provided the original RAW file to Benh and to MPF. It can seem an incredible picture but Bolivia is really an incredible country. Sorry for the intrusion in this poll. --LucaG 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yap I saw it. That reflection under the left foot seems much more natural at real size and may be explained by the direction of the light source eventually to be somewhere on the left side (sky is big ;)). That makes this picture even more outstanding to me. Very sorry for the trouble... Benh 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! My apologies for my doubts - MPF 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Now that you know her, I added some more pictures of Giulia in that incredible place: my Bolivia gallery. --LucaG 22:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I provided the original RAW file to Benh and to MPF. It can seem an incredible picture but Bolivia is really an incredible country. Sorry for the intrusion in this poll. --LucaG 20:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Thermos 04:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Lycaon 13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Totally looks like a drawing, which makes it even more interesting. --Atoma 14:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support nice --Karelj 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --MichaelMaggs 20:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Basik07 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - it looks like a typical render, but it's a photo. And that's cool! :D I had to look at EXIF to believe it's not rendered. - Erina 08:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think that image, which could be made in not too long time in vector image software, shouldn't be a FP. --Leafnode 05:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose -- I don't really like it. It looks like a kitschy 70's blacklight poster to me. However, I have a couple of observations: The caption in Italian:in questo silenzio sono i colori ad urlare - Salar de Uyuni - Bolivia - 3700 m di quota. Forgive me, I don't know Italian. The title of this work appears to be Salar de Uyuni or Leaving Uyuni? Uyuni is a salt flat in Bolivia. My last recollection of salt is that it's white. It had to have taken a lot of post-processing to bring out the subtle colors on the salt flat and to get the shadows that black. Kgrr 05:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral i do not really like the photo, but my personal taste does not make it a less excellent picture of a natural-surreal scenery. I think it could be improved by a bit of postprocessing (the blacks do not appear balanced properly - they appear a bit fuzzy). --- volty 12:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Please sign with ~~~~ thanks. Lycaon 06:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urby2004 16:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support I agree it has a bit of a 70's kitsch factor, but as a photographic accomplishment it's outstanding. ~ trialsanderrors 01:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I like the landscape, but would prefer it without the person - MPF 23:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Agree with MPF, I would prefer it without the person. --Digon3 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 12 support, 5 oppose, 2 neutral => featured. Simonizer 07:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lake palace udaipur.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Rakshat - uploaded by Rakshat - nominated by Rakshat --Rakshat 12:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Tomer T 13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Rakshat 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice hotel, but… --Packa 18:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose nice pic, but resolution (only 250 KB) too low, with jpeg compression faults - MPF 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose low quality picture --Karelj 19:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, but, that's so cool... until if floods. gren 10:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too much useless space. Wooyi 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 2 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Nikko Petals 1.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Shmoopy - uploaded by Shmoopy - nominated by Shmoopy --Shmoopy 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Shmoopy 02:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - not enough depth of field, so only a few petals are in focus - MPF 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ack MPF and no reference as to the accuracy of the colours/white balance. Lycaon 05:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I like the limited depth of field and the color even though it might not be scientifically perfect (there is no need for scientific color balance on Commons). The photo would get my vote if the blossom that's in focus (the bright one near the upper left corner) were at a better location, for example, just to the lower right of center ("looking" toward the center). In its present location, it leads my eye out of the photo, and for this picture, that's not what I want. Fg2 22:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I am sure those are the natural colors, but there are no other colors to prove to my mind that they are. --Digon3 01:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 14:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:CD-R.svg, not featured
#1
#2
[edit] #1
- Info: Created, uploaded, & nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kulshrax 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose
too small res.Bad quality. ---donald- 08:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Comment Please note: This is a vector file, resolution is irrelevant here. --norro 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Oh, i haven't seen this. ---donald- 09:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose and Question: - If this is a vector file, why aren't the lines sharp and the file is so big? It looks like a vector rendering of a photo. Alvesgaspar 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I guess this vector graphic was made by tracing a bitmap file, but I don't see the advantage of this SVG in this case. You can scale it, but the outlines are clearly visible anyhow. --norro 09:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - very poor reproduction of colours - MPF 10:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] #2
- Info: Original Photographic image --Kulshrax 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderful. ---donald- 16:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose QI for me --norro 18:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Clock-longtime.JPG, not featured
- A photo on a clock, with a longtime photo (4 secs) created by Moralist - uploaded by Moralist - nominated by Moralist --moralist 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral --moralist 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) - Don't want to vote on i myself...
- Comment Is the white balance correct? Shouldn't the clock-face be white? --AngMoKio 16:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - cut, with bottom and side of clock missing - MPF 16:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Seems to be a white balance and/or exposure problem. -- Ram-Man 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - compositional problems, white balance issues. Lycaon 05:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 19:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I don´t see any reason for featered picture here --Karelj 14:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 6 oppose, 1 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Pacific Madrone Arbutus menziesii Closeup 2816px.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Jina Lee - uploaded and nominated by Ram-Man -- 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support (as the nominator). -- Ram-Man 14:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Looks like peeling paint. This one actually creates some context. ~ trialsanderrors 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please see my comments below: This is not intended to be a contextual image but an image which highlights the texture and shows the peeling bark. It is a closeup afterall. It is perfectly reasonable to use the picture you link (which was taken at the same time of the same tree) in conjunction with this one for proper context. The purpose of this image is as a closeup showing detail. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice close-up of the bark, but sadly low quality (noisy) image. Lycaon 05:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This picture was taken in bright sunlight at its lowest ISO setting and is not underexposed. That is not noise but the fine grain detail of the tree and is the whole point of the image. I had to search a little bit to find another example, but you can see the fine grain texture in this image as well. Part the educational value of this image is the fact that it is a high resolution closeup showing this fine detail. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. A picture of 2816 x 2120 with only 1.4 Mb was subject to some kind of compression. And some of the grain texture in this image looks like compression artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- There may be some compression artifacts that are visible at extreme magnifications, but that's not the same as noise, which was the point I was addressing. For clarification, the camera in question is actually a 3MP camera and for marketing reasons includes interpolation to 6MP. The real resolution of this image is 3MP, which is still a lot of useful resolution, but not as much as the dimensions would suggest. This should help explain the file size issue. Downsampling would just introduce generational error, so I didn't do so. If you did, it would smooth out those issues, which is what happens when the wikimedia software creates the images used in articles. At a reasonably large size of 11"x14" at 100dpi, the grain matches that of the subject. Even at that magnification it would take a trained eye to tell the difference between the rough grain of the tree and any compression artifacts. We have noisier (and which looks to me like more artifacts) in 2MP featured pictures, such as the recent Image:Humanitarian_aid_OCPA-2005-10-28-090517a.jpg. -- Ram-Man 15:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree. A picture of 2816 x 2120 with only 1.4 Mb was subject to some kind of compression. And some of the grain texture in this image looks like compression artifacts. Alvesgaspar 14:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This picture was taken in bright sunlight at its lowest ISO setting and is not underexposed. That is not noise but the fine grain detail of the tree and is the whole point of the image. I had to search a little bit to find another example, but you can see the fine grain texture in this image as well. Part the educational value of this image is the fact that it is a high resolution closeup showing this fine detail. -- Ram-Man 12:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:NZ North Island Robin.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Tony Wills - uploaded by Tony Wills - nominated by Tony Wills --Tony Wills 12:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Very noisy. ---donald- 19:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unsharp and full of artifacts. Alvesgaspar 21:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- CommentYou are sadly right :-(. Info: I withdraw my nomination --Tony Wills 00:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 07:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Using sextant.gif, featured
- Info: The animation illustrates the use of a marine sextant at sea, for measuring the altitude of the Sun above the horizon. This information, coupled with the knowledge of the exact time and the position of the Sun in the celestial sphere at the moment of the observation, allows the determination of a line of position, with an accuracy of about 1-2 nautical miles. Created and nominated by Joaquim Alves Gaspar.
[edit] Left (with swing)
- Support --Alvesgaspar 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Susanlesch 03:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC) (Sorry I can't tell them apart.)
- Support - I understand that this is more informative version? In any case, both are good. --Thermos 05:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support BTW what's the difference? -- Erina 08:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very informative --Diligent 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral - nice explanation of the theory of using a sextant, or on land, with the sextant fixed on a stable tripod. How does one obtain 1-2 nautical mile accuracy in practice? (see typical actual situations, right) - MPF 14:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Info: - The marine sextant cannot be fixed to a tripod, it is designed to be held with the right hand (the handle can be see behind the index bar, in this picture). This way, the ship's pitch and roll don't affect its use very much (unless you feel really sick or just can´t stand...). The accuracy of a celestial line of position at sea depends mainly on the accuracy of the altitude measurement, which is affected by the instrument itself (the precision of the sextant is about 0,5' of arc), the observer personal error, the accuracy of the available time (the celestial sphere moves, with the sun, 15' of arc in each minute of time) and the effect of atmospheric refraction. The accuracy value of 1-2 nautical miles for each line of position (about 1,85 to 3,7 km) is a little bit optimistic. On land, celestial observations are (were, as a matter of fact) normally made with an astronomical theodolite and the accuracy of the measurements is much higher (of the order of 100 times better). By the way, the sea states shown in the images are not, fortunately, very typical. Alvesgaspar 14:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Thanks; though I still don't see how it can be used in a practical situation. I've never used a sextant, but have frequently used binoculars on board boats (both large ships and small fishing boats, for birding), and know how impossibly difficult it is to keep the horizon (or a bird) steady in them with engine vibration and even just slight rolling. Even with a calm sea, engine vibration transmitted through the body and arm makes the horizon vibrate up and down by a degree or two. The two pics may be a bit more than normal, but it is extremely rare for there to be no swell in the open oceans (look at e.g. the difficulties of landing on oceanic islets like Rockall, where 1-2 metres swell is normal even in 'calm' weather), and on an average day (in the North Sea at least, where I have the most experience) wave heights very typically make the horizon 'lumpy' by several degrees as seen from the deck of a small ship. One degree of error from a lumpy horizon, or vibration, is equivalent to about 60 nautical miles. - MPF 14:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The beauty of the sextant is that it is not relevant if you are pointing exactly to the horizon or not to make an accurate measurement (as long as you see it through the glass). The important thing is that the heavenly body is put tangent to the horizon, which is reflected in a correct position of the index bar. The waves can indeed affect the process but only when the observer is quite close to the surface and the sea is rough. With an elevation of 3 m (1,5 for the observer's eye plus 1,5 for the boat's deck), the visible horizon is about 3,5 nautical miles away. Alvesgaspar 15:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support great work --AngMoKio 18:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good. Now the difference has been pointed out, I prefer the left version. BTW, in caption 4, for 'clump' read 'clamp'. --MichaelMaggs 19:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "clump" is now fixed (should I say silent?...), thank you. Alvesgaspar 20:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support FP for sure. Lycaon 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment moved to User talk:Alvesgaspar#Sextant animation ~ trialsanderrors 19:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazingly clear ! I now understand Sextans ^0^y --Yug (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good, very informative --Digon3 15:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support whichever version you'll settle on. ~ trialsanderrors 19:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing, now I wish to try one. --LucaG 20:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Good work --Simonizer 11:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support It explains the use of a sextant very well. --Kgrr 04:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Support the image and the information associated to it. I feel like I understand the principle of a sextant now :) Benh 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Urby2004 16:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Wilfredor 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Malene Thyssen 13:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Leafnode 18:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support :-) --Tony Wills 12:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Pedroserafin 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 21 support, 0 oppose, 1 neutral => featured. Simonizer 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Right (without swing), not featured
- Image:Using sextant.gif
- Info: -- In this version the rotation of the sextant around the optical axis of the telescope (which may be considered less than perfect) is not visible. Alvesgaspar 09:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination - Alvesgaspar 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Lestat 12:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
result: Nomination withdrawn => not featured. Simonizer 06:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image: chompchomp GMC.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Elcucococo - uploaded by Elcucococo - nominated by Elcucococo --Elcucococo 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support -- Got to support my own pic! :) Elcucococo 22:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small - please read the guidelines. Lycaon 05:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Leafnode 18:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose what is the picture trying to show? Too small. --Digon3 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose too small --Lestat 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Karelj 14:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Plaza Mayor Salamanca.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Keta - uploaded by Keta - nominated by Keta --Keta 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support but I just feel the script for resizing doesn't work very well here --Keta 06:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I think the details in the dark aren't for FP --Orlovic (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose to dark in the dark, overexposed spots --Leafnode 18:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Karelj 14:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 3 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:2062 series locomotive (1).JPG, not featured
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No. 1 .JPG)
No. 2 .JPG)
- Info: created by Orlovic - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version #1
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
- Oppose picture taken too close to the locomotive, so it's deformed and not really well visible, lack of contrast --che 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - ditto to che on pic angle. The other pic Image:2062 series locomotive (2).JPG is better - MPF 10:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Version #2
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
- Oppose the contrast is much better, but sky is blown out and wideangle perspective is still there --che 14:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The sky is blown out. --Digon3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:F-16 On Tarmac.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by US AIR FORCE - uploaded by Orlovic - nominated by --Orlovic (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support Really stunning heat effect and good focus on plane --Orlovic (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - poor composition with messy background distracting from subject - MPF 10:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose unfortunately I agree with MPF. Shot, to look better, would have to be full-front (not slightly to the right), showing whole right wing etc. I've made some great shots of F16, but unfortunately I can't publish them :( --Leafnode 12:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose --Lestat 20:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack Leafnode -- Lycaon 20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose composition and framing --Digon3 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Karelj 14:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 6 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Lwt02830.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by US Geological Survey - uploaded by Alan Glennon - nominated by Kulshrax --Kulshrax 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kulshrax 18:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - numerous blemishes on photo (white spots, black spots, that bear no relationship to the photo subject and must be camera faults) - MPF 22:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose ack MPF --Leafnode 06:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 2 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Laguna Negra de Urbión.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Txo - uploaded by Txo - nominated by Txo --Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 19:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support--Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 19:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Sorry, but there are very bad colour fringes in parts of the pic (see e.g. the boulders, lower left corner) and other poor reproduction faults. Otherwise, a nice habitat photo though. - MPF 22:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Very poor photographic quality: image blurry, overexposed and full of artifacts. Was certainly upsampled from a lower resolution picture. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think this was upsampled. I would credit this to a poor quality lens at f/2.8 because center is much sharper than (very blurry) borders. Benh 14:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment La resolución es alq ue da la cámara, una canón IXUS II D de 3.2Megapixels, No hay una sobre exposición ni artefactos en la imagen, el cielo estaba blanco, tal y como s eve en la fotografía, y lo que paecen artefactos son copos de nieve (estaba nevando enese momento). La dierencia entre el centro y los bordes, seguramente es debida a la calidad de la óptica.--Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 11:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose overexposed, seems tilted and blurry --Digon3 22:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as above --Leafnode 06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Grito 11-M.jpg, not featured
- Info:, Grito 11-M.jpg by Desiree Onievas.
This image is the view of the 11-M monument which represent the sorrow and recolects some messages of condolence in their original language which covered all walls of the Atocha Station the days after the bombings. Interactive info Ive decided to nominate it because:
- Really amazing perspective with light and colours effects caused by the internal form of the monument (compare with the external view)
- Good quality: 1280 × 960, not noised, the sentences are surprisingly legibles.
- It shows messages in all laguages so people from all the world can understand the general meaning.--Serg!o 22:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It is too small (244 KB). Please upload a higher resolution. --Digon3 23:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- It should be about 2000 x 1000 and around 800 KB or higher. --Digon3 23:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - It is a good picture but resolution is not enough for FP, please check the guidelines. I should try again with a proper camera... Alvesgaspar 07:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose (weak) Looks like an... apple OS X
paper peintwallpaper yes I'm french ! :) I wish I support it but quality (of image, not composition etc.) is not good enough to me Benh 11:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC) - Oppose too small --Lestat 12:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 0 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Mount Washington Cascades.jpg, not featured
- Info: created by Kgrr - uploaded by Kgrr - nominated by Kgrr --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Kgrr 20:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Pour Romary 19:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support - MPF 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Quite poor quality, probably due to compression. The image has very little detail, the trees look like a shapeless green mass.
and the sky is noisy. Alvesgaspar 22:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- The "noise" you see is snow in the air, the moon, and two airplanes.--Kgrr 00:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's not what I mean :). Well, maybe the noise is not vey disturbing. Alvesgaspar 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Agree with Alvesgaspar on the poor quality image. At 1600x1200 pixels, it's probably scaled down and therefore should have much more detail per pixel. I also think the foreground is a little inappropriate here. Benh 08:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- It was not scaled-down. The lens on the mid-grade camera is not the greatest, however it was easy to pack for the hike. Would you cut the foreground, making it look more like an aerial shot of the mountain? Help me compose the picture better.Kgrr 17:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- I said it all, IMO, you should get rid of the foreground. Maybe you can leave it but use it in a better way to make the pic less (as been said) "boring". But that's not the main reason of my oppose. I Agree with Alvesgaspar that you should get a new camera if it can't produce sharper details than this at 1600x1200 pixels. Benh 08:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- Oppose Boring composition (horizon in middle of picture divides the picture in two parts) and low quality --Simonizer 09:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. But please give me some more precise feedback. I plan to hike up to the same spot again this week and take a higher resolution camera and a tripod to shoot the picture again. Composition: Would you have had less sky and closed in on the mountain? Would you skip the foreground and take a more 'clinical' photo of the mountain? Was the time of the day right - this photo was taken near noon, casting shadows on the mountain. If it's taken later in the evening, the mountain glows with more light, but the three-dimensionality of the mass is lost.Kgrr 17:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - You definitely need a better camera, the image lacks detail and sharpness. Also,the exposure solution might not be the best: with a tripode it should be possible to shoot with a smaller aperture and get a better DOF. Finally, the composition is a lttle boring, like Simonizer said. Try not to center the subjects, both in the foreground and background. About the time of the day, it is difficult to give an opinion not being there. Personnaly, I prefer the evening light because the colours are nicer and the shadows smoother. Alvesgaspar 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Alvesgaspar for your feedback. I will shoot it again with my Pentax *ist-DS (a much better camera) and shoot the shot more to the right so that the mountain will have Chester Morse Lake to the right of it. Perhaps, I will shoot it later in the evening so that the light will be more golden. Unfortunately, the mountains will not be snow-frosted because it's spring already.Kgrr 23:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 4 support, 4 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. Simonizer 07:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Perisphinctes sp.2 - Jurasico.JPG, not featured
- Info: created by Drow male - uploaded & nominated by Drow male 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Drow male 12:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Would be better with the descriptive note fully visible, not partly hidden underneath the fossil. - MPF 14:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality due to compression and too much light. Composition is not good either. Alvesgaspar 16:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not worried about the note as the image description should contain those details in multiple languages. But focus looks off, and shadows are purple - colour balance? --Tony Wills 09:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - Poor quality --Karelj 14:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose definitely not FP --Leafnode 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
result: 1 support, 5 oppose, 0 neutral => not featured. (Rule of the 7th day) Simonizer 07:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Wolf 610.JPG, not featured
